Apparently HR Florida had Debbie Weil speak at their conference last week in Orlando. There are many ways blogs are affecting HR – from providing new informational resources (like this one) to lending an inside look at new employees. Here’s some coverage of the event over at SHRM.

A quote:

Weil told attendees about search engines that specifically scan blogs, including Technorati, Feedster Inc. and Icerocket.com. HR professionals can use these search engines to discover what their employees are writing about, or who is saying what about the company. And, HR can search out potential employees to get a better idea of who they are through their blogs.

 If anybody has any questions about what blogs are about – don’t hesitate to ask. I’m nice.

In a recent managers’ meeting where we discussed the process of delivering 360 results to the employee, I asked “why don’t we let the employees review their results before meeting with the manager?”  I got some pretty charged responses about the need for managers to be physically present to manage the employees’ response.  Our CEO, Lars, gave an example about the first 360 he ever received, which was very difficult for him, and we talked about the strong opinions of companies like Lominger on the topic.

So, why is it so important to not let the employee read their review in advance?  What does Lominger think?  Are they right?

Here’s a quote from a comment that was made on an earlier post:

Your company appears to care about things like "performance" and "alignment". These are terms I hear from the man who works on my car. How do people define performance? People, working people, not all the Phds, MBA, ODs, OEs, EIOs that might read this blog. What do REAL people think?

I think the author, BobbyZ, makes a great point here. Words like performance and alignment DO bring to mind the technical aspects of what we do. They focus on the systematic, high-level considerations with which the HR profession is concerned. But they move the conversation away from the foundation of what the whole thing is truly about: the people.

I want to say two things about this. First, the abstractions that we in the HR community use to talk about managing people are simply tools to help us focus on the organizational aspects of our jobs. How do we motivate people, make sure they are happy in their jobs, that they are compensated fairly, that they improve their skills and grow, and that they help the company accomplish its mission? With that said, it’s too often the case that these abstractions take the onus away from the human aspect of the job, where it really belongs.

Second, this is an issue that we at SuccessFactors and, presumably, others in our industry are constantly thinking about. Our solution is made for people. If it’s not clear, too impersonal, hard to use, innately de-motivational, or just simply a pain in the rear – it is worthless. If people are scared away becuase they believe that being reviewed or rated is a bad thing – we will have failed.

 
The application has to allow for the human aspects of working, the "softer," human side of things. This is something I am personally very interested in. I think our solution does a good job of this today and I know that, as a company, it’s something we are thinking about.

Who knows, maybe we need to move away from business terms like Workforce Performance Management and Human Capital Management. Maybe what we are really working on is "Human Nutureware" for the workplace?

Did you ever know a manager who waited until performance evaluation time to “sock it to” an employee? This is a pretty horrible tactic for a number of reasons – most obviously becuase the employee isn’t given the chance to adjust his or her behavior and then essentially punished for not doing so. It’s bad for the employee becuase they get broadsided and bad for the company becuase it has lost the opportunity to fix things along the way (if there was indeed anything to fix in the first place).

This topic is being discussed in depth over at Workforce Management’s online discussion boards. There are a number of resources mentioned – a very “rich” thread. Worth checking out.

A quote from MilesSW:

If you have a puppy who piddles in the corner, do you wait eight months for its performance appraisal to whack it with a newspaper? Well, you never whack it with a newspaper, but you most certainly don’t wait eight months. To modify human behavior, there needs to be immediate positive consequence for positive behavior and immediate negative consequence for negative behavior.

It’s people like this who give management a bad name. Keep the employee, dump the “manager”.

Performance reviews can be difficult. Its human nature to defend yourself. Admitting you have room to improve is, for some, like admitting you’ve done something wrong in the past. Obviously, there’s a lot to be gained from the review process if you’re willing to open yourself up to the feedback. Everyone at SuccessFactors recently participated in our 360 review process and so we’re thinking about this stuff, just like our customers are. From our own Mark Bissell (Director of Professional Services) comes a tip for a good book on the topic:

I just finished a book called Leadership and Self-Deception written by the Arbinger Institute. It was a fast/good read that you may want to read prior to conducting 360 feedback sessions or having your own. What it did for me is prompted me to rethink how I think about myself and whether those self-images are accurate or convenient frameworks which may preclude me from growth. The 100 minute investment in reading this book has already helped me in accepting feedback and thinking differently at home and at work and I feel it has me better prepared for delivering and recieving 360 feedback.

The book is written in a parable format so it flows quickly (similar to an Og Mandino book if you know him). In the wrap up he makes a few points that sounded like our own CEO’s message at the employee survey meeting:

1. Don’t try to be perfect. Do try to be better.

2. Don’t focus on what others are doing wrong. Do focus on what you can do right to help.

3. Don’t worry about whether others are helping you. Do worry whether you are helping others.

Thanks to Mark for the tip – and for letting me use it on the blog.

I had a conversation last week with Amy Clark (our Manager of Customer Success) whose job it is to ensure that our customers are getting the most out of SuccessFactors’ applications. She oversees the handling of both incoming support calls and proactive, outgoing efforts to make sure our customers are getting what they need. Amy’s team is involved with every customer we have, and so her brain is full of knowledge about what works and what doesn’t. I asked her what the top success factors for a workforce performance management implementation/roll-out are, and this is what she had to say:

1. Executive Sponsorship – WPM projects succeed most often when company leaders are 100% behind the effort. When participation in the performance management process is required and senior people lead by example, it works! When senior management is committed, it shows, and employees will follow.

2. Well-staffed project team – When people with the right skills and experience are in charge of the process, everything moves more smoothly. It is important to have team members with appropriate background and access to the resources they’ll need in the organization.

3. A solid change management plan and communication around the process – The project can only succeed if people understand what is expected of them, and if the plan is clear and straightforward. Implementations without clear goals, processes and modes of communication are likely to move more slowly and may result in a lower level of participation.

By the way – how cool is it that we even have a Manager of Customer Success? That’s just one example of how this whole company is truly customer-centric. It’s not just something we say, it’s something we live.

Following up on Stacey’s post, here is the link to our page at DEMOs website. You can actually view the six minute presentation given by our CEO, Lars Dalgaard. Worth watching.

Last week we launched our new Reporting and Analytics Dashboard at DEMOfall. We were selected over hundreds of competing technology companies by “trying out” for Chris Shipley, the guru of new and innovative technology. Chris seemed to like our stuff and we were in.

It was fascinating to be at the show. It was in an idyllic environment at the Huntington Beach Hyatt and we went down Sunday morning for dress rehearsals. CEO’s and their marketing clans were everywhere practicing and rehearsing over and over and over. Lars in true Lars form showed up a few minutes before our timeslot and pretty much nailed it on his first try. Then he and his two blackberrys were off to execute on 500 other tasks. Of course I was wishing he would stay and rehearse just a bit more, but the 3% incremental improvement wasn’t worth sacrificing all the other things he would undoubtedly execute on that day (yes Sunday). This is what makes Lars great and why our company is so effective and productive.

(Continued After the Jump…)
(more…)

If you were curious about how we reach out to our community to spread the word of workforce performance management, here’s a little article (about halfway down the page) from the Human Resource Association of Central Indiana’s Newsletter. Rob Bernshteyn (Director of Product Marketing) and Kim Nugent from Mercer Human Resource Consulting talked about best practices in our space.

Takeaways:
1. Talent management is a business priority
2. Clear performance success profile
3. CEO and senior leaders who care
4. (Real) accountability
5. Common language and integrated process
6. Focus on differentiation
7. Keep grounded in business strategy

In a truly facinating post at Fast Company, Heath Row discusses an academic study that attempts to understand the optimal ratio of positive feedback to negative feedback. Apparently a positive/negative ratio of between 2.9 and 11.6 (2.9 – 11.6 positive for every one instance of negative feedback) is an optimal ratio for “human flourishing.”

One of the authors, Marcial Losada, commented on the post with the following: “High performance teams and marriages that last and are happy with their relationship will have a P/N ratio around 5. Low performance teams and marriages ending in divorce typically have a ratio between 0.4 and 0.9; i.e., more negativity than positivity. If your P/N ratio is above 11.6 you don’t have enough grounding and your excess of optimism will soon be deflated by a world that requires a healthy dosis of negative feedback.”

Amazing how too little or too much positive feedback can have a huge effect on performance, or identify a relationship (work or personal) that’s in trouble. It would be interesting to see how this could relate to performance reviews. Perhaps it’s a guideline by which we should judge our own evaluations?