I took away several really interesting points, including the selection of “value chains” (as opposed to the more formal “job families”) as the pilot segment for workforce planning – what a great way to tie forecasts to the value that the workforce provides!

Also of note; the concept of workforce planning networks – beyond stakeholders and champions, who else in the organization will be affected/influenced by workforce planning and what impact will it have?

The idea came to fruition when one of the presenters discussed how their organization’s affinity groups were positive role models in supporting the execution of the workforce planning process. In many cases, affinity groups wouldn’t be a primary audience for workforce planning communications, yet, in this organization, they were seen as very helpful in suggesting the appropriate next steps for workforce planning.

As such, the presentation got me thinking about a modified “social network” for workforce planning – as part of change management, explicitly identifying the broader network of individuals and groups that may be touched by workforce planning.

This might include affinity groups, project teams, data analysts, strategic planners, HIPOs, and staff in leadership development programs, for example. Each group may be affected by workforce planning in a different way – some more directly than others – but it is worth considering how they might play a role in your workforce planning process or in ongoing integration with other activities around the firm.

1. Change within HR:
The first thing to remember is that change doesn’t happen if you just ask nicely.  People must be motivated to change.  When you’re talking particular behaviors at work, this means rewriting job descriptions and changing evaluations and rewards.  There will also be training involved.  This is fairly comprehensive, so most organizations build the capability in what we call a Center of Excellence (CoE).

A CoE is a small set of employees with specific skill sets who enable workforce planning for the entire organization.  They run the analytics, ask the tough questions, and in the process, train HR business partners over time.  This allows an organization to look at job descriptions, performance criteria, and rewards for around 2-4 people rather than the entire HR community.

Having a software system in place enables the CoE to have a broad reach within the organization as it automates the analytical component, ensures consistency of definitions, consistency of process, and will enable the CoE to train the HR business partners much more quickly.

2. Change in interactions with business managers:
Often, the introduction of workforce planning is one of the first real strategic conversations business managers have with HR partners (this, of course, is not always the case – just a general observation).  While the conversation has previously been around the current state of people and meeting certain targets, it now shifts to a theoretical vision of the future and translating that vision into human capital requirements.

Some managers aren’t comfortable having this dialogue so it is critical that the HR representative has a solid understanding of the strategy, can push back when further clarification is needed, and can facilitate decision-making.  It is also important to maximize the use of management’s time to avoid unnecessary or redundant tasks.  This is the best and quickest way to have workforce planning branded as a business initiative rather than “another HR program”.

I have found a good method for opening the door to conversations with managers.  Approach the manager and say, “I’d like to speak with you about your long-range planning so I can understand the workforce requirements necessary to enable you to execute.”  After all, workforce planning should be a part of strategic planning, and at its essence it’s a risk audit that ensures you have the right people in place to execute on business strategy.

The key here is to establish a process that works with and on the business and is flexible enough to meet varying needs across the organization.  (SuccessFactors has established a methodology based on its 30+ years of practice that you can see below.)

My tip for a successful change management process:
Before you get started with workforce planning, stop and think about the change on each of the groups involved and what communications need to be in place to facilitate awareness and buy-in.  Concentrating on the foundational elements will pave the way for a successful process.

SuccessFactors Workforce Planning Methodology

A pay for performance culture is one where people receive monetary rewards based on the value they provide to the company.  The more value you provide, the more you are paid.   The assumption is people will provide more value if they are financially incented based on their contributions.   Another assumption is the company can accurately measure people’s performance contributions.

Adopting a pay for performance mindset, while generally a good idea, can over-simplify what business leaders truly want and what actually motivates employees.  To illustrate this, consider the following 4 pay for performance cultures in order of best to worst to somewhere in-between.

The best scenario:  performance without pay. Businesses don’t actually want to pay for performance.  What they ideally want is performance without having to pay.   But most employees are not willing to accept this proposition.  We rightfully expect to be paid for what we contribute.  Nevertheless, it is possible to inspire people to achieve high levels of performance without focusing on pay.  Volunteer organizations do this all the time.  There are a lot of things that motivate people.  The motivational value of pay varies depending on the type of job and employee, and business leaders who use pay as the sole tool for motivating employees risk adopting a very expensive and marginally effective leadership approach.

The worst scenario:   pay for poor performance. The worst case scenario for a business occurs when employees are rewarded for doing things that undermine company performance.  This occurs more often than companies would like to admit, particularly in companies whose managers have to comply with restrictive personnel policies, rules, and regulations.    Rewarding poor performance encourages counterproductive behavior and destroys the motivation of high performers.  High performers dislike it when they do not receive any sense of recognition or rewards for their contributions.  But they hate it when they see rewards going to poorer performing colleagues.

A lousy scenario:  performance only for pay. One of the problems with creating a direct link between pay and performance is some people will never feel they are getting paid enough.   No matter how much pay these people receive for doing something, over time they always seem to want more.  Payouts can quickly switch from being a reward to being an expectation.  Today’s financial bonus is tomorrow’s entitlement.  Once this happens, pay ceases to be a motivator and becomes a source of dissatisfaction.

The pragmatic scenario:  performance influences but does not completely determine pay. Research on productivity, fairness, and motivation indicates that there should be a positive relationship between how much people are paid and how much they contribute to the company.  But the relationship between pay and performance does not need to be perfect to be effective.  Many things influence pay levels beyond individual performance (e.g., overall company financials).   Conversely, pay is only one of many things that influence performance.  Companies should create a link between performance and pay, but should not overemphasize pay as the only reason why employees should seek to perform at higher levels.

Establishing links between pay and performance does tend to increase productivity.    But it is not just the promise of pay that drives the productivity.  When you link pay to performance, employees and managers get much more serious around defining what they mean by “performance”.   And clearly defining performance expectations drives all kinds of benefits for increasing workforce productivity, regardless of pay levels.

A study of 157 companies utilizing SuccessFactors for strategy execution (not just to optimize a process) found users of the solutions experienced average revenue growth of 15.4% over a 12 month period (compared to an average industry growth of 10.6%).

Sure, some of this was due to efficiency gains around a process (short-term). But the key was the ability to get better execution from the workforce through strategy alignment and clear identification of top performers. Top performers in a company are shown to be 3x more productive so why aren’t we focused on attracting, developing and retaining top performers instead of “streamlining transaction times” and “reducing manual transaction” – isn’t that HR 1.0?

Small and medium sized businesses stand to benefit the most by focusing on their workforce because they are growing and expanding at a higher rate than large businesses and have greater demand for skilled workers. Milan P. Yager, NAPEO executive vice president says that if small business loses even one seasoned knowledge worker it affects them competitively. He says that “these business owners want to ensure that seasoned workers convey their knowledge, or even continue working longer if possible.”

Yet, 90% of the companies I speak with claim their reason for evaluating a system is “the current process is cumbersome, people don’t like doing it, too much time is being spent, it is one of the last processes left to automate”.  Really?  Is that strategic?  Do you want a seat at the executive table? Then how about putting a system in place to help you analyze how well your hires perform, the characteristics of a top performer and who is the best person for a project or new role? On average the cost of a bad hire is equal to the annual salary of that employee. The cost of losing a top performer is at least 1.5x that employee’s salary.

Close to 24 months ago when the economy was in free fall, a top 3 management consulting company surveyed over 500 companies to find out if the SuccessFactors Business Execution software had made an actual business impact or whether the software was purely delivering a cost savings from bringing HR processes online. The business impact turned out to be very real because the right information was captured and visible for making strategic workforce decisions. A 40% increase in time spent on strategic priorities doesn’t come from completing reviews on time. A 67% increase in project completion is the result of understanding your talent and putting the right talent on the right projects. Check out the study for your self – http://www.successfactors.com/docs/sf_guide_MovingMountains_r5.pdf .

Those of you in human resources who are taking a strategic approach to your human capital are more than likely awarded more funding from your executives. Those focused on performing reviews annually online and trying to reduce costs by automating a process are most likely watching your budgets dwindle faster than the cost savings you are trying to produce. Come on – think strategically. Enough said!

What do the greatest companies all have in common?  You got it — the ability to focus their organization on strategy execution by ensuring that each individual is working (i.e., executing) on goals that matter to the organization.  What type of goals “matter?”  Put simply, only the ones that have a direct line back to the Strategy sitting in a binder on the CEO’s bookshelf.

We’re just researching what impact we have on our customer’s ability to communicate strategy and execute new directions faster. The early results are very intriguing and positive – and we promise to share them when we finalize our research.   The timing is also significant as the economy has forced companies to be agile and demands that companies be able to shift their strategy (and subsequent execution) at a much more rapid pace than in a bull market.

The thing that struck me when doing some desktop research was that even though we know that 85% of performance is due to execution, the amount of content available is unbelievably skewed towards strategy — a simple web search on “Business Strategy” returns 3X more hits than “Business Execution”  (80M hits vs. 24M hits).   The term strategy execution returns only 3.5M hits.

The good news is that the “worm is turning.”   Execution is the topic du jour – maybe it’s the economy, maybe it’s just the natural evolution of business.   Regardless, you can put us squarely on the “Business Execution” team, and we’re looking forward to sharing our results soon.

After all, Execution is the name of the game to drive financial results

One question we often get is exactly how much improvement can I expect from talent and performance management systems. SuccessFactors Research engaged with Gen-Probe over a year ago to develop a case to show them how they could drive improvement in their organization through people. After successfully implementing SuccessFactors, the results have been very impressive.

• 10% Increase in the retention of high performers
• 37% Decrease in the retention of low performers
• 20% Increase in the employees who felt they had a good understanding of how their pay is determined
• 19% Increase in employees who understand the measure used to evaluate performance

Furthermore, Gen-Probe was able to reform their compensation process. High performers could now earn 150% of their bonus awards, while low performers were limited to less than 100%. In fact the visibility and transparency built into the system allowed Gen-Probe to look at the total distribution of merit and bonus pay, as well provide immediate insight into performance appraisals.

How did Gen-Probe drive change in their organization? Then recently answered this question in an article about the success of their performance management system:

“The new performance management system focused on four critical elements. The first was to provide support for defining and aligning individual goals with Gen-Probe corporate goals. The second was to provide frequent opportunities for feedback to maintain focus on achieving the already-established goals. The action plan also focused on a rewards system that tied achievement of individual and corporate goals to the allocation of merit and bonus awards. Lastly, the plan focused on strengthening the foundational skills for all employees and managers to effectively communicate goals, performance expectations and address issues before they become hurdles to achieving results.”

Can you afford to let your competitors gain that kind of advantage? Particularly now, with the economy slowing and companies renewing a focus on cost and performance, talent and performance management is critical to driving success. Companies who cede this advantage will emerge from the slow economy weaker and less competitive. Gen-Probe has proved that when companies take human capital management seriously, they win.

Actually if you think about it, when is the best opportunity to actually go on the offense and make a change? When the going gets tough or when everything is gently pointing upwards? Companies will either be acquired, stripped of assets, or go on the offense to acquire underpriced assets when markets and demand soften up. The real deal then is obviously to make sure you quickly can get your organization aligned and executing on the new company’s direction, and that you drive the calculated synergies of a merger or acquisition home. With people being by far the biggest expense for any given business (on average 70% of operational cost) how you deal with your joined workforce must logically be the most important factor in any M&A situation.

“In any merger or acquisition, investment banks and equity analysts will provide you with a plethora of figures quantifying the synergistic strategic benefits of the union. Yet what determines whether a merger succeeds or fails is really its people.” – Jean-Pierre Garnier, ex-CEO of GlaxoSmithKline

Logically then, companies with better people processes and a serious focus on people performance should do better in a merger. To test this hypothesis, SuccessFactors research examined the performance of ten of our customers that specifically cited challenges resulting from a merger or acquisition as their business drivers for investing in SuccessFactors. The results were clear – the ten companies that leveraged SuccessFactors to drive the merger home completely outperformed their competition in 12 month revenue growth, 12 month income growth, return on equity and price to book ratio. These mergers were not just successful on paper, they worked in the real world.

Download the SuccessFactors Research Data Sheet: Mergers & Acquisitions to see just how successful our customers are and how they are winning in these uncertain economic times.

The title of this blog entry is taken from a song on one of my favorite David Bowie albums, “Scary Monster & Super Creeps”. If you own this album, there is a good chance you are a member of my generation (X). In my experience, knowledge of pop music and television shows is one of the single greatest differences between generations (at least in the United States). For example, most guys in my older brothers’ generation know the opening guitar riff from the song “Rock n Roll” by Led Zeppelin:

“hey hey momma say the way you move, gonna make you sweat gonna make you groove” – da na na nuh nuh nuh nuh, nuh nuh nuh nuch nuh nuh, da na nuh da na nuh nuh nuch nuh waaaaaaaaaaa!

In contrast, many guys in my younger nephew’s generation know the riff from Seven Nation Army by the White Stripes:

duhn, duh duhn duhn duhnnn duh, duh duhn duhn duhnnn duh duh duh duh!

But once you get past music and TV, generations tend to be far more similar than many “generational experts” would have us believe. By generational expert, I mean anyone who makes money selling books, workshops, or programs based on telling you how to manage different generations. Simply put, I don’t believe the hype that the work goals and expectations of the baby boom generation are somehow qualitatively different from generation X, generation Y, generation Z, millenials, or generation “insert the name of whatever book is next marketed on this topic”. This point was made quite nicely in a research book recently written by Dr. Jennifer Deal:

“Fundamentally people want the same things, no matter what generation they are from. You can work with or manage people from all generations effectively without becoming a contortionist”. From Retiring the generation gap: how employees young & old can find common ground, published by Jossey Bass, 2007.

I would argue that many supposed differences between the employee attitudes of generation Y and those of the baby boom generation can be boiled down to two basic factors.

Supply and demand: There are fewer skilled workers in today’s economy than there were in the 1970’s. If you graduated from college in 1978 you were competing against a lot of other people for fewer jobs so you had to put up with some pretty demanding requests from employers. The tables have turned for people graduating in 2008. Now the demanding requests are flowing the other way. Generation Y employees expect more from employers because they are more likely to get it.

People who are young act differently from people who are old. Here is a newsflash, people in their 20’s who are early in their careers, unmarried, without children, etc. just might be a bit more idealistic and optimistic than their older coworkers who have suffered more of life’s “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”. Talking about generational differences without controlling for how people’s interests and needs change as we grow older is like talking about differences in fashion without taking into account the temperature where people live. Saying younger people have unrealistic expectations about work because they are more idealistic than older people is like saying people in Florida are more risqué because they wear skimpier clothes in the winter than people living in Minnesota. Its not about generational differences, its about differences between being young or old.

When putting together talent management strategies, don’t lump employees into broad generational groups and treat them as though they all want the same things from work based on some book you read. Ask them! You’ll probably learn that what employees want is remarkably similar regardless of their age: a challenging job where they feel appreciated and respected, have a reasonable sense of security and career growth, and believe they are making a difference in the world that they can be proud of. While there are some interesting generational differences in terms of people’s collective experiences, memories, and communication styles, when it comes to the basic things that make a job rewarding employees tend to be more similar than different regardless of the year they were born. But since I’m a member of Generation X you might just chalk my negative attitude toward generational differences as a result of the “fact” that people from my generation have a cynical, mistrusting attitude toward authority.

SuccessFactors Research is pleased to post this guest blog from our friend and Thought Leader Dr. Steven Hunt.

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.

To create pull, there first have to be some underlying factors in place. The first is a reliable tool that supports the process it intends to. Without that foundational piece, there is nothing. Second, executive buy-in is a must have. Without that complete, top-down endorsement, pull will be nearly impossible to create. Finally there must be value perceived by the larger employee population in general and middle management in particular. This is the source of the pull.

What we have found from working with several customers that have been using our solutions over a number of years is that HR delivers immediate value by providing an automated, efficient process that is consistent across the company. But, among those customers, some stand out because they have done a better job of calibrating their whole company’s culture around performance and talent management. They have created the pull.

Recent research we’ve done in assessing the internal change in terms of efficiency (as measured by SuccessFactors Efficiency Index©) is that, on average, our customers have increased the efficiency of their performance and talent management processes by 100% over 2 years. But what we also found is that those very same companies have managed to change their cultures – create pull (as measured by the SuccessFactors Talent Management Index) – only inconsistently, by an average of about 15%.

To put it another way – we have seen that the companies that have made the most out of their investments have had balanced improvements in the two dimensions outlined above – in both efficiency gains and culture change.

The good news from working with this in more detail is that there is a great opportunity to improve stepwise and integrate technology investments with the goal of a more performance and talent management oriented organization. We are working with several of our clients to leverage this learning and to create a climate for change that allows benefits beyond simple (though powerful) efficiency gains.