Category Archives: career development

CEO Turnover vs. CEO Tenure: Two Takes

Interesting, somewhat divergent reports on CEO longevity appeared recently from some big-name research consultancies. 178083845--CEOsuccessionOne, a study from Equilar compiled for CNNMoney, shows tenure for S&P 500 CEOs has increased nearly a full year since 2005. As the CNN report states,

A decade ago, CEOs typically spent five years at the helm of one of America’s top 500 publicly traded companies. It might seem like a small increase, but it’s a notable shift from the Great Recession and financial crisis when a lot of executives got fired. Those who survived — or came on board in the new wave — are keeping their posts.

In fact, more specifically, according to Equilar’s report on the study it performed, “in 2014, the average S&P 500 CEO had served an average of 7.4 years, and 6.0 at the median. Ten years ago, those figures were 6.6 and 5.2, respectively.”

Equilar claims there’s “one simple explanation” for the rising average: a collection of long-standing CEOs at the top of the list, people like Berkshire Hathaway’s Warren Buffett, who’s held his post for 45 years, and L Brands’ Leslie Wexner, who sits at the top of the list with 52 years at his company. As soon as these top guns start to retire, you’ll see the average tenures start to fall, says Equilar.

But for now, they’re a full year higher than they were a decade ago.

Juxtapose that with the latest report from Challenger Gray & Christmas, as reported in the Center Valley Business Times — showing a jump in CEO departures toward the end of 2015. Specifically, December CEO exits were 33 percent higher than the 86 changes in November and 7 percent higher than the 107 CEO departures in December 2014.

(Despite the December surge, though, the yearly total of 1,221 CEO departures in 2015 was 9 percent lower than the 1,341 departures in 2014, according to the Challenger report.)

So are CEOs staying or going? Hard to say.

But whatever the numbers tell us, this post can also serve as a reminder that it’s never too early to put your best foot forward in devising the best CEO-succession plan for your organization. This post by me almost two years ago suggested then there was still much improvement needed in this area. (That March 2014 post also shows a decline in CEO turnover at the start of that year.)

At least we can say, with CEO turnover holding fairly steady and tenure on the rise, there’s some time, at least, to get succession at the top post right.

Twitter It!

Capturing the Gen Z Zeitgeist

By the time any new generation enters the workforce, employers and experts have already twisted themselves into knots trying to figure out what makes these young workers tick, and what makes them happy.

Perhaps no cohort has been dissected more thoroughly than millennials, a group that many estimates predict will comprise as much as 75 percent of the workforce by the year 2025.

For example, we’ve heard (ad nauseam) about Gen Y workers’ nomadic tendencies, their preference to converse via email, IM, text message or just about any means other than face-to-face communication, and the underdeveloped people skills they possess as a result of this reliance on technology.

Naturally, such broad characterizations can’t be applied to every employee in a given generation, but, for better or worse, these are some of the common perceptions surrounding millennial-age workers.

And it’s those perceptions that make some of the data found in a new Institute for Corporate Productivity white paper focusing on Generation Z—defined by i4cp as those born between 1995 and 2012—all the more interesting.

(Click here for more background on the white paper, which is available for download to i4cp members.)

It’s easy—especially for a cynical, closing-in-fast-on-middle-age Gen Xer like me—to assume that each successive generation of workers will have a lesser sense of loyalty to their employers, or will become that much more dependent on technology at the expense of actual, personal interaction, for example.

But, judging from the input i4cp gathered from a focus group of 600 high school seniors, making such assumptions about Gen Z would be way off the mark.

For instance, 60 percent of the aforementioned students said they would like to stay with one company for more than 10 years, with another 31 percent saying they’d like to stick with the same organization for 20-plus years.

Or, consider that eight in 10 of these youngsters indicated that they prefer in-person communication (!), and 37 percent said they believe technology has a negative impact on people skills.

These same respondents seem to suggest an independent streak runs through Gen Z as well, with half saying they would prefer to have their own private work area as opposed to an “open concept” office or shared workspace. In fact—and I’m not sure how or why this very specific scenario was presented to participants—35 percent of the high school seniors surveyed said they would sooner share socks than an office space.

Organizational leaders such as those in HR are “at a critical crossroads” with respect to the multiple generations that make up their workforces, including Generation Z, the white paper notes.

Indeed, employers are already faced with trying to capture the knowledge of the millions of baby boomers creeping up on retirement age, and grooming Gen X- and Gen Y-age workers to fill the leadership void that will be created when those boomers leave, as the paper points out.

In addition, “employers are still grappling with millennials’ perceived sense of entitlement and knowing that they still always have one foot out the door,” according to the white paper authors. “Reacting to these gaps will be paramount to the success of businesses large and small.”

Organizations cannot shift into “reactive mode,” the authors continue, “lest a whole new set of gaps will develop and perhaps push them to the breaking point. But the reality is that Gen Z is already showing up, and leaders need to decide if they want to be prepared to welcome them (and [whether] they want to be ahead of the curve or not).”

Twitter It!

Leadership Development Needs Sponsorship at Top

There has certainly been no dearth of studies and stories, both here at HRE and beyond, on the challenges and failings of leadership-82821233 -- business leaderdevelopment programs. Here, for instance, is our last look at this problem that Staff Writer Mark McGraw wrote about on Nov. 30.

In that piece, sources told McGraw a major stumbling block keeping most leadership-development initiatives from succeeding is the tendency for line leaders to hand the LD reins over to human resources without taking responsibility for the huge role they, themselves, play in steering those initiatives.

As Debbie Lovich, head of the Boston Consulting Group’s  Leadership and Talent Enablement Center in Boston, says in that story:

“As soon as [those reins are handed over, talent issues are] disconnected from the business. You see it happen when line leaders are developing plans for their businesses, and ownership for anything to do with talent goes to HR. … [T]he best-in-class companies don’t just throw it over the fence to HR.”

Now, the latest global study on this issue by Los Angeles-based Korn Ferry suggests the inherent problems with leadership development have less to do with who’s taking responsibility and more to do with who’s sponsoring the effort.

The study, Real World Leadership, which polled more than 7,500 executives from 107 countries, found a “lack of executive sponsorship” to be the chief barrier. Survey respondents not only indicated there was a general lack of active sponsorship, buy-in and support from the top, but they expressed disappointment in the programs altogether, with 55 percent of respondents ranking their return on such efforts as only “fair” to “very poor.”

“Executives have identified the crux of the problem,” says Noah Rabinowitz, a Korn Ferry senior partner and global head of leadership development. “The next step is to identify practical steps to create a solution.

“Given the central role leadership plays in the success of any organization,” he adds, “the view of leadership development has to shift from a ‘nice-to-have’ to a ‘must-have’ business process, as integral as the supply chain, marketing or IT.”

Dési Kimmins, Korn Ferry’s principal consultant, had some very specific and practical advice for HR leaders seeking executive buy-in for leadership development:

“The first step … is to start with strategic business needs. Executives must examine what challenges the organization currently faces, where the business is going and the leadership profile that will help the company get where it needs to go. This process starts with the C-suite, and must sustain that level of endorsement and sponsorship to be successful. The most senior leaders need to engage in the development strategy and insist the impact is regularly measured and reported.

“People assume that development happens naturally, but that’s not necessarily the case. A CEO, for example, not only has to run a business but also [has to] deal with a large number of external stakeholders, such as shareholders, the board of directors, business partners and even the media …  . That’s why stepping into the CEO role is sometimes described as a career change, not just another step on the career ladder. Development and feedback even at this level are essential when so much is at stake.”

Even more specifically, the report lists tips for increasing the effectiveness of leadership development and creating a robust and sustainable leadership pipeline:

  • Embed leadership development in the culture and strategy, ensuring it is consistently sponsored by top executives.

  • Embrace the idea that leadership development is a continuous process and not just made up of one-time classes or one-off events.

  • Make leadership development more relevant and engaging by focusing programs on the organization’s current strategies and business issues.

  • Roll out relevant and appropriate development for all levels in the organization, including senior-most executives and the C-suite.

  • Don’t cut back on investing in leadership development when times get tough. That is the time to double down on efforts.

Twitter It!

Are Managers Cutting It As Coaches?

In late June of this year, I was dispatched to General Electric’s famed Crotonville campus in Ossining, N.Y., to attend Aon Hewitt’s Top Companies For Leaders Think Tank.

My main objective there was to meet one-on-one with representatives from some of the 25 companies that were on hand to be recognized as one of Aon Hewitt’s “Top Companies for Leaders.”

(Click here to find out who these organizations are, and how they landed on the most recent list, the first iteration of which appeared in 2001).

In these conversations, I was struck by how often HR executives returned to the idea of helping managers adopt a “coaching mind-set” as a key component of their companies’ leadership development strategies.

I was so struck, in fact, that I wound up writing a 2,300-or-so-word feature story on this topic for our September print issue, in which “Top Companies for Leaders” such as Procter & Gamble and Singtel Communications discussed how they’ve made it a priority to impart coaching skills to supervisors as part of their managerial training.

Some new data, however, suggests that most organizations haven’t warmed to the concept of making coaches out of managers in the way that “Top Companies” have.

In a survey of 117 vice presidents of talent management, vice presidents and directors of HR, directors of personnel and CHROs, talent-management software provider SilkRoad found 45 percent of these respondents saying their managers lack the skills to coach and develop employees.

Maybe finding out that nearly half of managers are coming up short in terms of coaching and fostering the professional growth of their people isn’t that shocking.

Heck, a 2015 Right Management poll found 68 percent of 616 North American workers saying their managers weren’t actively engaged in the career development of their employees.

Bruce Tulgan, founder of New Haven, Conn.-based management training and consulting company Rainmaker Thinking Inc., certainly isn’t surprised by such statistics.

I had a few conversations with Tulgan in the course of writing the aforementioned HRE feature. Not all of his thoughts found their way into print at the time, of course. But he had plenty to say on the subject, and his take in September seems just as relevant to this HRE Daily installment.

He described Right Management’s findings, for instance, as “very much in alignment” with what he and Rainmaker have uncovered in 20-plus years of research based on interviews with more than 200,000 managers.

In studying “undermanagement” and its root causes, he says, Rainmaker has frequently found that many managers and leaders don’t spend enough time interacting with their reports, spelling out their expectations and coaching employees on their career development.

“Managers, of course, are under pressure to have regular conversations with their teams about the actual work,” he says. “But providing this sort of career guidance is also part of the manager’s job.”

For their part, HR leaders can help managers set the parameters for these career-development chats, says Tulgan.

“For example, how often should [managers] be meeting with their people? How long should those conversations be, what should they be talking about and what are managers doing to prepare for those conversations? And what are they asking direct reports to do to prepare for those conversations?”

As is ultimately the case with the employees they’re charged with nurturing, he says, “you can’t hold managers accountable if you don’t tell them exactly what’s expected of them.”

Twitter It!

Debunking the Myths About Millennials

Nowadays, it’s pretty much impossible to attend an HR conference that doesn’t have at least one session focusing on the subject of millennials—and this year’s HR Tech Conference is no exception.

In her remarks during a session titled “Engaging and Retaining a New Generation of Workers at LivingSocial,” LivingSocial Senior Vice President of HR Colleen Wood (who co-presented with Adam Rogers, chief technology officer at Ultimate Software, the firm’s HR software vendor) debunked three “millennial myths.”

Myth #1, Wood said, is that millennials won’t do grunt work. Millennials at LivingSocial, she explained, are ready to prove themselves in any way possible by volunteering for pilot groups and becoming part of “tiger teams,” though many still want to be reassured that their efforts are going to a greater good.

Myth #2, she said, is they want the job on day one. LivingSocial’s millennials, she said, want to hit the ground running on day one and they use learning tools, such as LivingSocialU, on a daily basis to grow their skills in all areas—including those outside of their own professional job description.

Myth #3, she continued, is they want managers to do the work for them. LivingSocial’s open floor plan, she explained, allows millennials to collaborate with their manager at any time. “We try to make it easy for managers and employees to get together and collaborate with one another,” she said.

Wood noted that 28 percent of LivingSocial employees work remotely. “That means we have to give employees tools to keep them connected,” she said, adding that the company provides “virtual watercoolers” so remote workers can keep up-to-date on developments.

She pointed out that LivingSocial has also modified its recruiting strategy, including the way it crafts job ads, to attract the right kind of talent to the company. “We try to use words that capture the kind of culture that we have … and help people understand the kind of environment they’re going to be working in,” she said, citing words and phrases such as “attention to detail, competitive, energetic, competitive, taking smart risks and compassionate” as examples.

Wood also listed three key attributes that are at the heart of LivingSocial’s HR technology strategy and went into the firm’s selection of Ultimate Software: accessibility, usability and functionality.

At the end of the day, she said, HR technologies need to allow employees to focus on being successful at their jobs—and not get in the way.

Twitter It!

New Hires Face Higher Expectations

If you’re new to an organization, you’d better be prepared to hit the ground running — especially if you’re a college grad. That’s certainly the way it’s been for Ham Serunjogi, who tells Fast Company he was “shocked” at how much was expected of him during his first few days at work.

Serunjogi, a graduate of Grinnell College, started work as an intern at an environmental technology firm in 2013. In his first meeting with the executive director, he was asked whether he’d taken a database class in college. When Serunjogi replied in the affirmative, he recounts, he was told that he would now be overseeing the design and implementation of a new communication database for the organization.

“That was the first time I was ever brought into a project I had little or no knowledge about, and was expected to deliver results,” he said.

This past summer, Serunjogi began an internship at Facebook, where he encountered similar expectations. “Facebook is a very fast-moving culture,” he tells Fast Company. “There’s an expectation that you come in and you learn how to catch up with everyone else, otherwise you’re slowing down the entire organization.”

Technology companies are far from the only ones with such a mindset these days. HRE‘s Talent Management Columnist, Wharton prof Peter Cappelli, has written extensively about the trend in Corporate America to do away with the extensive training programs companies once provided to help new employees develop and acquire skills. Now, he writes, firms expect employees to come “ready made” with the necessary skills via school, college and internships — and if they have trouble finding such people, then it’s evidence of a “talent shortage.”

Yet more evidence of these higher expectations comes via a recent Harris Poll, which finds 27 percent of the 319 executives surveyed said they form an opinion of entry-level employees in less than two weeks and 78 percent decide in less than three months whether or not that person will succeed at the company.

Considering that everyone is now expected to be “an A player” right out of the box, job candidates need to prepare accordingly by interviewing their potential employers as much as they’re interviewing them, Decisions Toolbox chief recruitment officer Nicole Cox tells Fast Company.

Use that time to clarify what will be expected of them, she says. And, “after they’re hired, ask if they’re meeting those expectations.”

One would also hope that employers do their part to clarify expectations — and give new hires the time and support necessary for proving their capability.

Twitter It!

Let’s Get the Career Conversation Started

Even the best managers don’t always look forward to talking with employees about how they can be better at their jobs.

But your people are craving these conversations, which, unfortunately, don’t seem to be happening at many organizations.

Take Mercer’s recent Employee Views on Moving Up vs. Moving On survey, for example. The New York-based consultancy polled 1,520 employed workers in the United States and Canada, finding more than half (51 percent) of these respondents saying they receive “no input” or “input only once in a while” from superiors on how to perform better in their roles. In addition, 78 percent of employees indicated they would stay with their current employer if they had a better sense of their career trajectory with the company.

Leave workers in the dark about how to improve and advance at your own risk, warns Ilene Siscovick, partner and North America talent and career leader at Mercer.

“Clearly, lack of communication from managers along with a lack of transparency about career progression within the organization is impacting employee loyalty and hampering retention efforts,” said Siscovick, in a statement.

The aforementioned percentages are significant, but maybe not all that surprising when you consider some other recent research.

A Right Management report from July, for instance, finds that two-thirds of the individual performance drivers employees consider most important are tied to career conversations.

Earlier this year, Right polled 616 North American workers, 68 percent of whom said their managers aren’t actively engaged in the career development of their employees.

These Right Management figures help form the foundation of a feature that’s set to appear in our September issue. “Creating Coaches” focuses on a handful of organizations that excel at helping managers become coaches for their employees, and at making employee development a critical component of supervisors’ jobs—and a key performance measure for managers.

For that story, I spoke with Bruce Tulgan, founder of New Haven, Conn.-based management training and consulting company Rainmaker Thinking Inc.

Since 1993, Rainmaker has conducted research based on interviews with more than 200,000 managers, says Tulgan, who estimates that nine out of 10 “fail to regularly and systematically engage” in a regular, structured, one-on-one dialogue with their direct reports.

Some managers, he says, may be “naturally gifted in terms of being the kind of supportive, developmental leader that helps his or her employees with building themselves and their careers.” But becoming an effective coach for employees “isn’t about being a natural.”

Rather, “you really need to have regular, structured, substantive dialogue with your people that includes talking about how they’re doing their work and how they’re continuing to learn not only technical skills, but broader, transferable soft skills as well,” he says. “This is all part of a coaching style of management, and it has huge implications for employees’ career growth.”

HR, of course, has a responsibility to help ensure that managers grasp the importance of nurturing their employees’ development, adds Tulgan, who serves as an executive-level coach and advisor, and has written multiple books on effective management.

“I try to make a very strong business case to managers for doing this. It’s what managing is. The career development part is just the outcome of doing the hard work of managing people well in a substantive way.”

He also urges spelling out the concrete actions you expect managers to carry out in terms of coaching their reports.

Managers, for example, must understand how often they should be meeting with their people, how long those conversations should be, and what they should be talking about, says Tulgan.

Because, much like the employees they’re charged with leading, “you can’t hold managers accountable if you don’t tell them exactly what’s expected of them.”

Twitter It!

Aon Hewitt Think Tank: Let’s Talk Leadership

Panelists discuss leadership trends at Aon Hewitt's Top Companies for Leaders Think Tank event. Photo courtesy of Frank Mari

Panelists discuss leadership trends at Aon Hewitt’s Top Companies for Leaders Think Tank event. Photo courtesy of Frank Mari

Each year, our “What’s Keeping HR Up at Night” survey asks HRE readers to share some of the challenges that keep them counting sheep in the wee hours.

We recently closed this year’s poll—the results of which you can find in our upcoming July/August print and digital editions. While the findings yielded some surprises— as they always do—HR’s biggest woes remain pretty much the same in 2015. When asked to identify the biggest HR challenges facing their organization today, the most common replies were “ensuring employees remain engaged and productive” (39 percent), “retaining key talent” (26 percent), and “developing leaders” (24 percent). These issues have comprised the top three challenges among our readership for three years running.

CHROs at some firms, however, are apparently sleeping more soundly than others, at least as far as leadership development is concerned.

Earlier this week, I had a chance to listen to HR leaders at a handful of organizations who excel in this area; so much so that they earned a spot on Aon Hewitt’s most recent Top Companies for Leaders list, which consists of 25 organizations singled out for their strength of leadership practices and culture, examples of leadership development on a global scale, alignment of business and leadership strategy, business performance and company reputation.

On Monday evening, representatives from 23 of these 25 companies converged on General Electric’s picturesque GE Crotonville campus in Ossining, N.Y. There, they would spend the next two days talking about some of the leadership development efforts that landed them on the guest list for “the party that everyone wants to attend,” said Pete Sanborn, the Atlanta-based global practice leader of Aon’s talent and organizational practice group, in kicking off Tuesday morning’s activities by individually acknowledging each of the Top Companies and the characteristics that set them apart.

One trait shared by these organizations is a knack for finding and nurturing potential leaders early on in their careers, and setting them on the leadership track.

As part of a Tuesday morning panel presentation, GE’s Peter Cavanaugh and Belinda Tang from IBM Corp. discussed approaches to identifying and assessing young, would-be leaders. (GE and IBM hold the No. 1 and No. 2 spots on Aon’s latest Top Companies for Leaders list, respectively.)

Entry-level leadership initiatives are certainly “not a new concept,” said Cavanaugh, global learning and operations leader at GE.

Such programs, however, “provide a framework for taking new approaches to developing leaders,” he said.

GE, for example, selects certain entry-level employees to work on high-level project groups, providing ideas and input, and, moreover, getting a taste of what it’s like to lead a team.

At IBM, the Armonk, N.Y.-based technology company has introduced Consulting by Degrees, a developmental program designed to groom top, entry-level business consultants to one day fill leadership positions.

Within the program, these young IBMers “are operating like senior consultants,” said Tang, vice president of global leadership development at IBM.

Participants build core skills over a two-year period, performing work for clients and returning to the classroom every six months to practice speaking with clients and “doing the things that make a great consultant” before deciding the area in which they want to specialize, she said.

Getting broad leadership experience under their belts in their early days at IBM helps these high-potential consultants find a niche within the organization—regardless of their pedigree, Tang told the audience.

“We hire the best athlete,” she said. “We’ve had dance majors who have flourished with us.”

Twitter It!

HBR: It’s Time to ‘Blow Up’ HR

powIt’s summer blockbuster season, with actors like Chris Pratt and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson saving us from rampaging dinosaurs and earthquakes with the aid of tons of CGI special effects (and plenty of clunky dialogue), so perhaps it’s appropriate that the Harvard Business Review (subscription required) has emblazoned the cover of  its July/August issue with an icon of a ball of dynamite and the provocative headline “It’s Time to BLOW UP HR And Build Something New.”

The three related articles inside aren’t quite as explosive as the cover suggests, but  thought-provoking nonetheless. The first piece is by none other than our own Talent Management columnist, Wharton professor Peter Cappelli, who writes that business leaders tend to see HR as a valuable asset during talent crunches but as a mere nuisance when times are better. In order to get out of this rut, HR leaders need to “set the agenda,” Cappelli writes. Rather than waiting for the CEO to tell them what to do, HR leaders must strongly advocate for excellence in every process the function touches (or should touch), from layoffs to recruiting to performance management, he writes.

HR leaders also need to either deepen their own knowledge of analytics or partner with those who are experts in order to “help companies make sense of all their employee data and get the most from their human capital,” Cappelli writes. Finally, HR leaders must help their organization’s leadership “take the long view,” he writes:

How can HR bring the long view back into organizations? By reconciling it with the immediate pressures that businesses face, which those one-at-a-time projects are designed to address. … HR should also keep stepping back to study those initiatives in the aggregate: What emerging needs do they point to? How do those needs map to the organization’s talent pipeline and practices? Which capabilities need shoring up?  … That’s the kind of analytic counsel the “new HR” should provide.

The next piece is by none other than Ram Charan, the management consultant who stirred up controversy last year with an HBR piece in which he argued for splitting HR in two. Well, he’s back and this time he’s got company in the form of co-authors Dominic Barton, global managing director of McKinsey & Co., and Dennis Carey, the vice chairman of Korn Ferry. In “People Before Strategy,” they argue for a new triumvirate at the top of organizations comprised of the CEO, the CFO and the CHRO. This three-person team will form a “core decision-making body” for the organization in which the CHRO will be the trusted advisor in all things people-related. “Forming such a team is the single best way to link financial numbers with the people who produce them,” they write.

The final piece is a deep dive into the work done by the HR department at tech firm Juniper Networks to make itself a vital part of that business. Juniper Networks has had to make a number of adjustments to its business over the years, write co-authors Jon Boudreau (of the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business) and Steven Rice (former EVP of HR at Juniper Networks and now CHRO at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), and HR has been key in those transformations. Rather than reaching for the latest “bright shiny objects,” as too many HR leaders do, they write, the JN team worked hard to understand the big picture of the company’s business, identify the most valuable ideas, apply them in context and carefully manage their impact.

The work the HR team did included working closely with business leaders to reorganize the organization to make its operating model more simple, do away with cumbersome processes that were adding little value (including a forced-ranking system that was hurting morale) and finding ways to increase collaboration and innovation.

Developing a reputation as an innovative HR organization “requires walking a fine line,” the authors write. Ideas for innovation often arise from popular talks and articles, yet if you “embrace too many of these … or apply them too superficially,” you’ll develop a reputation for fad surfing, they write. Instead, “dig beneath the surface to the fundamental scientific research and insights, and you can set the stage for true impact.”

All in all, a worthwhile series of articles — complete with the bizarre yet compelling artwork the HBR has been featuring in recent years.

Twitter It!

Training Tutorial: ‘Please Steal Our Idea’

While many of us were off work and enjoying the Memorial Day holiday yesterday, the New York Times ran a piece on the ongoing efforts of Jon Stewart — the soon-to-be-departing host of The Daily Show — to get more veterans working in the entertainment industry.

According to the piece, Stewart and his show’s production team have been running a “five-week industry boot camp designed to bring young veterans into the television business,” regardless of whether they share Stewart’s political viewpoints.

The boot camp actually got its kick start (excuse the pun) in 2013, when American Corporate Partners, a mentoring nonprofit group, “asked Mr. Stewart to take a veteran under his wing and help find that person a job in television, which involved making a few calls,” according to the piece, but “Jon said he wanted to help, but wanted to do more than just drop his name,” said Sid Goodfriend, who runs the program.

Instead, the staff of “The Daily Show” developed an intense five-week immersion program to give veterans a crash course in their business, with behind-the-scenes looks at areas including talent booking and editing. And while they put the out word to veterans’ groups, they didn’t mention that the camp was at “The Daily Show” in an attempt to weed out fans and focus instead on veterans who really wanted to work in the industry.

Stewart and his show developed the program over the last three years without publicizing it, according to the NYT piece, but now, “because Mr. Stewart is preparing to leave the show, he has taken it into the open, urging other shows to develop their own programs to bring more veterans into the industry.”

“This is ready to franchise. Please steal our idea,” Mr. Stewart said in an interview at his Manhattan studio recently. “It isn’t charity. To be good in this business you have to bring in different voices from different places, and we have this wealth of experience that just wasn’t being tapped.”

While the entertainment industry may be much different than other industries we often cover, it’s always encouraging to see efforts being made to get more veterans not only back into the workforce, but into positions they are actually interested in as well.

The only question now is: Is your organization brave enough to steal Stewart’s idea and make it your own?

Twitter It!