Category Archives: Categories

Making HR strategic isn’t hullabaloo, just ask your bottom line

Posted on by
Reply

Max’s Note: We’ve been following an interesting discussion over at Vendorprisey (and Jim Holincheck’s response) on the delta between survey data that shows CEOs consider people issues strategic and the lack of any substantive action in involving HR in strategic matters. Our own Erik Berggren responds below:

————- 

If HR is supposed to help executives make better informed decisions, HR needs to start with relevant data to support them. What is relevant? Well, anything that affects the company’s ability to execute its strategy.

At the most basic, we need to know how many people we have with the requisite skills today. What about retirement? If we do nothing, how many of these people with what skills will we be short? Are we playing scenarios of various turnover rates in various roles? How will those affect our need and our ability to attract the relevant talent to fill this need? Do we look at our talent base both in terms of size and composition today and a few years out?

The idea of “a few years out” – how we will compete in the future –  that is the where strategic decisions are born. It’s why HR needs to be strategic in two ways – defining the strategy AND supporting its execution.

Here is a practical example of how fast this becomes the most strategic issue at hand. A few years ago I was working as a consultant helping a CEO and his COB with a complete turnaround of the business. A new, sustained top line and an above industry standard bottom line margin was the goal. The company was loosing bids and business looked rather bad. But the turnaround took hold, and the company, an engineering firm, started to do better and begun to win significant contracts.

But the lack of integration with strategic HR planning might have cost us dearly. Delivering on these new contracts completely drained critical skills in various engineering areas. Further, a shortsighted reduction in force nearly put the company in a situation where the same people let go would return as more expensive contractors. We became aware of this just in time to correct course and successfully averted the distaster.

Nevertheless, looking at this scenario early on and integrating more tightly with the internal talent pool as well as the external talent market could have led to a more optimistic approach with pricing and left the company with a better margin. And you can be sure that a strategic, HR-driven approach to planning that looks both internally and externally is now the standard way of doing business.

We (SF Research) are currently working on this need for HR to be more forward looking, strategic and predictable. We’re looking at what HCM metrics are predictors of future success. On this topic, we’re currently working with Dr. Jac Fitz-enz on a white paper and are preparing to discuss this topic and early findings in a webinar on July 24.

I invite you to join us to hear our conclusions and our take on how HR can get strategic by thinking forward.

Think you can do better than your boss?

Posted on by
2

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.

A spoonful of sugar

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Close to crazy

Posted on by
Reply

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.

The Next Great Idea; Who Needs It?

Posted on by
Reply

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 age old virtues of meritocracy

Posted on by
1

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.

New Poll: Jerks at work?

Posted on by
Reply

Clown - Credit: Bungcayao

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.

President Bush wants pay for performance

Posted on by
2

Not for himself, of course, but rather for America’s corporate executives. In New York City today, Bush spoke on Wall Street about his belief that “the salaries and bonuses of CEOs should be based on their success at improving their companies and bringing value to their shareholders.”

So often, pay for performance is a concept assumed to be applicable only to the rank and file. It’s a worthy cause to elevate it to the c-level as well and it’s great that Bush is pushing the idea.

It just makes you wonder what HIS salary would be if we applied pay for performance thinking to his $400k “guideline.” Given his approval ratings, it would be an interesting exercise indeed.

The No Asshole Rule

Posted on by
2

A note: if the title offends you, please excuse me. I think the content and concepts make it worthwhile. Also, it’s the title of a real book – and so that makes it okay (right?).

I’m now kicking myself for being just completely remiss in not mentioning Bob Sutton on the blog. For one, he’s talked a lot about us recently, but mostly, I’ve been remiss because he’s an incredibly interesting guy.

He’s got a new book coming out next month called “The No Asshole Rule – Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t.” Today, at our all-hands company meeting, we got a chance to hear Bob speak on the topic.

The No Asshole Rule is something we actually have, use and abide by at SuccessFactors. We have a “rules of engagement” document which is posted all around our offices and on our website (#5) that reminds us of some of the basic tenets of working at the company. This particular rule, now softened a bit to “No Jerks,” understandably gets the most attention.

Why are assholes such a big deal? According to Bob, a professor of management and engineering at Stanford, they can easily take the wind from the sails of an otherwise successful company. Assholes can lower engagement, raise turnover and cost companies a lot of money. One guy Bob spoke about cost his company an estimated $160,000 over the course of a year – factoring in the costs of time spent by management, hr and executives in dealing with him – as well as anger management and training classes, overtime spent by other employees responding to his last minute requests and so on.

But its likely you don’t need any data points beyond ones from your own experience to make you aware of the preponderance and impact of assholes in the workplace. We’ve all dealt with them at some point and been the victim of behavior that makes us feel awful. According to Bob, there are two tests that identify the presence of an A-hole:

1. – “After talking to the alleged asshole, do their “targets” feel oppressed, humiliated, deenergized or belittled by the person?” and

2. – “Does the alleged asshole aim his or her venom at people who are less powerful or people who are more powerful.”

There are a few things to be careful of with your newfound A-hole identification powers. An important one is to be mindful of rushing to a-hole judgement – once you accuse someone of being one, you may quickly find you’ve created a monster.

So what do we do about the a-hole problem? Bob counsels us to simply avoid working at places where the a-hole factor is high (if you’re an employee), and to avoid hiring them (if you’re a company). He notes that “asshole poisoning is a contagious disease. Get out and stay out of asshole infested places – they will change you, you wont change them.” And the opposite effect is true as well – hire too many and it wont be long before your whole company is acting like an ass.

Another answer is to me mindful of “moment to moment conversations.” Be aware of asshole behavior – both yours and that of others. Noting and making small adjustments in response can make all the difference in whether a colleague perpetuates the -Ass-holishness.

We were lucky enough to get a copy of Bob’s new book today and I’ll be reading it soon. I hope to be back with further reflection once I work through it, but in the meantime, you should take a look at his blog for more thinking on the topic.

Findings from our Research on the Impact of Competencies in Financial Performance

Posted on by
Reply

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.