Consultant's Corner

HR Technology 2008 – What's That Word Ringing In My Ear?

heidi.spirgi — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:52:15 GMT

Last week’s HR Technology Conference & Expo was a departure from previous years in many ways – seriously cool new technologies, higher levels of innovation, slicker UI’s, some of the best of commercial applications incorporated into HR applications, and mobile device integration to name a few. But there was one overriding difference that jumped out at me in every session I attended, every conversation that I had and even in the product demos that I saw - and that was a new focus on the BUSINESS. Yes, that word I kept hearing was “BUSINESS.”

In fact, I would venture to say that for every 10 times I heard someone say “HR” at the conference, I would hear “BUSINESS” one time. While 10:1 is not as good as it can get, it’s a far cry from a year ago when as an industry we were at roughly a 40:1 ratio.

The conversation at HR Technology had two new threads to it that were not there in 2007:

HR technology as business solutions, not HR systems
HR technology as means to connect, share and co-create across the business

The myopic view of HR is slowly changing and the walls between it and the business are slowly disintegrating. Here are some snippets from 2 of the best attended sessions that give proof to this changed conversation:

From the 11th Annual Industy Analyst Panel:

General consensus amongst the analysts that HR needs to respond to the financial crisis by getting crystal clear on what will make the biggest impact on the business. There was more attention given to aligning HR activities with business strategy than to cost containment and risk mitigation (the traditional HR and IT response to a downturn in the economy)
Focus on “critical roles” based on business strategy; be targeted in the way you approach talent
Discussion of HR technology as “productivity tools”

From The Industry's First Talent Management Shootout:

“Business people are the users of talent management suites”
Focus on the employee: recommended jobs based on strengths and desires; interest lists (ala Amazon)
Focus on the business user: mobile device integration, and action-oriented functionality
The C-suite view of talent

So congratulations to ALL who have played a role in pushing the B-word – BUSINESS – into the HR technology conversation.

Who knows? Maybe next year we’ll be at a 2:1 ratio. Here’s to change…

Staying On-Course During Times of Uncertainty

bonnie.tichman — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:43:48 GMT

I was employed in the Recruiting and Staffing industry post 9/11, and after enduring the most horrific event in our nation’s history, it truly felt as if the business world stood still. We saw the contingent staffing market rise modestly as companies tried to fill workforce gaps, but full-time recruiting took more than a year to rebound due to hiring freezes across industries and regions.

We have to remember that economic cycles are periods of change just like the seasons. Just a couple of years after 9/11, the housing market boomed. The sense of affluence was everywhere with home values skyrocketing; which, of course, caused many Americans to borrow beyond their means, which brings us to today.

In addition to being one of the world's wealthiest men, Warren Buffet is also known for his common sense investment advice. According to him, “A market downturn, doesn’t bother us. For us and our long term investors, it is an opportunity to increase our ownership of great companies with great management at good prices. Only for short term investors and market timers is a correction not an opportunity.’- Warren Buffett

As HR professionals, how can we help our organizations continue to strive to be great companies, with great management? How can we stay on-course in terms of our HR goals, strategies and execution plans, or adjust our course slightly, without stifling progress?

During the tough road that may lie ahead, it is our time to take action. Here are 5 key things HR can do to make a difference during this economic downturn:

1. Realign with new business strategies and validate existing ones. Partner with the business - - and be a part of the business. Understand what goals and initiatives are changing and the associated talent implications. Realign your talent strategies and programs to support the business, in measurable business terms. This may include preparing for possible downsizing, specialized high-volume recruiting to upsurge select products and markets, and realigning remuneration schemes to drive the right goals and behaviors.

2. Realign with your executive stakeholders and develop new champions. Work closely with your business partners and some influential managers to ensure that your talent plan meets their needs. In addition, encourage them to be “champions” of your plan and to spread the word among their colleagues and team members about its relevance and impact.

3. Reduce the bottom line to increase the top. This is the ideal time to evaluate your existing HR technology portfolio and processes and determine how to get the most mileage from existing investments. This may include re-tooling of processes to drive further efficiencies and deeper leverage of inherent product features and functions to advance talent management initiatives. Often times, strategic programs can be ‘self-funded’ by redirected the efficiency savings to finance new initiatives.

4. Seize the moment. Use this downturn to weed out below average performers. Now is a vital time to partner with managers by conducting critical skills assessments and by educating them on effective performance management processes and rating of employees as we enter the year-end cycle. There will likely be some highly skilled candidates that become available in the labor pool, and you may need to free up positions in the case of hiring freezes.

5. Communicate and motivate. Seventy-one percent of workers think that their company leaders should be more forthcoming in discussing the current economic situation and its impact on their company, according to new research from Weber Shandwick. This is a pivotal time to be focused on retaining your top performers and improving productivity through such tactics as expanded training, non-monetary incentives and redeployment of key workers to high impact initiatives. By being more forthcoming and proactive, employers can win more loyalty from their employees.

Agree...And Then Stick to the Agreement

mike.brennan — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:10:36 GMT

In a Consultant Corner post last month (see HR: Importance vs. Influence), my top-flight colleague, Suzanne Rumsey leveraged a recent survey from McKinsey & Co to demonstrate HR’s perceived lack of alignment with the businesses they support. She highlights that line managers who participated in the study, much more than HR participants, agree that:

1. HR lacks capability to develop talent strategies aligned with business objectives

2. That HR is not held accountable for success or failure of talent management initiatives, and

3. That talent management is viewed solely as HR's responsibility.

When I hear about alignment and ownership from HR clients of ours, I propose they use service level agreements (SLAs) to address them. SLAs serve as anchors to the performance consulting models HR and T&D groups must employ to better support the needs of the business. The purpose of these agreements is to require HR to work with its business customers to define their desired business and workforce outcomes and then what programs and services will be delivered to achieve them.

To write an effective SLA and ensure it’s used to perpetuate alignment, I recommend combining it with your intelligence strategy. Specifically, I recommend using SLAs to facilitate the 3 types of measurement needed not only to establish alignment and accountability, but to drive ongoing adjustments and improvements to the programs and services in-scope.

Use measurement to drive focus and accountability. The SLA has an integral role to play in 3 types of measurement. The first is predictive measurement, which is meant to drive alignment between HR / T&D investments and the needs of the business expressed, where possible, to KPIs important to line managers. The KPIs documented on the SLA should establish the causal chain between the services being provided and workforce performance as well as establish service quality and accountability goals for both HR and line managers to meet. In the case of talent management, these KPIs are typically tied to effectiveness in the form of workforce productivity, competencies, bench strength, retention, mobility, etc. They may also include measures of HR service quality (e.g., our staffing group produces high-quality candidates) and efficiency (e.g., time-to-fill).

The second type is in-process measurement. Its purpose is to validate that a program or service is believed to be achieving its desired business results as measured through the KPIs identified on the SLA. In-process measurement may combine a mix of transactional data collected through HR systems (e.g., time-to-fill, participation in new product training) and survey instruments to assess whether or not HR services and programs are making the desired impact on the target audience, and in turn, the organization. HR should use in-process measurement to make periodic/continual improvements to their services and programs.

The third and final type of measurement that leverages an SLA is retrospective measurement, which is meant to assess desired business impact. This may or may not include calculation of ROI. The assumption here is that enough time has passed and/or enough employees have been touched by the program or resource. Retrospective measurement builds on data captured through predictive and in-process measurement by integrating data captured through other systems (e.g., point-of-sales, IT help ticket system, CRM) to demonstrate causality and ROI. With sufficient data and analysis, the outcomes of retrospective measurement can be used to feed predictive measurement through scenario planning and analytics.

My advice to those considering performance consulting models that leverage SLAs - start small and keep the language simple. I also recommend engaging the right stakeholders.

My request to those who read this post - please share your thoughts…

What is Your Organization's Talentography?

andy.gebavi — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:13:57 GMT

Yes... That's right, "Talentography." The story of talent in your organization.

Do we really know the story of talent in our organizations? Sure, we know anecdotal bits and pieces, but I'm convinced that precious few organizations have a coherent story of how and why people enter, inhabit, and leave the organization.

We hear many anecdotal stories when we're working with our customers:

"We tend toward external recruiting before promoting from within"
"Our exit interviews show that many of our people leave because they thought they didn't have a clear career path"
"Our average tenure is 6 years"
"Our average tenure is 22 years"
"Our CEO worked her way up from the retail floor"
"We've been through 3 CEO's in 5 years"
"We rehire many of the people we downsize within a few months at a higher pay rate"

The vast majority of organizations concentrate on creating new slots, filling slots, and moving around and removing slots with reorganizations or downsizing - without much regard for the actual human experience of living in our organizations

It's time we focus on understanding the ongoing stories of how our organizations tap into our talent - and begin creating the stories we want our organizations to have.

So...What is the Talentography of your organization? Food for thought...

Have you ever walked out of a meeting and said to your colleague: “I wish I had said/done…” or "Why didn't I..." If so, chances are you’re female……

lisa.burton — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:53:54 GMT

I was having an interesting conversation with an HR friend of mine last night over a nice glass of wine… She had recently led her business leaders through a Talent Review process and had a noteworthy realization after reviewing all of the top leaders within the team. It seems that every female leader was given developmental feedback that related back to a lack of confidence. That said, there were no male leaders who were given similar feedback. And, as much as she hated to agree with what appeared on the surface to be gender-biased feedback, she followed their line of logic and felt compelled to agree…

In general, there was more of a tendency for women to outwardly question or react – positively and negatively – to their actions after an event, meeting, etc. This appeared to baffle their male counterparts and was noted as lack of confidence by both males and females as they considered the performance of these women. This lack of confidence was a key factor taken into consideration in assessing these women’s future potential. And, my friend and I recognized – not surprisingly - that this phenomenon did not appear to be limited to the top business leaders within my friend’s team.

This, of course, got us thinking… We first considered our own experiences and both immediately recalled examples when we walked out of meetings and verbally engaged in the “I wish I had…” dialogue (As for my own example, I can even recall the look on my male counterpart’s face, who seemed confused and felt compelled to give me positive feedback – to try to ‘pump me up’. Although I wasn’t excited about the reaction, in truth, I’m not sure what alternative reaction I expected from him…)

Now, in this world of information, we all know that there have been many studies of male / female differences, many of which focus on this topic of confidence. And, my point is not to turn this into a research paper (I did lots – maybe too much – of that in graduate school). Rather, my point is to offer up some questions for consideration…
1. Is there a reality to the idea that lack of confidence is a characteristic to which women are more prone in the leadership ranks?
2. What are the implications from a developmental perspective? Is this an example of ‘perception is reality’ and the solution is primarily educational in nature?
3. How does the idea of emotional maturity factor into this conversation? It is interesting to note that realism and self-analysis are characteristics of emotional maturity, whereas denial and avoidance indicate emotional immaturity. Are these two ideas in conflict? Where is the balance?

I’m curious what others think and have experienced on this topic… Thoughts?

HR of Business, Business of HR

srumsey — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:35:45 GMT

Andy Gebavi's comment on this past Monday's blog post (HR Importance vs. Influence) was terrific (thanks, Andy!). And it got me thinking. In working with clients, I often observe that the senior HR leadership (VPs and above) does understand the need for HR to become more business savvy, to learn how the organization operates, makes money, identifies markets and products and the like. This is a good thing, a great start. I also observe Senior HR leadership - those that are business savvy - spend so much time with the business that they sometimes may neglect their own function in two critical ways.

One: sharing, building, and discussing the business throughout ALL of the HR so that the frontline HR folks are as knowledgeable about the business as the senior HR folks are. To Andy's point that line managers do not understand "Talent Management" as we (HR) understand it, I would say, "Yes, true". I would also say that the frontline HR folks who interact with the line managers don't know enough about the business to effectively educate the line managers so that they can understand the value talent management brings to the business.

Two: HR operations are left to the upper-middle levels of HR management - Directors, Managers, etc. These folks are left to translate and operationalize HR and Talent Management strategy for HR, but are not afforded much interaction with the business itself because that interaction is dominated by senior HR leaders and / or the Directors / Managers are overwhelmed with leading the HR function and don't have time. Thus, a bit of a gully forms between senior HR Leadership and the rest of HR in terms of sharing business knowledge and building essential skills to better interact with the business about the business.

So, back to Monday's blog and the McKinsey study: what do you think accounts for the disparity between HR's point of view and line managers' point of view on HR's capabilities? And further, what can HR do to continue to close this gap? What role should HR leadership play here?

HR: Importance vs. Influence

srumsey — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:59:38 GMT

The August 2008 edition of The McKinsey Quarterly Chart Focus Newsletter highlights a dichotomy in business today, namely that while executives' stress levels are rising over the availability of talent in their markets and related issues (talent attraction, management and retention), there is a corresponding decline in HR's ability to influence business strategy. The chart below (from the McKinsey study) indicates that HR and line managers are far apart on their views of HR today. Line managers, much more than HR, agree that HR lacks capability to develop talent strategies aligned with business objectives, that HR is not held accountable for success or failure of talent management initiatives, and that talent management is viewed solely as HR's responsibility.

As Knowledge Infusion works with clients on their Talent Management strategies, we repeat (sometimes ad nauseam, I'm sure) these very principles. HR must align talent strategies with business objectives (one reason why we stress the need to integrate the business leaders' view into Talent Management strategy development. HR should be held accountable for talent management initiatives - after all, HR is the function that designs, develops, and implements talent management strategy and programs. The extent to which the programs are successful is highly dependent on 1) the degree to which they are aligned with the business, and 2) the extent to which HR effectively deploys them. IF talent management strategies and programs are aligned with the business AND if HR is held accountable for the success or failure of initiatives (in addition to the other key considerations in the chart below), THEN responsibility for talent management can be diffused throughout the organization, no longer to rest solely on HR's shoulders. For that to happen, however, HR must make the case that it knows what it is doing in the talent management arena.

What do you think of the McKinsey study results? Agree, disagree?

Talent Management Maturity Redux

andy.gebavi — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:13:19 GMT

The folks over at the Taleo blog recently posted a high level Talent Management Maturity model that focuses on the evolution of Talent Management technologies. This information can be useful to understanding what is happening in the talent management marketplace, but what about the practical application of talent management in our organizations?

Here at the Knowledge Infusion megaplex we've been spending a lot of time and thought on how our customers (organizations) can measure their Talent Management process maturity - regardless of the technology they may be using. By focusing on individual talent mangement processes (i.e. Performance Mgt, Talent Acquisition, Learning Mgt, Career Planning, Succession Planning, Compensation) our goal is to allow organizations to create a baseline understanding from which to launch and really zero in on specific changes they can make to move forward. There are common themes emerging across processes as we complete our research. We've identified the following foundational factors as applicable to all talent management processes.

Business Outcome Focus: What business outcomes are you trying to achieve with the process? Are they defined?

Standardization: Is everyone in the organization doing the process the same way?

Visibility: How much visibility do you have into the effectiveness and/or efficiency of the process across the organization?

Integration: How integrated is the process with other key talent management processes?

Metrics: How are you measuring the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the process?

Stewardship: Who "owns" the process? Is the owner closely tied to the business or detached?

Of course, technology will enable many of the above factors. Are there any other foundational factors that apply across all talent management processes?

Be on the lookout for tools coming soon that will allow you to assess where your talent management processes are today, and how to move them forward based on your organization's needs!

The Value of Being a Best Employer - A Business Case for Talent Management?

mike.brennan — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:33:22 GMT

Great article by Peter Capelli in today's HR Executive that discusses the relationship between HR policies and stock performance. It summarizes the findings, entitled, "Does the Stock Market Fully Value Intangibles? Employee Satisfaction and Equity Prices ," published by his Wharton colleague, Alex Edmans. The study implies that investments in intangibles that lead to employee satisfaction drive long-term stock performance. He bases much of this stance on an analysis of the long-term stock performance of companies on "Fortune Magazine's 100 Best Places to Work For." For the 7 years between 1998 and 2005, the stock prices of companies on the list generated an average annual rate of return of 14%, which is more than double the 6% average return of the S&P 500 index during that time.

As I read both the article and summary of the study's findings, I couldn' help but think of some of the clients with whom we have worked to develop business cases for investing in talent management strategies that call for a shift in the way organizations manage their people.

For some, the business case to invest in new HR organizational structures, processes, policies and technologies that enable such a shift is made simply by selling value and the promise of talent management to their executive commitees with the support of studies such as this. Others go a step further by focusing on how the competition is investing in their talent management infrastructure [since they are presumably going after the same talent]. Still others use metrics related to business issues such as engagement, retirement, turnover, headcount forecasts, and bench strength to make their case. And for the very cost-conscious, we've helped some focus on cost savings through automation and Web enablement (e.g., digital delivery of performance forms, self-service, online courses, etc.).

My advice is to focus on VALUE citing specific areas of the business where talent management investments in job roles critical to executing on business plans intuitively will drive performance. For example, on-boarding programs for bank tellers to ramp up their productivity and and engagement, which will lead to greater engagement and customer satisfaction while driving down turnover costs. Most HR organizations we work with have sufficient insights into their various lines of business to make sensible value statements like this.

I'm curious to hear how others who have successfully made their case. I'd also love to hear from those who are currently leading the charge on a talent management business case at their organization. Are you focused on value? Would data from studies such as this one published by Wharton resonate with the people who hold the purse strings in your organization.

The Graying of the Workforce

neil.jensen — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:56:01 GMT

First off, this isn't a post on the aging of the workforce. Instead, the "graying" of the workforce refers to the notion that the candidate pool in some industries is simply a revolving door of people that have worked for all the other competitors and are now revolving into a new job with a new company. This is the third or forth stop as they make their way through the industry in largely the same position. These individuals bring with them no new ideas and simply do what they do with a new set of business cards. Instead of being a colorful and vibrant place rich with innovation and new thinking, the workplace becomes a repackaged version of what all the other guys are doing and hence "gray."

This term was used in a recent interview with a financial services executive as he described one of the talent issues he was facing. As he described it, "we've had the same people coming in here with virtually no new ideas, no new blood." As a solution to this problem, he began to focus on college recruiting and recruiting top notch people from other industries. These programs became the means to infuse new blood and new thinking into workforce. He went on by saying, "I can teach people the job I hire them for, what I can't do is teach them to be innovative and think differently from all the other people here. Now, if only I could get the team at corporate to pay closer attention to success I am having with this approach."

This is the perfect example of a business leader "getting it." This financial services executive got deeply involved in the recruiting process and took ownership for the results. Remember, talent management isn't about HR, it's about the business and enabling the business to achieve results through talent.

Pay for Contribution vs. Pay for Performance

srumsey — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:02:20 GMT

Lately, I've been working with several clients who are grappling with the concept of Pay for Contribution, rather than Pay for Performance. Much of this transformation in thinking is coming about as more and more organizations ask the questions, "What do we pay our employees for, really?" Pay for Performance tends to be a historical view, paying employees for what they have accomplished in the past. It is based on the premise that the employee, with his or her manager, has set SMART goals for the performance period, and has been evaluated against how well he or she achieved the goals identified.

Pay for Contribution, on the other hand, can be backwards or forwards looking, however, it is based more on the premise that the employee has contributed value to the organization is some form or other - whether by growing critical relationships, developing valuable intellectual property, implementing key infrastructure, etc. Often, Pay for Contribution is intended to reward more "intangibles" - elements that add value to the organization, but are difficult to quantify or establish objectives for up front.

And herein lies the rub. Organizations tend to like Pay for Performance because it is based on pre-set goals with specific measures. The employee achieves the goal or doesn't achieve it, and is rewarded based on this fact. Employees like Pay for Performance because it is predictable (assuming goals and performance measures are very clearly laid out.) Pay for Contribution tends to be more fuzzy. Organizations often are not clear on the value of a "contribution" until some time after it has been made. The result is that the criteria in Pay for Contribution are often unclear to the employee, and the resulting reward unpredictable. And if there is one thing that has the potential to frustrate employees, and negatively impact morale, it is when the paycheck is not what is expected.

Whether an organization pays for Performance or for Contribution, it is critical that the organization define as clearly as possible for itself and employees what "performance" and / or "contribution" look like. Even if contribution is not as easily quantifiable or measurable as some performance goals, it is necessary to at least provide a picture, an example, an anecdote - so that employees have some information in order to better decide how to do their work. And the earlier in the pay cycle these expectations are made clear, the better. That way, everyone has a shared understanding of where everyone is going, what it takes to get there, and how rewards will be distributed.

Does your organization have a "Pay for Contribution" policy? How is contribution defined? How is it valued? What works well about it, what doesn't? Would love to hear others' thoughts and experiences on this topic.

Talent Management and the Environment

neil.jensen — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:44:58 GMT

I admit it, I'm a tree hugger. I love to be outside and hike and bike and enjoy all that nature has to offer. I like to take my family, get out of the city, and seek out the "green" spaces. Given this passion in my life, I've also gotten keenly aware of the global climate crisis that is creeping up upon us. I've started to research alternative energy sources such as solar and wind and now follow them as they mature and begin to make a dent in the foot hold that coal and oil have on this country.

A good friend of mine sent me an article from the Seattle Times talking about wind energy and the growing talent crisis the industry is starting to face. In his article, "Wind Energy Hasn't Blown in Enough Workers," David Twiddy describes the talent challenges occurring in wind energy.

"Wind-power officials see a much larger obstacle coming in the form of its own work force, a highly specialized group of technicians that combines working knowledge of mechanics, hydraulics, computers and meteorology with the willingness to climb 200 feet in the air in all kinds of weather. That work force isn't keeping up with the future demand, partly because the industry is so new that the oldest independent training programs are less than five years old. The American Wind Energy Association, a Washington, D.C.-based trade group, estimates the industry employs about 20,000 people, not including those making turbines or other equipment. Future need is harder to quantify, given the uncertainties of the industry's growth. But with two-man teams generally responsible for seven to 10 turbines, the industry would need up to 800 technicians to serve the turbines expected to be installed this year alone."

This article emphases the point that the talent crisis goes beyond the retirement of the "boomers" and also extends into new technologies and the workforce needed to make them flourish. Employers today must understand that the talent pipeline can and should extend far beyond the recruiting portal or job boards. No longer is it simply enough to sit back and wait for workers to come to you. Employers must start to reach out much earlier in the process and work with colleges, trade schools, and other training organizations to influence the talent pool coming into the industry. Partnering with these organizations can have a profound effect on the quality and volume of candidates to choose from.

Link to article: Wind Energy Hasn't Blown in Enough Workers

What Exactly Do You Mean By Process?

neil.jensen — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:10:34 GMT

We run into this question many times when working with Enterprise clients on TM strategies. When asking process related questions during discovery interviews, inevitably the answers come with varying levels of understanding, confidence, and clarity on the state of talent management processes utilized within the organization. To remedy this issue, Knowledge Infusion recommends a three step method to define and transform talent management processes in the organization.

Business Process Transformation is the first step and takes a high level look at your talent management processes and offers the opportunity to rethink, blend, and challenge the way you are doing things today. It is a systematic way of putting down on paper the high-level tasks that a process must accomplish and blending together steps to ensure they meet defined business outcomes. A cross-functional team is typically assembled to do this work to ensure that the traditional HR functional silo mentality of process ownership doesn't influence end-to-end transformation. This work inevitably feeds the software/vendor selection process.

Business Process Design is the next step in the chain. This is usually performed after the software has been selected and the organization has knowledge of what the software can actually do. During this step, processes are refined to a more granular level of detail adding in the enabling technology that will support and drive the process in the organization. Roles and responsibilities, workflow, and other factors are also defined during this step.

Business Process Calibration is the final step in the chain and is performed during the software implementation process. During this step, processes that were refined in the design phase are calibrated to the exact capability of the software. There is usually some element of give and take to ensure the software can accommodate the process. As a result of calibration activities, the transformed TM processes are clearly defined, enabled by technology, and ready for roll out to the organization.

It's Time For Talent Management To Grow Up!

andy.gebavi — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:20:40 GMT

How "Mature" Are Your Organization's Talent Management Processes?

Many organizations we engage with view Talent Management like it's some kind of exotic new discipline. The reality is that the functions usually associated with Talent Management (Recruitment, Performance Management, Learning and Development, Career Planning, Workforce Planning, Succession Management, Compensation) have been around for a long time. New technologies are allowing organizations to tie all these processes together and get true visibility into the business impacts of these functions.

We can usually tell how "grown up" our client's are by asking some key questions around the following areas for each of their Talent Management processes:

What are the business drivers of the process? We're often met with a blank stare here.
How frequently do you perform the process? Once per year or is it a constant, ongoing process?
How standardized is the process across your organization?
What kind of visibility does the process provide into key measures and organizational trends?
Who owns the process? HR or the business - or both?
What technologies support the process? Technology is an enabler of increased standardization, visibility, and process integration
How integrated is the process with other talent management processes?
What metrics do you use to measure the effectiveness and business impacts of your process? Often, another blank stare here.

Obviously, in depth analysis is required to determine how to improve your organization's processes. But by asking key questions you can learn quite a bit about where your organization is now, and where you want it to be in 1, 3, 5 or 10 years.

So what is your organization? Toddler? Kindergartener? Adolescent? Adult?

A Little Less Conversation, A Little More Action

neil.jensen — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:15:51 GMT

Over the last several weeks, I've been in a number of client meetings where the focus was Talent Management, and more specifically, what to do and how to move forward. As is a pitfall with many large initiatives, the group debating the topic grew almost paralyzed by the ever expanding scope and the almost limitless possibilities being discussed. The longer the conversation went on, the more the group felt powerless to slay the 8 ton dragon they had created. By the end, an intervention was necessary to get them back to reality and begin ACTING on the topic versus just talking about it.

Talent Management is a concept that, if taken in it's entirety, can be overwhelming. It's necessary to not "boil the ocean" when taking on TM. To be successful, you must break Talent Management into its component parts and begin to show steady progress against the initiative. When we at Knowledge Infusion work with enterprise clients to develop their Talent Management StrategyMap, we take the focus of building business capability over time. As part of this process, we develop action plans that break the overall initiative out over a three year period. We try to sequence the actions to begin building capability while also making the entire process manageable, affordable, and realistic. Year one often times is focused on building the foundation by which talent managment can grow. Year two is then focused on building and expanding capability. Finally, year three is focused on true transformation and driving better decision making through integrated processes and better, more robust data.

When you find yourself in the situation described above, don't boil the ocean. Remember that Talent Management can't be solved overnight and that it takes commitment and focus to get it done right.