Why is that? Per definition that would imply that the person on the bench has more potential and capacity than what is currently being used right now. Well how many star players are happy sitting on the bench waiting for their turn to play? Building it only works if done right and that is to look deeply and widely at your workforce potential and employee preferences, and then act on that information. Act means putting people to use and managing to their potential. The worst thing you can do is to ignore untapped potential, thus de-motivating and potentially losing your strongest people. Such a loss will be seen on the profit and loss statement, in addition to being a human loss for individuals. Studying the financials of our customers we see that those customers that are using our Succession Management module operate with 7.9%pt (absolute) higher net profit margin than those that don’t…

In his upcoming book, Talent on Demand, our research partner Peter Cappelli discusses the need for looking at talent as an input parameter for production, and uniquely applies the same model that is used for the supply chain. You don’t want to build costly excess inventory anywhere in the physical supply chain but, is it acceptable on the most costly asset – people?

Peter will join us at our upcoming customer conference in June to discuss this approach of managing talent along with other SF Research thought leader partners as well as our customers.

Sometime during the movement from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy I think we have collectively mixed this concept up, and so it merits the question today. Work used to be about what you could produce. When we moved into offices and cubicles, and started shuffling information back and forth that concept was lost. We started to refer to work as somewhere you go, and this changed how work was measured; workers were paid and rewarded for time and not always results.

Work is what you do – not just a place where you go. In a recent article published in the Harvard Business review, Tamara J. Erickson discusses this very issue in terms of what Gen Y’ers expect from work. In essence the task and not time is what matters to them.

I hope that this concept is not only for Gen Y but for everyone in the workforce, irrespective of age. According to recent research from our thought leader partners Jim Ware and Charlie Grantham at the Future of Work, people today divide their working time almost equally between the office, home or somewhere in between. I am, for instance, writing this blog on a plane to Europe to speak at a strategic talent management conference in Stockholm – well I guess that is work though I’m not technically in the office.

This is of course pretty straightforward as a concept but nonetheless difficult to change in some organizations. The solution, may I suggest, comes from a managerial change in attitude and behavior. If we get away from the face time and office hour concept and instead focus on the expected results and goals that need to be achieved, productivity will improve. People naturally want to do great work and be rewarded for the results. It also allows people to focus on managing their energy, in addition to managing their time. Maybe you are more productive, alert and energized at 8pm after a long run on the treadmill at the gym than you are at 10am in the morning. Why not get some work done then? If your employer measures your contribution, not your time on the clock, go for it! It maximizes your productivity, benefiting you and your employer.

Maybe we could learn from the US Marine Corps and their usage of mission based orders. An order is given with the goal that needs to be accomplished, along with an explanation as to why that goal is important. It is then up to the officer in charge and closest to the action to deal with how to get it done and to do it. That is goal orientation instead of time orientation. So focus on output and results instead of time. Semper Fi!