Recently Saugatuck Technologies released a study showing that SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) Human Capital Management software contributes at least 2-3% to top line growth – definitely good news for companies seeking more green. An article in this week’s San Francisco Chronicle made me start to think about another kind of green – the environment. Human capital management is key to driving a number of environmental initiatives. Paperless reviews save paper. Working from home reduces gas-guzzling commutes and slows the need to build new office space, and as the San Francisco Chronicle points out, employees love working from home. As an important part of the individual value proposition to the employee, working from home helps keep your employees engaged.

But, successfully promoting a paperless office and shifting people from the office to the home, requires systems that support these activities. Goal alignment, ensuring that people are working on the right things for the right reasons, is very important. People need to feel like part of the team, even if they aren’t physically present. Traction, not action is the mantra for successful execution. Goal alignment ensures that people are moving in the right direction downfield to score, and not just gaining yardage. In fact, if your players are moving in the wrong direction, they are moving farther away from the goal. Goal alignment helps ensure that this doesn’t happen. It is not a substitute for supervision from a manager, but keeps the team working toward the overall company strategy.

Human Capital Management is a critical to earning green, and going green, enabling people to work from home, in global teams, anywhere, anytime. How green is your organization?

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.

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.

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?