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.

A guest post by Josh Bersin – CEO, Bersin & Associates

Competencies are one of the most difficult and under-utilized part of performance management.  Bersin & Associates research shows that only 36% of organizations with performance management process rate their use of competencies “excellent” or “good.”

But we also found that effective use of competencies can have a huge impact:  organizations that rate themselves world-class in the use of competencies for performance management are 4-times as likely to have a strong performance-driven culture.

Why?  Because the process of identifying and implementing critical competencies in itself drives a clear understanding of what performance means, how to obtain it, and how to communicate it.

As you can read in our recently published research, thoughtful and strategic use of competencies can have a significant impact on financial performance.  A few of the highlights from our research with SuccessFactors on how the use of competencies affects financial performance:

* Competencies should be customized for your business and should focus on management and leadership-level skills, not just job requirements

* There are two types of job-level competencies:  “hygiene” competencies which establish the basic requirements for a job (ie. customer service), and “performance” driven competencies, which, if executed, will not only help an individual perform their job but will help them grow and excel.

These “performance” or “critical” competencies vary from company to company and industry to industry.  

Read more from our research with SuccessFactors.

A guest post by Erik Berggren – Director of Customer Results, SuccessFactors.

You probably don’t need me to tell you that successful companies are ones who provide products people want. But what sometimes gets lost is that this is true not just for B2C firms, but for B2B firms as well. To get a sense of what I mean, just consider the story of my current office printer. Made by a well known PC manufacturer – it is so universally despised by my colleagues for being constantly broken (as it is right now) that it will soon be replaced by a machine from another company. The moral of the story? If the end users, your ultimate customers, don’t like your product, its ultimately not going to do very well.

Recently, SuccessFactors conducted a study on how high-tech companies manage their talent. Specifically, we took a look at the core competencies such firms use to evaluate people in their organizations. Perhaps not surprisingly, we found that one very key competency stood out amongst companies that both grew faster and provided a greater return to their owners than their competition. That competency? Customer focus.

“So what?,” you might be thinking. Isn’t it fairly obvious that customer driven product development and engineering makes sense? Sure it is, but the research shows the importance of making this an explicit area for managing people. It?s not something that can be merely talked about, it has to be acted upon ? and it?s that action that makes all the difference. By way of comparison, our research also showed that customer focus is NOT something that poor-performing high tech companies stress. That is what makes this so intriguing - we’ve proven both sides of the coin.

Want to know more? Based on the results from our broad-ranging research on competencies and how they drive financial performance, we decided to partner with Bersin and Associates to get a perspective of deep expertise from the broader HCM field. Josh Bersin has analyzed our research in depth and written a great report that puts the importance of managing competencies in perspective.

For questions about the research, feel free to leave a comment, or send an email to Erik at eberggren AT successfactors.com.

A guest post by Erik Berggren – Director of Customer Results, SuccessFactors.

You probably don’t need me to tell you that successful companies are ones who provide products people want. But what sometimes gets lost is that this is true not just for B2C firms, but for B2B firms as well. To get a sense of what I mean, just consider the story of my current office printer. Made by a well known PC manufacturer – it is so universally despised by my colleagues for being constantly broken (as it is right now) that it will soon be replaced by a machine from another company. The moral of the story? If the end users, your ultimate customers, don’t like your product, its ultimately not going to do very well.

Recently, SuccessFactors conducted a study on how high-tech companies manage their talent. Specifically, we took a look at the core competencies such firms use to evaluate people in their organizations. Perhaps not surprisingly, we found that one very key competency stood out amongst companies that both grew faster and provided a greater return to their owners than their competition. That competency? Customer focus.

“So what?,” you might be thinking. Isn’t it fairly obvious that customer driven product development and engineering makes sense? Sure it is, but the research shows the importance of making this an explicit area for managing people. It’s not something that can be merely talked about, it has to be acted upon – and it’s that action that makes all the difference. By way of comparison, our research also showed that customer focus is NOT something that poor-performing high tech companies stress. That is what makes this so intriguing – we’ve proven both sides of the coin.

Want to know more? Based on the results from our broad-ranging research on competencies and how they drive financial performance, we decided to partner with Bersin and Associates to get a perspective of deep expertise from the broader HCM field. Josh Bersin has analyzed our research in depth and written a great report that puts the importance of managing competencies in perspective.

For questions about the research, feel free to leave a comment, or send an email to Erik at eberggren AT successfactors.com.

Another post from a few days back on SystematicHR (I just can’t keep up with the guy) in which Dubs hopes that the future of SaaS is a world in which vendors can use abstracted data from their systems to help customers learn what’s working and what’s not for others in their business / industry. After all, across millions of users and hundreds of companies one could imagine all kinds of delicious data that, in anonymous and abstract ways, could be used to identify trends, successes and failures across all kinds of situations.

In fact, this has been the holy grail of such systems for years. Today, such data comes from surveys. But if one could get data directly from what companies are doing, as opposed to what they are saying, how much more accurate and powerful would it be? We think a lot. That’s why were already doing it. We think it’s a huge value to our customers – and one of the ways we’re helping to drive customer success.

Erik took a moment to reply to Dubs’ post. Here’s part of what he said: “We are looking at aggregate data from that enormous resource of ours. To look at what works and not we use publicly available financial information and cross reference those two. The findings we make are very interesting and are being used to further push our thinking of leading practice in different areas.”

You can read more about SuccessFactors research here. And if you have questions for Erik, just email him.

Note: This post was written by SuccessFactors’ Director of Customer Results, Erik Berggren.  Erik is leading a team focused on understanding - through detailed, data-driven analysis - how specific talent management behaviors drive business results – and then working to build those learnings into our product for the benefit of our customers. I’m excited to host his thoughts here, and I look forward to sharing more of our new knowledge via this blog in the future. So please enjoy Erik’s contribution and as always, I encourage comments. We want to know what you think. – Max

Talent management is about more than efficiency
Pull, don’t push your way to meaningful ROI

I recently came across The 2006 talent management survey, conducted by IHRIM and Knowledge Infusion, which found that 77% of HR professionals think that talent management will only increase in importance over the next three years. In general, I think that’s great, because it means that people as an asset is a concept that’s making its way into the HR mindset. But, it also worries me, and here’s why: If HR Professionals think they can simply buy the software, put it in, turn it on and get full benefits, they are mistaken.

To maximize the return on investment in talent management, the solution isn’t just to put the processes out there and hope for the best, nor is it to push it out with smart internal marketing and hard selling. HR professionals need to make sure that their internal customers believe that there is value in using it the enhanced process, and get involved in making it work. That “pull” is critical, without it, organizations will not get a full return on their investment.
(more…)

Jason Corsello picks up on our recent research announcement – calling the approach “groundbreaking.”

You can see some early thoughts from SuccessFactors Research as previously posted here. Keep checking back for more of the “From our research” series.

Note: This post was written by SuccessFactors’ Director of Customer Results, Erik Berggren.  Erik is leading a team focused on understanding - through detailed, data-driven analysis - how specific talent management behaviors drive business results – and then working to build those learnings into our product for the benefit of our customers. I’m excited to host his thoughts here, and I look forward to sharing more of our new knowledge via this blog in the future. So please enjoy Erik’s contribution and as always, I encourage comments. We want to know what you think. – Max

—=

I read the McKinsey Quarterly Article “Competitive advantages from better interactions” with delight today. It is a great article and raises a few interesting issues for me.

Let me explain.

Over the years, I have had the opportunity to work in numerous countries around the world on dozens of projects as a management consultant.  Sometimes, working in different industries and across disparate geographies makes you feel like you are traveling in time, as it occurs to you that some places are just so far behind others when it comes to business practices.

It is always correct and sometimes popular to promote the idea of relentless teamwork. But frankly, I don’t believe it.  My hypothesis is that there is a diminishing return on the margins when it comes to teamwork. There is such a thing as too much. I have had consulting experiences in which an idea or new concept was evaluated by senior executives based on a  “did she see it?” or “was he involved?” analysis. The obvious assumption in the thinking is that the more interaction, the more “teamwork,” the better the result.

Recently, we conducted some rigorous research leveraging our vast customer data on performance and talent management behaviors, including the aggregate usage of more than 1.5 million users. We studied in detail the financial performance of our clients both in terms of profitability (Return on Equity) and in terms of  top line growth. The idea was to understand what over and under-performers were doing in terms of steering and measuring teamwork as a core competency.

(more…)