Should You Go to Work When You Are Sick?

No.  

Doing so saps overall productivity, according to a study by Gary Johns at Concordia University, and reported by Karen Seidman in the Montreal Gazette (http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Staying+home+help+productivity+Concordia+study/5729045/story.html). 

Presenteeism (the technical term for going to work while ill) affects productivity while the worker is sick and prolongs the illness.  Worse, the sick worker probably infects other workers and service recipients (think of what happens if a sick nurse goes to work or a sick server goes to work).

So if you’re a manager, encourage your sick workers to stay home and get better.  If you’re concerned about productivity--note that research suggests that this sensible advice is also the more productive course of action.  

"Constructive" Criticism?

In a blog in the HRB Blog Network, Tony Schwartz writes

"Here's a question guaranteed to make your stomach lurch: "Would you mind if I gave you some feedback?"
What that actually means is "Would you mind if I gave you some negative feedback, wrapped in the guise of constructive criticism, whether you want it or not?"

Schwartz notes that the problem with feedback is that it leaves people feeling judged; that’s why it immediately raises fears.  

However, he acknowledges:

“The conundrum is that feedback is necessary. It's the primary means by which we learn and grow. So what's the best way to deliver it in a way that it provides the greatest value — meaning the recipient truly absorbs and acts on it?”

The rest of the column explores some behaviors that  people use when they give criticism, and affects the manner in which the recipient takes that criticism.  Schwartz also offers some suggestions for moderating those behaviors so that the recipient is more likely to accept the criticism.  

Check out the entire article at  http://www.linkedin.com/news?actionBar=&articleID=927801543&ids=0Qc3oMc3ATczAId3AQcP8Ve38Vb30NdjkNcPAOeiMPd3kNc3wTczAIdz4QcjgMe38V&aag=true&freq=weekly&trk=eml-tod2-b-ttl-1&ut=2Y-Qq_SuIOf501.)

Could your name be a liability when searching for a job?

In What’s in a name? A job, maybe, published on the Economy Lab blog of the Globe and Mail, Tavia Grant reports on a recent study by University of Toronto researchers Philip Oreopoulos and Diane Dechief that tracked the number of callbacks received from different job candidates.  Oreopoulos and Dechief found that

“applications submitted by people with English-sounding names are 47 per cent more likely to receive callbacks than those with Indian or Chinese ones in Toronto, 39 per cent more likely in Montreal, and 20 per cent more likely in Vancouver.”

In addition:

“The researchers found that people with Greek, Chinese and Indian names are less likely to hear back from employers. ‘Even for applicants with Canadian education and Canadian experience ... the result is concerning that there this a difference that’s generated from a name,’ Mr. Oreopoulos said.”

Researchers asked HR managers why they felt this situation existed; many admitted the possibility of unconscious discrimination.

This unconscious discrimination unfortunately affects the real lives of people.  Studies of immigrants to Canada, for example, have noted a significant and persistent income gap between immigrants and native born Canadians, even when those immigrants have the qualifications for higher-paying work.

What does this mean to hiring managers reading this blog?  Perhaps the next time you review applications, you might  ask yourself:  Am I making sure that all qualified candidates are receiving full consideration? 

Read the entire article at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/whats-in-a-name-a-job-maybe/article2201151/ 

Looking for a Leader for Your Organization?

Consider this advice offered by Johns Hopkins University neuroscientist David J. Linden in a recent piece for the New York Times.

“When searching for your organization’s next leader, look for someone with an attenuated dopamine function: someone who is never satisfied with the status quo, someone who wants the feeling of success more than others — but likes it less.”

He describes the

“psychological profile of a compelling leader — think of tech pioneers like Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison and Steven P. Jobs — is also that of the compulsive risk-taker, someone with a high degree of novelty-seeking behavior.  In short, what we seek in leaders is often the same kind of personality type that is found in addicts, whether they are dependent on gambling, alcohol, sex or drugs.”

Don’t believe it?  He then lists many well-regarded leaders and their addictive habits. 

Learn more about this link between the psychological profile of a compelling leader and compulsive risk-takers at  

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24addicts.html?ref=opinion.

Caught My Eye: Resume Don'ts

As noted in an earlier post, some people think the resume is history because people use LinkedIn instead but I expressed reservations about that, as did a commenter.

If for no other reason than as a backup, people should still prepare their resumes (called CVs in Quebec).

I found a great summary of issues to avoid when doing so at:
http://www.businessinsider.com/worst-resume-blunders-2011-5#

For those not in the mood to click on the link, here is my paraphrasing of things not to do:

(Except for the tip on the color of paper not to use, most of these tips apply as much to online resumes and LinkedIn profiles as they do to printed resumes.)

1. Make copyediting errors (misspellings, grammatical errors, and misuse of punctuation (stay away from colons--they're a trap)). That said, errors inadvertently slip through, even among experts.  For example, I once heard an editing manager announce that she wouldn't hire anyone who made a single error in their resume.  I guess she wouldn't have hired herself--she inadvertently misspelled her own name.)
2. Include photos.  (A no-no.)
3. Print the resume on paper other than white, cream or very light gray.  The article says colored paper, but I saw a study once (so many years ago, I can't remember where), that found that hese three colors were acceptable (though one--and I can't remember which--was preferred to the others.  
4. Provide TMI--too much information.
5. Name references.  The people named might not be the right people to answers the prospective employers' questions.
6. Saying "references available upon request." (I've been guilty of this.)  Of course they are--so no need to say it.  
7. "Us[e] buzzwords like results-oriented, team-player, and motivated."  The expressions are so over-used, they're vapid.  Besides, who would say on their application that they're anything less than a good performer who gets along well with others? 
8. Name your hobbies.  That's individually pursued hobbies, unless they can provide insights into skills and abilities that are relevant to the job . For example, 'committed Gleek' doesn't really say much about one's skills and abilities, but 'competitive rower' indicates that the applicant must take initiative, practices regularly, and works with teams.  
9. Use long sentences and long paragraphs.  The article says they're a pain to read; but that assumes that hiring managers would even go to that inconvenience.  
10. "Us[e] an unprofessional e-mail address" like sweetiepie55@service.com 
11. Forget your name, address, phone number, and e-mail address.  If they can't reach you, they can't hire you.
12. "Address [the resume] to the wrong company."  That's like calling out someone else's name at an intimate moment.  Everyone likes to feel special.  

Caught My Eye: Can Harmony Hurt Team Performance?

In the academic course, Administration of Educational Technology Units, that I teach at Concordia and the Technical Communication Manager certificate program that I teach for the Society for Technical Communication, I include an exercise on hiring workers.

One of the scenarios in the exercise focuses on a situation in which a manager has the opportunity to bring a brash 25-year-old man into a harmonious department of primarily comprised of middle-aged women. In the scenario, most of the workers express concern that the young man won’t fit in but the person who would work most closely with the young man says that she’s comfortable working with him.

Most people respond that the manager should not hire him because the candidate could disrupt the harmony of the group.

But the point of the exercise is that the harmony might not be a “healthy” harmony, it could be group-think, because the managers of the department have tended to hire clones of the workers.

“Can Harmony Hurt Team Performance?” by Mark de Rond, Adrian Moorhouse, and Matt Rogan and recently posted on The Conversation blog of the Harvard Business Review online specifically explores this type of situation.

The authors suggest that harmony can hurt team performance when:

• “Competition is stifled for the sake of promoting interpsonal harmony,” adding that that competition does not disappear, it merely finds another outlet, usually in the form of office gossip.
• True “harmony is far more likely to be the consequence, and not the cause, of team performance.” Better than “harmony” is a situation in which workers feel they can safely say what they feel without hurting the overall dynamic of the team, an.
• “What can feel dysfunctional need not be dysfunctional,” suggesting that workers in the midst of a project might not be in the best position to assess the dynamics of the team working on it.

Check out the entire piece at:

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/06/can_harmony_hurt_team_performa.html?cm_sp=blog_flyout-_-cs-_-can_harmony_hurt_team_performa.

Caught My Eye: Hiring and LinkedIn

In his personal branding blog for Forbes magazine online, Dan Schwabel posits that LinkedIn will replace job boards like the Monster Board.

After all, LinkedIn already provides much of the same information about a candidate as a resume (or CV in Montreal).

Plus a new feature on LinkedIn lets applicants apply for jobs, thus opening their LinkedIn profile to prospective employers.

Although I'm no expert on recruiting, I'm not 100 percent sure about either prediction.

• As far as LinkedIn replacing job boards--I can see it providing stiff competition to general purpose job boards like the Monster Board and Workopolis. But as far as replacing special purpose job boards, like those of professional associations, I'm not as sure. Because such boards provide a screening function (for example, only people interested in training would look at the CSTD job board), they still serve a useful purpose.
• As far as the death of the resume goes, I'm not sure about that either. Although LinkedIn profiles provide a lot of information about people (and increasingly provide more), the resume has room for more information. In fact, the curriculum vitae (CV), which is a complete record of all activities and is not limited to 2 pages, may make a comeback precisely because it provides more detailed information.

What are your thoughts? I welcome your comments below.

Check out the original blog entry at: http://blogs.forbes.com/danschawbel/2011/06/01/linkedin-is-about-to-put-job-boards-and-resumes-out-of-business/