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.

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?

Does an organization with a compelling Leadership Brand have a competitive advantage over those that do not?  What is more important, having good leaders or having leadership within an organization?  In a recent book that I read, Leadership Brand, by Dave Ulrich and Norm Smallwood, and important distinction between having good leaders and leadership brand really hit home for me.  "Good leaders, Dave Ulrich and Norm Smallwood emphasize, come and go, but a company's leadership must deliver results over the long haul to keep customers and investors satisfied."  They have complied a great deal of compelling research and hard data to show that it's the leadership brand, not just the leaders, that sets an organization apart from its competitors. 

Often times the role of a Talent Management leader is asked to build programs around leadership devleopment and succession planning with the intent of having talented leaders ready to take on the next leadership role.  Ask yourself, What is our leadership brand?  Focus your efforts on building the brand not just the people to fill the role.

This is a great read.  I encourage you to add this book to your monthly "must read" list.

http://www.rbl.net/focus-areas/leadership-brand