Consultant's Corner

The Home Knows - Leveraging Female Talent

srumsey — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 04:26:34 GMT

The August 28th blog by our friend Kris Dunn at HR Capitalist discusses the question of whether Americans or Europeans work harder. Kris points to an article in Fortune in which Geoff Colvin argues that the debate about which country works harder is a fallacious argument, because Europeans and Americans define work differently. Specifically, Americans define work as only those activities for which one gets paid. Europeans would include in that definition work for which one (mostly women, I might add) don't get paid: running the household, primary child rearing duties, primary elder care duties, etc. I've been pondering this for a couple of weeks now, and I just came across another study that had me REALLY thinking about women, work, and leadership.

A recent study released by McKinsey (again) identifies women as a potential solution for the current and looking talent shortage, and advises that hiring women at all levels of the organization makes good business sense. In the study, McKinsey found that companies with 3 or more women in top management were more effective that companies with 1 or fewer women in top management (see table below), as rated by survey results along 9 dimensions of effectiveness: capability, leadership, external orientation, accountability, motivation, coordination and control, innovation, direction, and work environment and values.

This is just a hunch, but these same nine dimensions of organizational effectiveness strike me the same dimensions that enable an effecitvely run home. If we think about the things that women provide their families - spouses, children, etc., I would say the list is the same: capability (changing a diaper while talking on the phone and feeding the dog - takes 8 arms!), leadership (ever try to get a bunch of kinds under 5 to sit still for dinner?), external orientation (I learned more from my mother about money, people, and negotiation from trips to the grocery store), accountability (seriously a bummer not to get allowance if I didn't make my bed), motivation (definitely would vacuum if I got a new whiffle ball), coordination and control (3 kids - horses, hockey, gymnastics - all at the same time), innovation (how to stretch 2 toaster waffles for 5 kids), direction (masterful), and work environment and values (chores, team work, family dinners).

So, why don't organizations hire more women in top leadership positions, if studies show that the organizations can be more effective and more profitable? Thoughts on this subject are most welcome!

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?

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

Wailing or Engaging?

srumsey — Sat, 10 May 2008 05:02:20 GMT

How does your organization keep employees engaged during tough times? There's good evidence that organizations that can keep their employees engaged when the economy takes a dive are those that are most successful in the long run.

Keeping employees engaged is not the same as keeping them satisfied. Engagement drives performance - employees understand where the organization is going and how it is going to get there. They know how they fit into the organization's big picture, and what is expected of them. Unnecessary barriers that inhibit working effectively are removed. Employees are held accountable for their work, and experience the adulation of work well done, as well as the consequences when performance does not meet expectations. Feedback is timely and meaningful. Rewards are comensurate with performance and value contribution. These are the ways to engage employees. Enhanced employee engagement is a critical busienss outcome that drives organizational performance. At Knowledge Infusion, we work with organizations every day on better enabling these outcomes through people, process and technology.

What likely does not work at all, and may indeed backfire? Distributing motivational "stuff": posters, mugs, lunch bags, and other chatzkes. Have you heard of Despair, Inc.? Or "The Wailing List"? I bet your employees have. This is an organization that has made a statement parodying the motivational "stuff" industry. As you can imagine, their website becomes pretty popular in tough economic times. If you see Despair, Inc. "Demotivators" popping up around the office, that may be an indication that all is not well on the engagement front.

The good news about the drivers of employee engagement? Most of those things are behavioral - how leaders and managers do their jobs. And behavior changes don't cost a lot of dollars. Behavior changes do require concerted focus and effort, though. So here's my question: can organizations afford the costs of engagement during rough times? Or maybe the better question is: can organizations afford the costs of non-engagement? Would love to hear your thoughts...

Click Here to Apply

neil.jensen — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:11:37 GMT

I spent the last several days working with a client to select a Talent Acquisition solution that will enable and fuel their pipeline of external talent. The two days of evaluation covering multiple vendors was a tough slog filled with equal amounts of delight and disappointment. As in any vendor evaluation, the client was able to get a first hand look at each vendor's ability to fulfill their business outcomes and determine what gaps may exist between stated requirements and product capability.

At the end of the two days, the team of evaluators launched into a spontaneous review of career websites across multiple industries. Taking advantage of the projection system, we looked on screen and walked though the candidate experience as they made their way through the career website, reviewed job openings and finally applied online. Needless to say, the exercise was eye opening.

Short of a few bright spots, the sites that were viewed offered an overall candidate experience that was down right awful. You could tell that little attention was paid to the candidate during the implementation. Instead of being top of mind and the primary driver, the candidate experience was an afterthought that resulted in confusing steps, circular navigation, and no compelling reason to continue with the process.

Given the talent crisis that has been much publicized, corporations must take the necessary steps to ensure the process to apply for a job online is simple and easy. As the war for talent heats up, candidates will have little patience with sites that are confusing and don't follow an intuitive path. They'll also make decisions about that prospective employer simply based on the experience they have on the careers site. Those companies that pay close attention to the candidate experience and make it simple and easy to apply online will produce a significant advantage in attracting and hiring top quality talent.

Pay Stub Generates Employee Relations Issue?

neil.jensen — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:38:28 GMT

Jennifer was excited to be working in her new job. She had always wanted to work for such a great company and she had finally gotten hired into a role that would jump start her career. Sure this was an entry level job, but she hoped it would be the foot-in-the-door she needed for a long and prosperous career.

It had been two weeks since her first day and all experiences had been positive. She enjoyed working for her manager and all of her new colleagues couldn't be nicer. To cap off her first two weeks, Jennifer looked forward to receiving her first paycheck. Jennifer checked her email to find the pay notice for her first check. She opened the message to find a PDF of her pay stub and she excitedly opened it. As she scanned the information, Jennifer was horrified to see her official company title listed as "ADMIN_ASS." In a stunned state of shock and disbelief, Jennifer picked up the phone and contacted the Employee Relations department to get to the bottom of this.

While the above story seems a bit far fetched, it's actually a true story. The names have been changed to protect the innocent, but this really did happen. As it turns out, during the implementation of the core HR and Payroll system, a few shortcuts were made. One of these shortcuts resulted in a very bad experience for a new employee exited to be onboard and part of the team. In this case, a careless effort soured the opinion of a new employee and greatly diminished her opinion of the company she had always wanted to work for.

The employee experience is critical in today's employment market where finding and engaging great talent is growing increasingly tougher. Examples like this show that EVERYONE involved in the service delivery of HR must take great care to ensure they provide a first rate experience.

Making Organizations Habitable By Human Life

andy.gebavi — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:10:42 GMT

Is Your Organization Habitable By Humans?

The immense popularity of the comic strip "Dilbert," "The Office" television series, and movies like "Office Space" reflect an undercurrent of cynicism that is present in many of the organizations we all work in. Creating a workplace that is "habitable by humans" - so to speak - is one aspect of HCM and even Talent Management that is seldom addressed. Within much of the work we here at Knowledge Infusion do, the HCM and Talent Management disciplines are most often seen through the lense of how talent can best be used to meet organizational goals. But if your organization is barely habitable by humans, how will you attract and retain high quality talent to help you achieve your business goals?

To help us undersand how to make our organizations "habitable by humans" we need look no further than Psychology 101. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs serves as an excellent template to measure whether our organizations are habitable by humans. It can serve as a Human Habitability Model for organizations. We can determine just how "habitable by humans" organizations are by taking a pop psychology approach to Maslow's groundbreaking work:

Making Your Organization Habitable By Humans: Maslow Revisited

1. Physiological needs: Food, Shelter, Comfort

These are the most basic human needs. In most modern organizations these needs translate into compensation.

Are you paying your employees a living wage?
Are you paying market based compensation rates?
Is your total rewards package competitive?
Is compensation fairly distributed?

2. Safety Needs: Security, Order

Are expectations and goals clearly defined for your workforce?
Are reasonable boundaries respected and honored?
Is your workplace a meritocracy, where individual or group achievement is recognized or rewarded?

3. Need to Belong

Does your organization have structures or systems in place that allow people to interact, exchange ideas, collaborate?
If you are a virtual organization, do you have a virtual "water cooler" so people can share the daily chit-chat and other interaction required by humans?
Do you have a culture or talent management brand that binds your workforce to an overarching concept of what the values of your organization are? Does this "brand" permeate all corners of your organization?

4. Esteem Needs

Do you allow physical or virtual space within your organization where people can express their "individual brand" and share with others in the organization?
Do you have processes in place to identify people's strengths and allow them to thrive within those areas rather than developing areas of weakness?
Is respect for individual viewpoints implicit in your culture?

5. Self Actualization

Is self-direction and career exploration encouraged within your talent management brand?
Are individual differences and authenticity celebrated and encouraged in your culture?
Is your organization structure flexible enough to allow individuals to set their own paths?
Do you facilitate opportunities for people to engage in charitable activities?

Our experience at Knowledge Infusion has been that most organizations spend the majority of their effort shoring up level one - which is the most basic of human needs. The downside of focusing so much attention on compensation is you'll attract and retain only the most cynical employees.

While Talent Management technology is not the magic ingredient in making organizations more habitable, it's interesting to note how many of the more advanced levels can be enabled by these technologies. Technology can help organizations set, align and track goals; create collaborative spaces; reward employees based on merit; assess employees and guide them in career exploration; and help create and market an internal and external "talent brand."

Does Talent Management Make Me Want to Work for You?

mike.brennan — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:33:57 GMT

Career management is to the individual as talent management is to the organization. Are you applying this logic to your talent management technology strategy? Are the needs of the employees and managers top-of-mind for the HR subcommittee at your organization in charge of turning the market buzz around integrated talent management into reality? If not, then I urge you to take a read.

Despite the threat of an economic slowdown, the demand for people with exceptional abilities and transferable skills will exceed the supply for years to come, particularly in today's dynamic and increasingly global business environment. The same macroeconomic trends driving the talent shortage are also producing unprecedented career opportunities. Think about it. The retirement of Baby Boomers means job openings. The globalization driving many organizations' top line growth means promotions and lateral assignments overseas for high potentials.

If your employees cannot find or do not feel they are being prepared by the organization to take on such roles, they will likely look elsewhere. A survey conducted by NYU's School of Continuing and Professional Studies in 2006 showed that New York professionals - while not a global sample, certainly a representative microcosm - expected, on average, to change careers - not jobs - three times in their lifetimes, and only 28 percent expected lifelong careers. Therefore, it is incumbent upon HR professionals and their business partners to create and manage career paths that help employees match their expertise and interests with the needs of the organization. However, the vast majority of these career paths will not resemble the linear tracks of our parents' generation. Gone are the days of checking in climbing a vertical ladder for 30 years to get that gold watch.

There are several reasons for this. For one, organizations have flattened over the past few decades, pushing responsibilities outward rather than simply up the management hierarchy. In addition, today's multi-generational workforce knows they cannot count on defined pensions when they retire. Couple this with longer life spans and work lives, and you have a employees who are more independent-minded than every. In addition, they have at their fingertips technologies that enable self-directed career exploration.

These dynamics should be a consideration to any HR professional or hopefully, team of professionals seeking to integrate their goals, systems, and processes developing a talent management technology strategy. Consider the end user employee who is less interested in automating what (s)he considers to be off-putting processes (e.g., performance reviews) and more about working in an environment that provides the tools that facilitate career management.

Given that more and more organizations these days are looking to help mobilize their key talent internally rather than let their most valuable assets walk out the door, it is incumbent upon employers to provide employees with user-friendly access to information and tools that enable them make well informed decisions to manage their careers. But what does the term, 'career management' actually mean? And what goals for helping the individual employee manage his or her career should an organization investing in new talent management systems (i.e., processes and technologies) have?

Let's start with a context and a working definition of what career management is before answering these questions. Career management within an organization is built on the premise that job security and advancement are based on experience, goal achievement and competencies (i.e., skills, knowledge and behaviors) rather than simply length of service. It entails an individual consciously taking stock of their strengths, interests, life events and development opportunities and applying them to possible future job roles inside the organization.

So what should a 'career management environment' have in order to make the experience a rich one for the employee?

First, it should have a single access point, for instance, some prominent real estate on an employee subportal with a career management brand. There should be a simple front page with instructions on how one can leverage the site to develop themselves. This front page should also provide access to possible career paths within the organization if there are any common ones - or even not-so-common ones with which some employees have found success. Employees should have the ability to search jobs in which they're interested as well.

Employees should also have access to their talent management applications from this page - performance management, learning management, etc. - from the place where they manage their careers as well. For instance, each of the jobs plotted along a career path or found in a search should have access to the following, all of which can be enabled through talent management systems:

Access to a clearly defined job description - the level within the organization in which it resides, functional responsibilities, competencies needed, etc.
Sample profiles of people actually in the job, perhaps with contact info for these people or HR representatives who can speak to the position further to see if it aligns with an employee's interests and skill sets.
Job level (to indicate lateral and upward moves as well as pay scale).
Links to competency assessments where someone interested can better evaluate their fit.
Access to training and development opportunities associated with preparing someone for that job role.
Links to apply for openings with this position description.

Career management is to the individual as talent management is to the organization. Are you applying this logic to your talent management strategy?

Don't Try to Stifle It! Feature It!

srumsey — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:47:50 GMT

At Knowledge Infusion, we work with clients who are struggling to answer a wide variety of talent management questions, including those to do with social networking and information sharing within organizations. Many business and HR leaders are aware of the Web 2.0 applications available to the general public, e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, etc. Many in HR are caught off-guard, however, when similar applications turn up within companies. Often these efforts sprout from different parts of the business:

A project leader in an engineering division wants information about employees beyond job title, and can’t get it from the HRMS system.
An employee tries to understand what it really takes to do a particular job or what it is like to work for a certain manager.
A marketing division VP wants information about potential customers from employees who have personal connections at customer organizations.

Often, there is a tendency within staff divisions – HR, Legal, Internal Communications, even IT – to look askance at such activities using collaboration tools that are not formally “sanctioned” by the organization. The response often is, “We have to stop this effort”, or “Get it routed into the formal project and budget approval pipeline”, or “We need to make sure that this information sharing and collaboration conforms to our policies and procedures.” In other words, “we need to fix it so we can control it.”

I don’t want to minimize the need for organizations to assess legal implications of using technologies for any internal processes, especially ones that promote the potential sharing of personal or confidential information within the organization. At the same time, it is worth understanding the sources of energy behind these “maverick” efforts and leveraging that energy for the benefit of the organization. Today’s younger workforce – millennials and Gen X’ers to an extent - is used to social networking and collaborating through technology. If organizations can feature these efforts that are currently underway, even highlight the organic nature of them, it might go a long way toward employees and potential employees thinking about the organization as a good, collaborative place to work.

So what do HR, Legal, and Internal Communications give up by doing this? To some degree, control over information about employees and about the organization. The gains – a potentially more engaged workforce, information flowing more freely across intra-organizational boundaries, and more collaboration and acting for the greater good – may be worth that kind of sacrifice.

You outsourced my termination?!?

neil.jensen — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:06:59 GMT

I've always been a firm believer that just about anything can be outsourced. If there's a function that you can't or don't do well, there always seems to be someone out there that can do it for you for a small fee.

Inc.com recently reporting on a new spin in the outsourcing market - the notion of the outsourced termination. While outsourcing some functions may make good business sense, the concept of outsourcing terminations takes the game to a whole new level. With the talent shortage that is quickly becoming more and more of a reality, the image you present as a company to future and even past employees has never been more important. As talent becomes scarce, you may just find yourself in a situation where you are recycling the same people you let go just a few months prior. By outsourcing terminations and leaving talent with a negative impression, the job of future talent acquisition only becomes harder.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20071101/meet-rebecca-shes-here-to-fire-you.html

Roads and Bridges and Buildings! Oh, my!

neil.jensen — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:04:38 GMT

An article in USA Today caught my eye last week as I was enjoying my morning coffee at the HR Technology Conference in Chicago. In the article, authors Margaret McGurk and Lori Kurtzman describe the active war for talent that is emerging in the civil engineering field. As a result of population expansion and the aging infrastructure of our nation's roads, bridges, buildings, etc., civil engineering firms are finding it increasingly harder to recruit qualified candidates. Couple this with a current workforce that will see high percentages of retiring workers in the next 5 to 7 years, and the problem only compounds itself.

To combat this problem, civil engineering firms are utilizing creative and innovative means to attract candidates, even going as far as beginning the recruiting process "by pouring time and money into selling the profession to schoolchildren, beginning in kindergarten." Firms are also offering college scholarships to students as a means to ensure a pipeline of talent when they graduate and enter the workforce.

This article only emphasizes how the current focus of recruiting efforts in many fields must change quickly in order to compete in a market short on supply and heavy on demand. Traditional recruiting methods won't cut it as companies face increased pressure as talent pools shrink. Survival in the war for talent will depend on building a talent pipeline using creative methods to reach, engage, and connect with candidates early in the game. Companies that fail to set themselves apart will come up short when it comes to fulfilling the critical talent needs of the organization.