Max’s Note: As part of our quest to post more and more often, I’m proud to present this guest post by Sammi Nuttall.

According to a new survey completed by Korn/Ferry International, nearly 73% of executive level employees believed that they could outperform their manager. Surprisingly, 42% of those surveyed also believed that their boss was doing an “excellent” or “above average” job.

That’s an interesting contradiction.

One interpretation is that employees, even at the top levels, are not leveraging all they have to offer their employers – and as a result are feeling somewhat less than challenged. This puts the onus on managers and strategic HR groups to understand who their high potentials are and to discover and cultivate their strengths. It’s only by developing employees that their full potential can be released, and if you can do that – the sky’s the limit.

Dion Hinchcliffe, a well-known blogger and thought leader in the Enterprise 2.0 space wrote a post recently in which he talked about the next generation of business software – social, interactive tools easily delivered over the Web – and how they can make a dramatic impact on the hierarchy and culture of businesses. These new tools, Hinchcliffe said, can tear down traditional knowledge barriers and walls within an organization by making information fluid, collaborative and accessible to everyone who wants it, leaving the power of that knowledge in the hands of everyday workers and not just managers and executives. That’s pretty powerful, and the catalyst for this dramatic transfer of power and virtual flattening of an organization, he said, lies in these simple, lightweight next-generation tools:

“Because they are highly democratic and egalitarian; anyone can deploy (Enterprise 2.0) tools, anyone can quickly learn to use and benefit from them, and they can be used to communicate and collaborate openly with anyone else inside (and often outside) the organization, are inherently viral, they literally tear down the barriers that would normally impede their forward movement and adoption inside the organization. And, anecdotally at least, this seems to be happening.”

This is a great piece of insight. In the past, there was always a barrier between every day workers and the information they worked with. To use a practical, HR-related example, take first-generation performance management tools – they were useful, but in order to get real value out of them in the form of analytics, they had to be sorted out either by hand by HR managers or run through a database by IT folks. Useful, but not efficient or at all egalitarian. Enterprise 2.0 gets rid of that gatekeeper.

As a general philosophy, SuccessFactors has always advocated transparency and the free flow of information – both are core doctrines written into our software and promoted as part of our own workplace culture. With SuccessFactors NEXT Labs, we’re trying to help promote that openness on both the technology and cultural fronts. NEXT Labs is a Trojan horse of sorts, designed to introduce Web 2.0 technologies and concepts – blogging and tagging capabilities, social networking and sharing – that render the adoption and repeated usage of an enterprise application painless for people accustomed to using such tools in their personal lives.  

Rather innately, Performance & Talent Management systems are the ultimate in-house Enterprise 2.0 tools: They help employees easily see their performance by harnessing the power of collaboration, communication and visibility, giving them the knowledge they need to make what they want out of their careers. In a way, NEXT Labs is our ”spoonful of sugar.” It  helps companies and employees eaily swallow what is all too often a bitter dose of medicince – the adoption of a new enterprise-wide software system.

Max’s note: We’re proud to present this guest post by SuccessFactors’ Director of Customer Results, Erik Berggren.  It is in response to a previous entry posted here by Dr. Jac Fitz-enz.

————————-

The idea of seeing the future is always appealing, but as Dr. Jac suggests (and as we know from our horoscopes), not all that easy. Even so, I’d argue it’s worth the effort when it comes to people. Not attempting to understand your complete talent picture – so that you can stay ahead of the curve – is, in my opinion, downright stupid. Seeing and understanding but not acting is equally bad.

In our work, we see forward looking companies starting to take the idea of predictive HCM seriously. But most organizations are waiting. Waiting for the economy to turn, or waiting to realize they are no longer attracting and retaining critical talent. Waiting to find out they can’t protect their margins or even stay competitive because they don’t have the right people in place. They haven’t yet figured out that calamity is just around the corner and are waiting to do anything meaningful about their talent situation.

Maybe it’s that they are too comfortable, or too oblivious, but a recent McKinsey Quarterly article exposes this widespread lack of strategic planning around talent:

“Executives’ concerns about executing and aligning strategy are likely exacerbated by a perceived lack of integration between the company’s strategic-planning group and its human-resources group. When asked to consider strategic planning’s integration with several major corporate functions, respondents rank HR as second-to-last in terms of degree of integration. Respondents who are dissatisfied with their company’s strategic planning see the least integration. Of these, only 14 percent say planning is completely or mostly integrated with HR, and 59 percent say the two groups are integrated slightly or not at all.”

Simple supply and demand planning with some scenario analysis is commonly made in all other areas but HCM. To me, that’s a bit silly if only for the simple reason that people are your biggest asset (or biggest expense – depending on how your look at it). It’s truly time for that to change, and I welcome Dr. Jac’s initiative and look forward to continue working with him this year.

————————-

Erik Berggren is SuccessFactors Director of Customer Results. He has worked on strategic consulting service engagements with more than 30 different companies across Europe and the US. He has held positions with Ernst & Young in Stockholm and New York and most recently worked with Capgemini in the Nordics.

Max’s note: We’re proud to present this guest post by Dr. Jac Fitz-enz. Known as the father of Human Capital Management, Dr. Jac is the CEO of The Workforce Intelligence Institute.

————

Every so often the next great idea comes along and the herd goes after it like piranhas after a side of beef. Look at this list from the past 50 years:

• 2000: Intellectual Capital – Knowledge Management – dot.com
  Balanced Scorecards – 7 Habits – Delayering – Rightsizing
• 1990: TQM – Reengineering – Customer Service – Benchmarking – EVA – Downsizing – Empowerment – Continuous Improvement – Kaizen
• 1980: Corporate Culture – Change Management – Work Simplification
  MBWA – Relationship Marketing – Intrapreneuring – Diversification
• 1970: One Minute Managing – Decision Tree – Quality Circles – Excellence
  Hierarchy of Needs – Value Chain – Myers-Briggs – Kepner-Tregoe
• 1960: Managerial Grid – Hygienes and Motivators – Organization Renewal
  Theory Z – Plan/Organize/Direct/Control – Human Relations – Matrix
• 1950: Management by Objectives – Management Science – Decision Tree –Theory X & Y

What’s the lesson? Fundamentals still apply. Dot.com blew up over that. The world is changing but companies are still filled with human beings; smart ones, crazy ones and everyone in between. Bottom Line is they still need a few basics to be successful:
1. A sound plan (with a vision behind it)
2. Good decision making data (set in a flexible structure)
3. Goals and metrics to measure progress (a reward accomplishment)
4. A view of the future (what’s over the horizon?)

We have 1 through 3, but we don’t have good predictors. Accounting tells us the past. But change never comes from within the establishment. Personal computers didn’t originate with IBM or DEC. Mini steel mills didn’t come from US or Bethlehem Steel. The leaders see the future better than the followers. We need predictive tools to help us drive the future.

Prediction is the name of today’s game. We have to manage tomorrow today. Am I crazy or not?

———

Dr. Jac , as he is known worldwide, is acknowledged as the father of human capital strategic analysis and measurement. During the 1970s he carried out original research which led to the first human resources metrics in 1978 and to benchmarks in 1985. As founder of the Saratoga Institute in 1980, he developed the first international HR benchmarking service, eventually covering 2,000 companies in a dozen countries. Recently, he was cited as one of the fifty persons who have “significantly changed what HR does and how it does it” in the past fifty years. For more information about Dr. Jac and the Workforce Intelligence Institute please visit humancapitalsource.com.

The Atlantic Monthly has been running excerpts from old issues as part of their 150th anniversary celebration. Reading over an issue this weekend, I came across an article written by a Colonel R. Williams about a decade after the civil war ended – in 1878. His issue? That the military’s practice of promoting those with the longest tenure was “fostering apathy” rather than bravery or a commitment to excellence.”

Amazing that the same battles we fight today for meritocracies were equally well articulated 150 years ago.

Here’s an excerpt:

Our army presents the only known example of a business or profession, either public or private, in which incompetency and want of zeal bring the same substantial rewards as energy, capacity, and active attention to duty. Such a system of promotion is in violation of all the rules of common sense by which men are governed, as well as of those by which they are incited to strive for superior excellence, and the condition of our army at the outbreak of the rebellion affords an excellent example of its inevitable result. At that time the superior grades of the army were filled by old men, who, having outlived all above them, had been regularly promoted, in accordance with this system, to the positions which they occupied, regardless of the well-known fact that in the majority of instances they were unfitted, both by age and infirmity, to perform any military duty whatever. The spectacle was so pitiable, and the lesson it taught so apparent, that it might be supposed the government would have profited by such crushing experience, and been led by it to the adoption of wiser measures. Such, however, was not the case. Our system of army promotion is the same to-day as before the rebellion, and we are slowly, but surely, approaching the same result, from which the same experience, disastrous as it was to the country, must necessarily follow. At the close of the rebellion, and with the sad experience it had taught still before us, some effort at a change was made. The army was reorganized, and many young officers who had acquired experience, both of the regular and volunteer force, and who had especially distinguished themselves, were deservedly placed in high positions; but this spasmodic effort at reform was deemed sufficient, and we have again fallen back into the system of promotion by seniority, which, unless some dire necessity forces a change, must render the condition of our army equally as deplorable as when the rebellion commenced, by filling its superior grades by worn-out and superannuated old men. It seems needless to describe the effect which this system must produce upon the subordinate and junior officers of the army. In most instances it is deadening to all effort at improvement or professional skill, and suggests the natural conclusion: that, as superior rank is obtained only by longevity, each should strive to avoid all exposure, hardships, or dangers by which health may be impaired or life risked.

With all this talk of the war for talent, it often goes overlooked that an organization’s best place to look for employees is among the employees it already has. In other words, if you can make sure to hang on to the ones you’re already got, you’re a step ahead.

How to do that is of course the age old question. Is it pay? Is it meaning? What is it employees need to have in order to stick around? According to a WSJ article today, it’s coaching.

From the article:

A key differential between a staffer who feels like a valuable part of a company and one who is disengaged is the quality of leadership in their workplace. Most engaged employees work for managers who spend a big chunk of their time helping their subordinates succeed. Managers who focus on talent assign their employees to jobs that play to their strengths, make sure they have the resources they need to perform well, respect their opinions and push them to advance.

To source, screen and hire a new employee is an expensive proposition. Getting managers to spend more time managing and thinking about the people they already have may not cost a dime, but can make all the impact in the world.

A humble post at Execupundit entitled “Note from boss to employees.” 

An excerpt:

1. I am sometimes under enormous pressure from upper management; pressure that you seldom see. Anything that you can do to make my job easier will be greatly appreciated.
2. Your interests are important, but please remember that I also have to juggle the concerns and feelings of a bunch of other people, including individuals outside of the department.
3. I may not have been given a huge amount of training before being named to a supervisory position. As a result, I’ve had to learn through trial and error. That’s not always bad. Many of my responsibilities can only be learned through practice.

It’s often difficult for front line employees to put themselves in the boss’s shoes. Perhaps a bit of humility along these lines could go a long way.

There’s been so much conversation recently stemming from Bob Sutton’s book – The No Asshole Rule – that I thought I’d try to gain a better understanding of just how big an issue jerks are at work. Hence, our new poll on the right: Are jerks a big problem at your workplace?

Click an answer to register your vote, and see the poll results. And, if you want to find out if you’re a jerk, click on over to the ARSE test and find out.

A ways back, I had some thoughts on the wearing of ties in the workplace. Apparently so did you.  After more than 250 votes in our sidebar poll, it has become clear that a fair percentage of readers (~61%) feel the tie still “definitely” or “probably” has a place in today’s work environment. This is very much to my dismay, but I’m willing to accept being in the minority (so long as I don’t have to wear one.)

A new poll coming soon….

Need a good argument for why thinking about employee retention is worthwhile? Via Auren Hoffman’s blog comes a slightly different take on it than you’re probably used to. The story goes something like this:

1. Man wants to work for company X
2. Man ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNS to work for company  X (including setting up a website/blog specifically for the purpose)
3. Blog becomes big hit at company X
4. Man gets hired at company X on “its most important project”
5. Project is killed off
6. Man is fired
7. Man goes on 3 month vacation with severance package
8. Man comes back from vacation
9. Man is hired back at company X on a different project

My view on the lessons to be learned from this:

1. It’s worth knowing who your best and most talented employees are (performance evaluations)
2. It’s worth doing what you can to retain these highly motivated people (pay for performance / feedback, etc)
3. It’s worth knowing what competencies are needed at your company and which employees have them (competency evaluations) – so you don’t get rid of people who are needed and
4. It generally (there are exceptions) makes no sense time-wise, cost-wise or productivity-wise to fire someone you think enough of to hire back at a later date.

Any other thoughts?