Depends on who you ask.

Via digg.com, I came across an article from the WSJ entitled “Employers increasingly favor bonuses to raises” – which discusses the whole concept of performance-linked bonuses. According to the article, 80% of companies will offer some from of bonus program this year up from 78% last year and 67% in 1997. The article discusses the pay-for-performance initiatives of Whirlpool, which has made more employees eligible for bonuses and increased the maximum bonus that can be achieved.

According to the article “Whirlpool also awards merit raises based on performance. But it considers bonuses a more powerful motivator. “It starts breaking away at the notion of entitlement,” says David Binkley, Whirlpool’s human-resources chief. With merit pay, “if you just spread it around, it just raises your costs.” Across corporate America, he notes, “those days are coming to an end where everyone just automatically gets this 3.6%, 3.7%” merit raise.”

In case you were wondering, the average raise for 2007 is projected to be 3.7%, up from 3.6% this year  – according to data from Hewitt.

(more…)

Sometimes I read these articles and wonder who benefits from all this fear-mongering. Clearly, someone is out to scare the heck out of us. In any event, Forbes presents “Where have all the leaders gone?,” a rather sanguine look at the looming talent shortage at the C level.

In the article, commentator Kevin Cashman (CEO of a leadership development firm) responds to reader questions. One reader asks “…what practical measures can senior leaders take to deal with potential crises?” Cashman responds:

It may sound simplistic, but the best thing a top leader can do is be a great coach, boss and mentor. After conducting 19,700 exit interviews of key employees leaving companies, the Saratoga Institute found that 85% of bosses thought their top people left for more money and opportunity. But the real reason behind the turnover: 80% said they left due to poor management and leadership or because of a dysfunctional company culture. If you’re a board member, a CEO or a leader on the front lines, paying more attention to the development of your people and teams is the crucial variable for retaining key people.

It’s a point well made. Talent shortages are far more acute for companies that don’t actually work to develop their employees. Keeping the top performers you already have is far easier and more efficient than going back to the well.

From AOL/CareerBuilder comes this list of 12 signs you’re getting fired. Everyone loves lists, but perhaps this one is somewhat overzealous in its paranoia.

#4 on the list is “You had a bad review.” Certainly most companies don’t fire you for a bad review - even if you’re on a performance improvement plan as the article implies.

#12 is “You’re hearing rumors.” Yeah, that one is the key. ‘Cause as we all know, rumors are the source of all truth. Come on.

Though I’m frowning on parts of the execution – the concept is good (and there are some legitimate points in the article). So what are some REAL signs you’re about to lose your job? If I get enough comments I’ll post a list from the real experts – you!

Perhaps somewhat off topic, I thought I would point out an interesting show that’s been airing on the Sundance channel. Called “House of Boateng,” it follows the zany misadventures of Ozwald Boateng (seen left), a London-based fashion designer, in his attempts to penetrate the US market. Along the way, he meets wild and wacky investors, throws tempter tantrums and alienates employees in his attempt to make it big across the pond. (He also does this strange dance when he feels uncomfortable, or is in the spotlight, and that alone makes the show worth watching.)

Now, ordinarily, you wouldn’t find me watching much reality television – especially on the Sundance Channel – but in all fairness to myself, this is the summer season and good TV is hard to find. In any case, the reason I mention it here is that Mr. Boateng is like a lot of small business owners. While exceptionally talented at what he does, and very successful to boot, Boateng’s domineering style and penchant for micro-management results in all sorts of fun-to-watch chaos as the business leaps and lurches it’s way to growth.

(more…)

I stole the title for this post from this Fortune Small Business article which recaps a survey of over 300 small businesses. The survey concluded that HR can be the deciding factor between an “explosive” business and a “sluggish” one (and they have some really cool cartoons that highlight the points, like the one to the left).

There are some very good supporting points, but my favorite is this one: Companies with controlling bosses lagged companies that give employees more autonomy. By a lot. Those with more autonomy had faster revenue growth (14.6% to 3.2%), profit growth (8.7% to 4.8%) and lower turnover (8.5% to 23.6%). (Wowza!)

I’m starting to think that this goal of HR being strategic is too tame. When we can show that HR means more money, everyone should pay attention.

Really, truly an invigorating little article from a couple of days ago in the UK’s Telegraph. In it, Jack and wife Suzy embark on a spirited defense of the importance of HR. I wish I had something to add to the article beyond a straightforward “see, I told you so” but I don’t. So in place of the usual musings, I give you a few of my favorite bits:

Bit #1:
“Look, HR should be every company’s “killer app”. What could possibly be more important than who gets hired, developed, promoted or moved out the door?”

Bit #2:
“If you owned Real Madrid, for instance, would you hang around with the team accountant or the director of player personnel?  Sure, the accountant can tell you the financials. But the director of player personnel knows what it takes to win: how good each player is and where to find strong recruits to fill talent gaps.”

Bit #3:
“Leaders need to put their money where their mouths are and let HR do its real job: elevating people management to the same level of professionalism and integrity as financial management.”

Yes, indeed.

Read the whole article. You’ll be better off for it.

Wanted to point you to an interview that DubDubs at systematicHR did with our very own Rob Bernshteyn. He just published the article, but the interview was done a ways back. In any case, I think Dubs picks up one some important points about us (technology, analytics) in the context of the market, and I encourage you to read it.

He’s also done some other great posts recently on the future of HR technology and Does HR technology define HR strategy?

According to this Fortune article, it’s because they don’t know what’s expected of them. “A big reason is that a huge percentage of new employees, including new managers, are not clearly told what they were hired to do or what their goals should be for the first six months and the first year.”

Makes good sense.

Apparently, nearly 50% of employees fail in the first 18 months of their jobs. And we’re not just talking about individual contributors, either. Actually, the higher up you are, the more likely you are to fail.

But it seems to me that blaming lack of direction for failure doesn’t address the whole problem. It’s a company’s fault for not providing enough direction – but it’s an employee’s fault for not seeking one out. Beyond that, bad managers, personality mismatches and lack of appropriate competencies are all good reasons for why new employees fail.

It’s always been a belief of mine that taking a job (or hiring someone) is like the beginning of a new relationship. There are all kinds of reasons why personal relationships fail. I’m sure we’re all familiar with many of them. Sometimes, even knowing our goals for the relationships is not enough to keep it alive when other parts are missing.

Check the article out, there’s even a cool quiz to take to find out if you’ll succeed in your new job.

About an American company. As told by Jason Corsello.

It’s an entertaining tale, you should read it even if just for a laugh. But it make you take note of the fact that Performance management ain’t a cure for stupidity, – that’s for sure.

It often occurs to me that some of the highly educated people that comprise the management ranks at our nation’s most highly regarded companies are so capable of strategizing that they never actually DO anything. They just think.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that by itself.

But, in that world, the people that are actually doing the work are just that – doers. Well what if the doers thought and the thinkers did? What a wonderful, productive world it would be. In some ways, I think that’s part of the promise of goal alignment in particular and performance management in general.

Just a thought.

Regina points us to a post by Robert Scoble – Microsoft’s unofficial but omnipresent blogger – on MS’s ditching if it’s forced ranking process.

“One big thing that’s gone? Stack ranking. No longer am I judged against Charles and Adam and Tina and Jeff. Now, either I’m doing a good job for Microsoft or I’m not and my review will now reflect that.”

I know Dick Grote think that forced ranking is great (I just saw him discuss the topic at World at Work in Anaheim) – at least for a period of time – so perhaps Microsoft’s forced ranking simply outlived it’s usefulness. Perhaps they culled enough low performers to start demotivating the people that were left.

Thoughts?