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.

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.

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.

Not to keep flogging the Google horse or anything, but it appears the company is doing some innovative stuff beyond its products. The company has gained some HR-related attention before for using billboards featuring complex mathematical problems to recruit engineers. Now, they’ve turned their attention to candidate screening.

According to this NYT article, the company is exploring new methods for hiring “more well-rounded candidates, like those who have published books or started their own clubs.”  They will now be asking the 100,000 job applicants each month to fill out an “elaborate online survey that explores their attitudes, behavior, personality and biographical details going back to high school.”

The company then takes the surveys and compares them against some 25 different measures of employee performance. By doing so, they hope to expose the traits that make for successful employees so they can more readily find the gems amongst the thousands of applications they get each day.

I just think they are just right on with this. As I recently posted on Dave Lefkow’s blog:  ”When performance is the heart of the effort, you can come to a recruiting system from a new perspective. Instead of focusing only on traditional recruiting metrics like time to hire – you can start to think about and track the actual performance of each new hire over time. Then, you can identify what makes for higher performing candidates and build that knowledge into a system that helps you source and hire more like them.”

Interestingly, Dave wondered “…if the market is ready for this – right now, recruiters are measured on efficiency, not effectiveness. It’s all about getting bodies in seats, and introducing a measure of quality that recruiters are tied to would require a big mindset shift. I can hear the groans now – but I don’t make the decisions about who to hire. That’s the hiring manager. Buck passed.”

Google is no representation of the market at large. But as a pioneer in many ways, they often pick up on trends before others. Perhaps their talent approaches are equally visionary.

A good little tidbit from McKinsey on creating talent marketplaces that allow employees to find the best opportunities for them within their existing companies.

I’ve seen huge reductions in recruiting costs and higher employee engagement come from better succession planning -which lets companies have more visibility into their own talent pools. Imagine if we let employees help us out with that by searching out their own opportunities.

According to McKinsey, what prevents such a thing from taking place is the traditional hierarchical mind sets that “treat talent as corporate property and HR departments that chart career paths solely within organizational silos.”

There’s an interesting chart if you click the link. 

DDI and Badbossology.com (that’s actually a real site) did a survey of 900+ employees to determine the worst (and best) qualities of a manager. And, the survey says:

A bad manager:

• Tries too hard to be everyone’s friend
• Micromanages
• Ignores conflict
• Arrogant
• Wishy-washy
• Impulsive
• Unable to delegate
• Impatient
• Stubborn
• Unprofessional

You’ll have to read the article as written up on CNN.com to find out the best qualities and to take the quick “how good a boss are you?” survey.

It’s easy to dismiss this stuff as just for fun – but when you consider that employees often leave jobs due in whole or in part to their relationship with their managers, this kind of thing takes on real meaning. And it’s also fun.

The poll we’ve been running here for the last few weeks has been asking “Would you be in favor of an “open salary” policy at your company in which everyone’s salary was published for all to see?”

As you can see from the responses (nearly 200 of them) 60% of respondents said fuhggedaboudit (AKA no). Originally based on this post from the Chief Happiness Officer, the poll was an attempt to see if people agreed with Alex who argues that there are a number of very compelling reasons to do away with the secret salary system.

While I, too, balk at the idea of publishing my salary, in many ways doing so would represent the natural evolution of something we already do at SuccessFactors: make our goals public. The idea behind pay for performance is that those who perform best get paid the most – thereby incentivizing increased performance. But if people don’t know what others are getting paid, there is a disconnect. I know what Joe did or did not accomplish from his public goal plan, but I don’t know if he got paid more or less (and how much more or less) as a result. There is a perception of pay for performance, but no proof-laden pudding to support it.

I guess my question then becomes – can you realize the ultimate promise of pay for performance without open salaries?

A colleague sent me this article from the Studer Group called “The Long Goodbye”. It caught my eye because it formalized something I’d been considering for a long time: When someone decides to leave his or her company, it’s rarely an immediate reaction to a shockingly negative experience. On the contrary - it’s often the delayed result of an experience that “left a bad taste.”

The article tells the story of a nurse who applied for a position for which she was ultimately not selected. What left the bad taste was not that she didn’t get the job, but rather that she found out that she wasn’t selected when the new hire was announced and it wasn’t her.  That’s an understandably difficult blow. If your organization doesn’t have enough respect for you to talk to you personally in such a case, why would it be reasonable to invest your loyalty in it?

Now, such an occurrence doesn’t mean the nurse is headed out tomorrow – but “will she return calls from another organization if called? Yes. Will she look online for openings at other organizations? Most likely. Will she leave? Yes, if something doesn’t happen to retighten her loyalty.”

The negative experience plants a seed of discontent that may one day grow into full blown rejection. So how do you avoid alienating your employees like this? The article first suggests a specific communications program for employees who aren’t selected for promotions -but that seems to me to be a point solution. The second suggestion is more appropriate: talk to your employees.

GigaOm highlights Yahoo’s new attempt at retaining top talent. Called Brickhouse, the project is essentially an in-house incubator meant to give it’s entrepreneurial employees another reason to stick with the company. Not altogether different from the Google 20% – wherein Googlers get to spend 20% of their time on a project of their choosing – it is both a way to satisfy the innate desire to create as well as a method for harnessing that creativity.

The blog discussion is also pretty interesting. Some people think money rules, but others see real value in letting employees explore. I wonder if such tactics are purely in the domain of the high-tech world, or if there’s applicability beyond technology. Could you see something like this at Pfizer or Ford?