On Clout, Copy-and-Paste, and "Taking a Chance on Him"

"I hired someone with zero experience. He had never worked in this specific role. I thought he would be a great fit with our culture, so we took a chance on him. He ended up being my top performer. Sometimes all people need is a chance. Agree?"

To the 8,500+ "recruiters" and "hiring managers" out there on LinkedIn who think it's a good idea to copy and paste that above paragraph for visibility? Two things:

1. We don't believe you. You don't think we believe you, do you? Do you honestly think posting this paragraph for clout looks good when 82 other people post it on the same day at the same time? Don't you think people scroll through their feed and see at least eight of these posts a week? You have no credibility. Stop it.

2. I've legitimately pushed for and hired people with little to no experience in a position because I could see their transferable and intangible skills and had faith they could find success in their way on their terms. I've been doing this for years. I was doing this well before my career in Human Resources and recruiting. And I've never felt the need to brag about it. Why? Because I don't do what I do for clout, likes, follows, or reshares. If you were advocating for folx the way your copy-and-paste post says you do, you'd know that it's not about clout or pats on the back. It's about doing work you can be proud of and impacting lives without expecting gold stars and cookies.

   Real G's move in silence like lasagna.

Some of y'all ain't G's, but y'all sure as hell need to be quiet. These posts are literally becoming a meme. You're a meme now.

I guess you're getting the visibility you were looking for! Bully for you!

[Image description: nine screenshots of various LinkedIn influencers posting the exact same words: "I hired someone with zero experience. He had never worked in this specific role. I thought he would be a great fit with our culture, so we took a chance on him. He ended up being my top performer. Sometimes all people need is a chance. Agree?"]

Image description: nine screenshots of various LinkedIn influencers posting the exact same words: "I hired someone with zero experience. He had never worked in this specific role. I thought he would be a great fit with our culture, so we took a chance on him. He ended up being my top performer. Sometimes all people need is a chance. Agree?"

Switch Dat Career, Yo!

Here's your Tuesday reminder that no matter how much you're being paid, no career is worth sacrificing your soul, dignity, mental and emotional health, physical health, and happiness.

I know; there is privilege in saying that. But there's also a belief that if you feel beat down, mistreated, unheard, and drained in your career but are still expected to wear a smile and a mask hiding your hurt, then it's OK to begin thinking of how your skills transfer over to other environments and fields of work. Be willing to think about what's next, what you can do to change your circumstances, and find a career that speaks to you. Plan your exit.

You've put too much into building your career to allow these heteronormative white supremacist, ableist workplace norms and systems to take your spirit away from you. If your career choice leaves you more drained than empowered, it's more than OK to pivot. You're not alone. A recent Harris Poll found that approximately half (52%) of U.S. American employees are considering making a career change this year. 44% are already in the planning stages to make that switch.

P.S.: Note that I said a career and not a job. If a day job becomes a career? Awesome. But if it doesn't? That's awesome too. We live in a capitalist system. Make your money, darling. If it ain't draining you and it's paying your bills? Do you, boo-boo.

On Wanting an HR Robot and Not an HR Person

This morning, a large international creative agency turned me down for an HR position after over a month of interviews. Their Technical Recruiter called me to inform me of their decision. The reason why I wasn't chosen?

I wasn't transactional enough.

Seriously. They used the word transactional in our conversation —multiple times.

The recruiter told me that they felt that my approach to HR was too relational for the role they were trying to fill. They were looking for someone who could do the transactional HR work without relational components. I was told that because my approach to HR tasks is relational, I might not be a "good fit" for the HR team but that when they expand their DEI team in the future, they will keep me in mind, so they'd like to stay in touch.

Again, their words. Not me paraphrasing or reading between the lines. These are the actual words the recruiter said to me this morning.

I'm not good enough to be a part of their transactional HR team, but I'm a Black person who cares about people, so I'd be a "great fit" for the DEI team!

Geez. Oof. Foot in mouth.

Real talk, though? I was honestly quite impressed.

Someone in HR finally had the guts to say the silent part aloud.

My entire career in HR has been spent watching people with power, privilege, and positionality avoid telling me they dislike how relational I am and need me to be way less human than I am as their HR person.

I've known for some time now that I've been a stone's throw from one of these senior leaders I've worked with admitting that my HR philosophy makes them angry or uncomfortable. They want me to toe the company line, wield policies like weapons, and disregard most workplace harm. But telling me that level of truth? That also makes them uncomfortable. So instead of sitting with honesty, the conversations have always veered toward me somehow being a "problem" or needing to change "little" things about how I discuss accountability for leaders and processes. No one wants to admit that they want HR to be what HR historically has been: the workplace police, a hammer of patriarchal white supremacist workplace culture.

Yeah...that ain't me.

Honesty around wanting a transactional HR person on your staff. Well, damn. What a breath of fresh air.

What a smelly, rank, moist yet somehow dry breath of "fresh" air.

On Interview Questions, Nicholas Sparks, and Unrealistic Love

Image description: A scene from the film adaptation of the Nicholas Sparks novel "The Notebook." Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams, the film's two white co-stars, are kissing in the rain, both of them heavily drenched. Ryan Gosling is lifting Rachel McAdams up. Rachel's legs are wrapped around Ryan Gosling's waist.

I think it's time for us to collectively agree to stop asking candidates interviewing for positions the question, "Why do you want to work here?" (especially if you're asking that question because you seek candidates ready to enter into a "love affair" with your employer). Why should we all agree to stop asking this question?

1. You're looking for someone who's in love with your company. You're looking for someone to gush over how awesome your company is, not a candidate that could do a great job. Real talk? It's weird to expect someone to love your workplace without working for you for at least six months, which is usually when people know if they even like working for you (note: for marginalized folx, that timeframe is generally shorter). Just because a candidate loves the PR work your company did to put a positive image out on the internet and the DEIA blurbs and proclamations on your company website don't mean the reality of working for your company won't leave them wanting more.

2. You realize that many candidates who apply for positions with your company are applying because they have the skills and experience you claim you're seeking and are just looking for steady employment, right? Sometimes a job is just an end to a means. Sometimes it's doing what you need to do to survive and live a life with less stress and anxiety around job security and financial security. And that's OK. We need to normalize this. You and the candidate both have needs that you want to be met, and it's OK to hire folx who will do great work for your company but aren't in love with your company or go to your company game nights every week. You're hiring to fill a role, not to find a new buddy or "family member." By default, the "right fit" mentality is filled with bias and questions like this. By asking this question, you're making filling a position a popularity contest or an episode of The Bachelor.

You want a better question to ask candidates than "Why do you want to work here?" How about "When you saw this job posting, what was it about this position that made you want to apply?" This question de-centers your needs and hopefully allows the space for a candidate to share why the job interests them.

Stop looking for "love affairs." Your workplace is most definitely not a Nicholas Sparks novel.

Image description: A scene from the film adaptation of the Nicholas Sparks novel "The Notebook." Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams, the film's two white co-stars, are kissing in the rain, both of them heavily drenched. Ryan Gosling is lifting Rachel McAdams up. Rachel's legs are wrapped around Ryan Gosling's waist.

On "Other Duties As Assigned"

I don't make the memes. The memes make themselves.

Can we talk about how we are long overdue for removing the toxic concept of "other duties as assigned" from job descriptions and job postings?

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for federal employees [read: federal], "other duties as assigned" is meant to refer to minor tasks related to a role, so every possible scenario doesn't need to be stated in contracts, job descriptions, and related documentation. The issues for me lie in one place: this is a loophole of legalese used to work the crap out of people and push multiple jobs under one job description. Over time, non-federal jobs began to base most of their job-building practices on these guidelines, too. It's a trap for all of us, regardless of the sector we work in.

You can't plan for every possible scenario because no job is built in a wind tunnel. There will always be some functions of your role that evolve or possibly change on a given day or with a given situation. That should be expected because human beings and workplaces can be unpredictable at times. But when it comes to most jobs, the addition of "other duties as assigned" at the end of a job posting or job description has less to do with possibilities and more to do with "how can we legally merge two jobs into one when we're regularly short-staffed?" How many times have you found yourself legitimately stuck with doing random tasks and whatnot that have nothing to do with your job? Most of our jobs find us doing extra things that stray away from the jobs we applied for and accepted. Our organizations are constantly short-staffed in various areas and use this clause to fill long-term staffing gaps instead of an interim tool with a timeline. We, as employees, deserve better.

Employers need to evaluate job descriptions and make sure they are clear regarding job duties and feasible performance expectations at least annually (preferably twice a year). Employees need to be a part of that discussion around job duties; that way, you know if the position has evolved and whether or not tasks should be added or removed. And you should do this because it will allow you to build and maintain up-to-date job descriptions focused on the legitimate duties of the position that do not treat people like stop-gap measures. And employers need to evaluate why people leave their organizations and begin the messy long-term work of repairing and rebuilding hiring processes and retention. If you aren't constantly short-staffed, you have no reason to push for "other duties as assigned." Easier said than done? Of course. That doesn’t mean you don’t do it, though.

Consider it your duty to remove “other duties.”