The Gartner Hype Cycle


I recently learned of a concept called the Gartner Hype Cycle. I probably never ran into it before because it started as a technology concept, related to the impact of new technologies on an organization. The Hype Cycle is intended to explain the maturity, adoption and social application of new technology.

But it seems to be to be broadly applicable beyond technological issues. To me, it explains why a lot of new management programs and other ideas crash and burn. Or at least, why they do not result in as much success as originally envisioned.

559px-gartner_hype_cycle

There are five stages to the Hype Cycle. It starts with a “trigger” — a new idea or technology comes on the scene and moves the organization out of stasis. Immediately, the technology is perceived as the greatest thing since sliced bread, the solution to all woes. This is the “inflated expectations” stage.

Expectations rise to a peak, and then the “trough of disillusionment” sets in. The organization realizes that the new technology does not solve all problems, and, in fact, creates issues of its own. Reactions to the technology plummet to depths lower than the stasis before the technology came on the scene.

Finally, the organization is able to sift through the benefits and detriments of the new technology as it moves up the “slope of enlightenment.” Only then does the organization reach a “plateau of productivity,” a new stasis, which is hopefully higher than the original stasis. Thus, there is benefit to the new idea, but not as much as originally anticipated.

How many times have we been through this cycle in our own organizations?

It might not be a new technology or product or service. In my own case, I think of countless business redesigns. Each one was intended to increase productivity. Each one would be the most effective way to bring creative new products to market. Each one would minimize inefficiencies and increase profitability.

And each time, the results of the corporate redesign were less than staggering.

I won’t say the redesigns were failures, but they were not panaceas. They did not magically transform the organization into a model of productivity.

And yet every few years, we tried it again. With the same results.

What examples of the hype cycle have you experienced?

1 Comment

Filed under Human Resources, Leadership, Management

Breaking Impasse: In Congress, in Mediation, and in Life


handshake-1830764_1280A few days ago I met with a small group of professional women I know. All of us had had successful corporate careers, though our lives are taking different turns at the moment. As in many group meetings these days, at some point the conversation turned to a discussion of politics. I am probably the most conservative member of this group. Others are moderate, and a couple are quite liberal, though we all are within what I would call the “mainstream,” or center, of our political spectrum today.

We started discussing when our political system got off track—when the Republican and Democrat parties quit compromising to get things done. Some blamed Republicans for their “never say yes” attitude during the Obama Administration. These women argued, “Well, of course, the Democrats have to behave the same way now.”

Others blamed past Democratic actions, going all the way back to Senator Ted Kennedy’s scorched-earth approach to stop the Robert Bork nomination to the Supreme Court—a legal scholar who was clearly as qualified as any candidate since for the Supreme Court. “Well, of course, the Republicans have to retaliate.”

And there are many other events we could point to that might have started—or escalated—the current impasse in our political system.

Impasse, I thought to myself. We are at impasse. What has my mediation training taught me about breaking impasse?

I’ve mentioned before a mediation training presentation I attended with Ken Cloke, of the Center for Dispute Resolution. One point Mr. Cloke made during the program was that when we are in conflict with others, we have choices to make. Some of the choices we must make are

  • Whether to engage in the conflict and behave badly, or calm down and try to discuss it.
  • Whether to acknowledge the other person’s truth or deny it, remain rooted in one’s own story, and slip into biased or delusional thinking.
  • Whether to experience intense negative emotions and feelings, or to repress and sublimate them.
  • Whether to experience one’s opponent as an equal human being entitled to respect, or to demonize him or her and victimize oneself.
  • Whether to aggressively assert and hold tight to one’s position, or to search for solutions that satisfy both sets of interests.
  • Whether to forgive, reconcile and re-integrate with one’s opponent, or remain isolated and wounded deep inside.

Now, I can hear most of us saying, “Yeah, but . . . “

Yeah, but she started it.

Yeah, but he is engaging in alternative facts; there is no truth on his side.

Yeah, but I cannot repress how I feel on this issue.

Yeah, but there is no way to reconcile our two positions.

Yeah, but . . . .

Yeah, but . . . What if you did?

What if you did calm down? What if you did at least ask why the other side feels the way they do? What if you did search for solutions with an open mind? What if you did try to reconcile or compromise?

What’s the worst that could happen if you did seek compromise? It’s unlikely to be worse than the status quo.

While I started this post describing the political differences we face in our nation today, I hope readers see that the questions I’ve asked apply to most situations where we need to negotiate with others. In the corporate world. In consumer and family situations. Wherever we are obliged to work with others, we should ask

What if we tried to understand the other party’s position?

What if we tried to compromise?

Would we be any worse off than if we did nothing?

Leave a comment

Filed under Human Resources, Leadership, Mediation, Politics, Workplace

What Does the Trump Administration Mean for Human Resources?


human-1181577_1280The next several months—and likely the next few years—will be a roller coaster for Human Resources professionals. The differences between the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration are stark in many government arenas, but labor and employment is surely one of the areas where the differences are the most dramatic.

Here are some of the most likely changes that HR will have to address with their organization’s management in the short-term:

1. Immigration

Immigration practice is likely to change, with some changes coming quickly and others developing over the course of several months and years. In the short term, E-Verify will be expanded to check all new workers, and I-9 forms are likely to see increased audits. Industries that are dependent on immigrant workers—both high-tech companies needing H1-B visa holders and those like hospitality firms that need manual and service workers—are likely to see a slow-down in their ability to bring in foreign workers. HR will need to have compliance programs in place.

2. Overtime

The Department of Labor changes to the overtime exemption rule will likely be reversed. Business had objected strongly to raising the exempt salary threshold to $913 per week ($47,476 per year), though most organizations had begun—or even completed—their transition to this increased bright line between exempt and nonexempt positions. Currently, the rule is in limbo, as a federal court has enjoined its implementation, but how the court will rule finally is unknown and the timing uncertain. The new Department of Labor could decide to drop its defense and let the injunction become permanent. Or DOL could propose some modifications. HR will need to advise management on whether to retain changes that have already been implemented and communicated, whether to reverse them, whether to take a “wait and see” approach, or some combination of all of these.

3. Health Benefits

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will change. But the scope and direction of the modifications and repair of this complex statute and its even more complex regulatory scheme have not yet been determined. At the moment, HR can’t do anything, but this is an area that will necessitate time and effort, no matter what happens.

4. Union Organizing

Many NLRB rulings are likely to be reversed. The timing of these changes will depend on when President Trump fills the vacant seats on the Board, but as soon as Republican appointees have a majority, it is likely that we will see a significant tilt toward management-favored positions. In the immediate future, some of the pro-union policies favored in the Obama Administration, such as “quickie elections” and the “persuader” rule (requiring attorneys and other consultants to disclose clients whom they advise on union organizing issues), should be axed. The broadening of the joint employer doctrine—which the Obama Administration had pushed—may also be rolled back.

5. Downsizing

Reductions in force in major employers are likely to receive increased public scrutiny. If jobs are moving overseas, employers need to be ready to justify their moves and to respond to possible Presidential attention.

And over the longer term, HR can add the following changes to its project list:

  • The Obamacare changes are a long-term issue. It is unlikely that employers will need to change anything for 2017, and even 2018 is uncertain.
  • State and local legislative developments will become a bigger area of concern. Issues such as minimum wage increases and paid family leave are likely to see more movement at the state and local levels than through Congress.
  • Diversity practices may get murkier. The mandate for affirmative action at federal contractors may be weakened or repealed, though Congress might push back on President Trump on this issue if he goes too far. HR will need to work with organizational leaders in determining the best diversity policies for their workplace.
  • Also on the diversity front, employees with strongly held religious beliefs may seek greater freedom to object to work assignments and/or to display signs of their beliefs in the workplace. With Christians feeling empowered and Muslims feeling threatened, greater religious tensions in some workplaces are possible. HR will have to assist managers in working through these conflicts.
  • Whether President Trump will support broader immigration reform and whether Congress can pass such legislation are unknowns at this time.

The Society for Human Resource Management has set up a page monitoring workforce developments under the new Trump Administration. It is worth following.

I’ll revisit these issues in a few months to see what changes have developed.

HR professionals, which issue do you most hope changes under the Trump Administration?

Leave a comment

Filed under Human Resources, Politics

Strategic Trolling: In the White House and in Business


donald-trump-2005343_1280We wondered whether Donald Trump would stop tweeting after the November 8 election. The answer was no. We wondered whether he would stop tweeting after the Inauguration. The answer is still no. And much of the nation does not know how to deal with a President who tweets and says anything and everything that enters his head.

We need to figure it out.

A few editorial pieces recently have begun talking about how to respond to the “alternative facts” and exaggerations and outright untruths that President Trump and his advisers have spoken or written. The partisans are trying to label everything as outrageous and respond to it all. The more thoughtful commentators are talking about the need to pick their battles.

On January 23, Russ Douthat wrote in an editorial titled “The Tempting of the Media,” in The Kansas City Star,

“. . . the press may be tempted toward—and richly rewarded for—a kind of hysterical oppositionalism, a mirroring of Trump’s own tabloid style and disregard for truth.”

The danger for the media, he wrote,

“is the same danger facing other institutions in our republic: that while believing themselves to be nobly resisting Trump, they end up imitating him.”

Only if the media, our politicians, and others who must deal with the new Administration keep our responses rational will we be able to influence the results effectively.

Also on January 23, Barton Swaim wrote for The Wall Street Journal, in “Trump, the Press and the Dictatorship of the Trolletariat,”

“few journalists have appreciated the degree to which Mr. Trump’s entire political and governing strategy depends on trolling them. They’ve mostly assumed his penchant for exaggeration and invention was the result of psychosis, or just ego. By now, though, it ought to be apparent that he’s doing it intentionally, and strategically.”

(“Trolling” he defined as “[deliberately kindling] acrimony by making outrageous, offensive or confusing remarks.”)

On the PBS NewsHour on January 27, David Brooks commented that President Trump’s style was unnerving business leaders, the political class, and mainstream Republicans. He said that there could be two explanations for the President’s behavior—either he is “an authoritarian figure who is twisting words in an Orwellian manner,” or “he a 5-year-old who has an ego that needs to be fed.” So Mr. Brooks uses labels similar to Mr. Swaim’s psychosis and ego.

Mr. Swaim suggested that we focus on what matters and ignore what does not.

How many people filled the National Mall during the Inauguration doesn’t matter. Calling the press dishonest human beings may rankle, but it doesn’t matter. Whether the CIA employees gave our new President a lengthy standing ovation doesn’t matter.

By contrast, the cost in dollars and international goodwill of building a wall along the Mexican border matters. How to revise and improve our health care system matters. How best to engage with the rest of the world on trade, on terrorism, and on many other topics, matters.

Mr. Brooks mentioned the civil servants in government and Congress as possible checks on the Administration’s proposals. As he said (in the most humorous line of the January 27 NewsHour broadcast), “civil servants have many ways to not do something.”

All this reminds me of a couple of high-level corporate executives I worked with, who also used “trolling” strategically, though we didn’t call it that then. Both of these individuals were masters at taking a meeting off on a tangent when they didn’t want to make a decision. They used offensive commentary about other employees, raised unimportant issues, and demanded answers on picayune points to derail the meeting.

But because they were usually the highest ranking employee in the room, calling them out on these tactics was difficult. Forcing a decision was practically impossible unless their boss was in the room, and even then could only be done by putting them on the spot, which usually wasn’t worth the later ramifications. The only way to deal with the situation was in another one-on-one meeting, where they didn’t feel put on the spot to decide and could debate the pros and cons without revealing ignorance or uncertainty.

Those around President Trump and those who need to confront him need to develop similar ways of responding to his trolling. He has a strategy that is working for him so far, and his opposition—as well as his friends—need to respond strategically also.

When have you had to deal with trolling executives?

Leave a comment

Filed under Leadership, Politics

Historical Patterns of Party Power


wsj-graphic-1-21-17

As I have watched and read about the events of the last week unfold, from the confirmation hearings to the inauguration to the marches around our nation, I was most struck by one graphic in The Wall Street Journal, published on p. A5 of the U.S. edition on January 21, 2017. This graphic shows the distribution of power between Republicans and Democrats in the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives from the Eisenhower era to the present—essentially, for my entire life.

I’ve pasted a copy of this graphic above. Here is a link to a PDF of the graphic, if you need better resolution to view it. The information in this graphic really deserves some time and thought—and better commentary than I am able to give.

We are a nation of divided power, and have been for most of the last forty years. Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter could count on Democrats in the legislature to back them (and vice versa—Congress could count on a President of the same party to sign their bills). But since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980—now 36 years ago—here is the sum total of the periods in which we have had a Presidency united with both houses of Congress:

  • Bill Clinton got two years, 1993-1995
  • George W. Bush got six years, 2001-2007 (if you count the Vice-President breaking the tie)
  • Barack Obama got two years, 2009-2011

Only ten of the past thirty-six years have seen our executive and legislative branches united. Four of those years have had Democrat leadership, and six have had Republican.

And now Donald Trump in 2017 . . . for how long?

Another fact jumped out at me from this visual. Congress was a Democrat institution from the 1950s until the 1990s. I knew this intellectually, but seeing it in red and blue in this graphic hit me in the face. No wonder there was a steady trend toward more liberal policies through that forty-year era.

I remember watching the election returns in November 1980 with some conservative coworkers (who were more conservative than I was at the time). As it became apparent that the Republicans would take the Senate, they became increasingly elated—something was happening that most of them had not seen in their adult lives. They were giddy with the possibilities.

The shift toward Republicans began in the Senate with Reagan in 1980, but it didn’t infiltrate the House until Bill Clinton’s administration. The Democrats took Congress back in 2007, and kept it through the first two years of Barack Obama’s administration. Given their forty-year history of control, they must have felt they were taking back their birthright (though, of course, it never was that). But our memories are not so short that we forget that Democratic hubris during the passage of the Affordable Care Act led to the loss of first the House and then the Senate.

As I perused this chart, I wondered if there wasn’t more moderation in both parties when the Democrats could count on holding Congress. There was certainly more breadth to both Democrat and Republican legislators in that pre-Clinton era. Now that both parties can see the possibility of having the majority in the legislative branch, they pander more to their bases. As each takes power from the other, they try to capitalize as much as possible on enacting their goals in the short-term, because they cannot count on the long-term. And they do everything they can to blame the other party, in the hopes of swaying voters to give them back (or let them keep) the reins.

Perhaps we need to consider how parliamentarian systems transfer power without total lurches from one extreme to the other. Or how to deal with those lurches when they happen. The U.S. does not have any institutional memory on how to cope with total shifts in power.

Of course, Donald Trump comes to his term in office as an outsider, with few connections to the Republican Congress that will serve with him. I wonder how his populist strategy will fit with the Washington insiders. Will he reap the benefit of a compatible legislature, or will he distance himself from the Republicans in Congress he will need to implement the changes he says he wants?

Those are my major takeaways as I look at this historical picture of our nation’s distribution of power.

What thoughts to you have about this graphical history of U.S. politics?

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Favorite Firing: Do Not Terminate a Disabled Employee Without a Reasonable Accommodation Dialogue


EEOC sealBack in May 2016, Lowe’s, the home improvement store giant, agreed to pay $8.6 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the EEOC over Lowe’s firing of many individuals with disabilities when they exceeded the maximum amount of disability leave Lowe’s provided. The problem, as the EEOC saw it, was that Lowe’s failed to engage in reasonable accommodations beyond the standard disability leave policy. See U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Lowe’s Companies, Inc., et al., C.D. Ca., Case No. 2:16-CV-03041-AB-FFM.

The Facts: This lawsuit began with three charges of disability discrimination filed by three employees of Lowe’s back in 2007 and 2009. These three plaintiffs alleged that Lowe’s violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by terminating their employment when their medical leave of absence exceeded Lowe’s 180-day (later extended to 240-day) maximum leave policy. The plaintiffs claimed that failure to engage in any discussion about further accommodations beyond the maximum leave violated the ADA. They wanted extended leaves of absence as a reasonable accommodation.

The EEOC agreed with the plaintiffs and also claimed that thousands of other Lowe’s employees were in the same situation. The EEOC ultimately filed a lawsuit in the Central District of California, the terminated Lowe’s employees were found to be a suitable class, and the case proceeded as a class action.

It was settled in May 2016, and the Court approved the settlement on May 12, 2016. (A copy of the Consent Decree can be found here.) Lowe’s admitted no wrongdoing, and the Consent Decree is not an admission. However, the company did agree to settle the lawsuit for $8.6 million and also consented to comply with a variety of non-monetary provisions. Lowe’s agreed to contact the terminated employees in the class and pay their damages out of the $8.6 million fund, as calculated by the EEOC, and to donate the remainder (if any) to non-profit organizations benefiting the disabled.

Lowe’s also agreed to amend its policies so that it would “engage in the interactive process with any employee with a disability who requests leave as a reasonable accommodation.” And the company agreed to retain Equal Employment Opportunity consultants approved by the EEOC for four years. These consultants will advise on policies, track all requests for accommodation, and educate managers on their duties under the ADA.

The Moral: There are few bright lines when it comes to working through disability situations. If an employee requests an accommodation, the employer ignores that request at its peril. A firm policy regarding leaves of absence is no longer a firm policy—exceptions must be at least considered if the employee claims to be disabled and to need more time away from work.

When the ADA was first enacted in 1990, I worked with managers to parse through how to simultaneously comply with disability leaves, worker’s compensation laws, absence policies, and the like. The situation grew even more complex with the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. I used to tell managers to stack up all the applicable laws and policies like slices of Swiss cheese. Only if an employee’s situation fit in gaps in every layer could the employee be discharged with minimal risk.

What the Lowe’s case shows is that some of the legal layers have no gaps—all employees requesting a reasonable accommodation should at least be given consideration, and an employer cannot have a blanket rule prohibiting certain accommodations. The EEOC will not accept any mandatory maximum leave policy.

The Lowe’s case is also interesting because of the broad relief granted pursuant to the Consent Decree. The provisions in the Lowe’s decree are the types of relief that the EEOC is likely to seek in every disability case it decides to take to court. Employers should consider whether and when accepting these types of interference in their business are worth disposing of a lawsuit, particularly a large class action case of the type that Lowe’s faced. It doesn’t take a loss in court to cause upheaval in the business; settlement can also be onerous.

It is best, therefore, to avoid as many lawsuits as possible. Therefore, engage in an interactive reasonable accommodation dialogue, document that engagement and all options considered, and be clear on why the employee’s requested accommodation is not reasonable and would constitute an undue hardship on the business.

When have you dealt with a difficult reasonable accommodation case?

Leave a comment

Filed under Diversity, Human Resources, Law, Management, Workplace

Book Review: The Last Days of Night, by Graham Moore


moore-coverI haven’t posted many book reviews on this blog. Most of the business books I read aren’t that compelling. Most of the fiction I read doesn’t pertain to the themes of this blog. But I recently finished a novel that provides a fascinating look at corporate and legal culture in the 1880s—The Last Days of Night, by Graham Moore.

The protagonist in Moore’s novel is Paul Cravath, a fictionalized version of the attorney who later founded the New York law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore. Other major characters include Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse, J.P Morgan, and Nikola Tesla. None of these men comes across very positively. In this novel (and the author makes it clear that the book is fiction, though well-researched), Edison obtained his patent on the electric light bulb fraudulently, Westinghouse ordered a fire set in Tesla’s warehouse, J.P. Morgan switched his allegiance from Edison to Westinghouse for financial gain, and Tesla was a complete kook (albeit brilliant).

The book is engaging. There’s enough science in it for science lovers, but it’s easy enough for non-aficionados of science to gloss over it and still enjoy the story. Cravath’s character clearly is representing Westinghouse without really understanding direct current and alternating current, giving readers permission to do the same.

What I enjoyed the most was the look into early corporations—the forerunner of General Electric owned by Thomas Edison, Westinghouse owned by George Westinghouse, and even Morgan’s banking firm—as well as the development of the modern law firm associate structure created by Paul Cravath. There were plenty of corporate and financial shenanigans depicted in the novel, as well as one-up-man-ship between Cravath and his partners. The story could easily have taken place today in the internet world. In fact, many of the chapters open with quotes from Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that are eerily relevant to the electrical industry of more than a century ago.

What I didn’t like was wondering what was true and what wasn’t as I read. Moore confesses in his author’s note,

“This book is a Gordian knot of verifiable truth, educated supposition, dramatic rendering, and total guesswork.”

He offers a chronology of the actual events on his website. However, his changes to the true chronology and the unverifiable actions attributed to the primary characters ultimately caused me to be more skeptical of the book than I wanted to be. Had it been a novel not using real people as primary characters, I could have accepted it much better.

I’ve had some experience at incorporating historical characters into novels (though not in Playing the Game; I’ve written books under another name as well), but I have never depicted true personages as murderers, thieves, frauds, and corporate moles. And when I’ve written historical fiction, I’ve kept my description of events as close to their true chronology as I can.

Still, the author’s note gives me some satisfaction that Moore has accurately described the flavor (if not the chronology) of the invention of the light bulb, the “battle of the currents” between direct current and alternating current, the development of the modern law firm, as well as the implementation of the electric chair for the death penalty. I do recommend the book. But take it with a grain of salt.

What books depicting corporate intrigue have you enjoyed?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Management, Playing the Game, Writing