Friday, 19 May 2017

Skillsoft / Sumtotal EMEA Perspectives 17

I was up especially early on Tuesday to attend Skillsoft's European conference , mainly to participate in a pre-conference roundtable reviewing new research from David Wilson from Fosway. There were a few quite interesting findings in their report, including that:

  • 87% of HR practitioners see skills gaps continuing to increase. This includes soft skills just as much as it does digital. Leadership skills are seen as slightly less lacking, probably because the people completing the survey saw themselves as leaders.
  • Learning will therefore continue to increase in importance, becoming the most important part of an employment value proposition.

Most of the roundtable focused on the need for employees to learn more quickly, which I agree is a growing requirement. However I think a still deeper need is to learn more, and more deeply. To me that puts a focus on 'search to learn vs learn to retain' and the evolution of mini into micro and now nano-learning in some doubt. I'd have liked to have raised this point.

Unfortunately, as it turned out, I wasn't there to participate in the roundtable at all but just to report on it (so I suppose I'd better do so). That led to my second main insight from the event which was a reinforcement of the importance of giving control of the learning agenda to the people wanting to learn, and involving them in steering their own learning process. Having a small group of people speaking and another group listening and asking a few questions at the end strikes me as rather bizarre in today's social world.

The speaking group also talked quite a bit about the need to give HR credit for the learning that people do as this is not often recognised. Really? I think that as long as HR / Learning acts strategically and effectively it will get the credit it deserves. More metrics may help but they tend not to be the main cause of business concerns about learning, or  a main way of dealing with them.

Learning and the rest of HR also need to be less siloed, which I completely agree with. However I disagree that using reward is the way to deal with it. Start with organisation design, linked performance objectives, whole group meetings - that will sort the problem in the vast majority of cases.

And a lot of the change is being driven by millennials, who value meaning and like taking sabbaticals apparently! (Actually we all value meaning and I took a sabbatical in 1990.)

There was nothing wrong with the research but I didn't enjoy my role in the session and so didn't hang around for much of the rest of the conference to see whether 'Percipio' would have much impact on any of the above, but the Twitter stream looked quite positive.

  • Consulting   Research  Speaking  Training  Writing
  • Strategy  - Talent - Engagement  - Change and OD 
  • Contact me to create more value for your business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

Friday, 12 May 2017

Tucana People Analytics World 2017

I’m late in providing my summary of Tucana’s People Analytics World 2017 and have struggled to find a topic that others have not already written about. However I think one useful perspective may be the level of variety within analytics at the moment.

This applies firstly to analytical approaches. Most of the presentations, not unnaturally, focused on quantitative analytical approaches. My favourite from these case examples was Microsoft’s use of social traffic metadata to suggest best practice behaviours of the most effective managers. Becky Thielen and Jeremy Tyers explained that this has shown, for example, that effective managers maintain larger networks than their reports:
  • Employees reporting to managers with large networks are 7% more engaged and have networks up to 85% larger
  • Employees with networks 110% larger than their managers are 50% more likely to be disengaged.

However, I also enjoyed the qualitative examples, eg Adidas’s analysis of employee experience during key moments that matter, following the same approach used for the company’s customers, and applying across HR / management activities, workplace and the digital workspace. This involved an an automated employee response system providing a Net Promoter Score, but also open text comments, and textual analytics to help see summaries and patterns across the business. Stefan Hierl suggested that to really need to understand what’s going on for people you need to read this stuff and hence gave leaders access to the comments of their people. He often talks to leaders about the numbers but you also need an equal focus on the qualitative side - what’s in the minds of people as this provides a better feeling for what’s going on. At Adidas, listening to people is a core competence of HR - we should not outsource this.

Similarly, some of the presentations focused on very data oriented approaches. I liked Experian’s example of flight risk modelling, taking data on over 200 employee attributes from multiple sources and plugging it into Experian’s business modelling tools. This has delivered circa 20 key statistically significant attributes.

But what I really liked about this particular conference was its heavy focus on a strategy based approach. This started with Alec Levenson’s session noting that the tasks and behaviors that do not improve strategy execution vastly outnumber the ones that do. Therefore analytics needs to start with strategy not data. The point was at least partly supported by Peter Howes noting that incremental improvement on traditional data reporting tends not to work that well.

Even more important than this level of variety about analytics was the variety about people management itself. This includes different views about the direction of causality between culture and behaviour, and engagement and performance. Peter Howes asked us whether we are making decisions about people with the same intellectual rigour as our decisions about other business factors: Finance, Sales, Production, Supply Chain. Whilst we don’t even fully understand the role of something as central as engagement this struck me and at least some other delegates at the conference as a rather ludicrous suggestion.

I think the amount of variety I have described above has a couple of important consequences.

1.   There cannot be a single maturity curve which all organisations need to follow. I much prefer Deloitte’s and 3n Strategy’s approach of identifying different aspects of analytical maturity each of which can be strong or weak independently of each other (eg Deloitte’s categories of strategy, people, process, technology and data).

However, for many organisations, the best approach may be a combination of the various approaches. For example, Eden Britt at HSBC presented a heavily quantitative, data oriented  approach, involving, for example, several smart analytical approaches for providing insight on attrition:
  •    Clustering - which are the areas of high attrition?
  •    Machine learning - who will leave?
  •    Text mining - where will they leave to?
  •    Markov models - when will they leave?

But Britt also emphasised the importance of deciding upon:
  •    What is the question you are trying to answer?
  •    What is your hypothesis?
  •    What data do you have?

His suggestion when requested to provide yet more data is to always ask: “How’s that data going to help you make a better decision or to do something in a different way?”

2. I think the variety in our approaches also raise broader challenges to emerging or prevailing wisdom:
  • It means there is limited use for standardised taxonomies. These may be OK for whether someone has a driving licence but not for eg employee engagement, or for analytics itself. These may help keep the lights on cheaper but they also interfere in the search for competitive advantage.
  • It may also mean there is limited use for benchmarking models and tools. For example, when comparing cultures, is hierarchical opposite to delegating?, or professional the opposite to social? - they’re not in my view of the world.
  • It means that setting up a professional body for people analytics would be largely unhelpful. At this point in the evolution of the people analytics field we need to encourage conversation on different perspectives rather than to see these constrained.

Thanks to Tucana and all the speakers for sharing their various approaches.

  • Consulting   Research  Speaking  Training  Writing
  • Strategy  - Talent - Engagement  - Change and OD 
  • Contact me to create more value for your business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

Thursday, 13 April 2017

Future Models of HR

One of the areas which seem to have produced quite a few ideas this year is the future of HR, supporting the broader future of work.

My favourite report in this area is probably Henley's: HR with Purpose: Future Models of HR - partly but not just because I contributed to it.

A lot of the report emphasises the need for HR to act more strategically. Eg the diagram above suggests that creating an HR strategy is one of the most important needs for HR and is also an area of low capability.

I really like the value chain model which is proposed, particularly the split between people and 'HR' (or what I call human capital). Though, as the report points out, these HR capabilities may increasingly be provided by non-humans (robots, AI etc) too. It's also interesting to see HR capabilities identified as belonging to both individuals and groups (the groups part being the focus of The Social Organization). I believe the use and understanding of models like this can really help HR develop a more strategic role.

The key to doing this is to focus on the human capital and other outcomes an organisation wants to achieve. And further back than this, the core business strategy, often expressed through its values and purpose etc. And then developing HRM activities to support these.

I like these questions about capabilities provided in the report (though to me chemical engineering is an operational core competency not an HR capability):

This incorporates both strategic aspects of capabilities (such as chemical engineering  or engagement) and tactical delivery of programmes and processes to deliver capabilities (such as recruitment and retention) and raises some substantive and useful questions, such as:
  • What capabilities? How can we de ne the required capabilities? What are  the criteria for the capability? Can we substitute a capability that might be  easier to build? 
  • Why do we need that capability? What does it add to the organisation? Can we  know when it has added the predicted value?
  • When will the capability be needed? 
  • Where, and how, can we acquire key capabilities?
  • Who owns the capability? Is it necessarily a human capability or can it be built  via some other mechanism?
  • How much of each capability will we need? How can we know when we have  enough, or not enough? How can we maximise the utilisation of the capability?
  • How can we build, acquire, nurture and retain our key capabilities? If the  capability provides competitive advantage, then how can we protect it from competitors?
  • Do we already have capabilities that might contribute to our strategy or even suggest modi cation to the strategy?

The same applies to OD and the report includes one of the figures from my recent article with Dave Ulrich, in which I take each of the core structures from my OPM model and show how these impact upon HR:

I don't agree with everything in the report, e.g. it suggests separating out strategic HR from business partners' account management role. I think it's vital that HRBPs act strategically (i.e. are focused on capabilities), not just the centre.

The report also suggests that it is easier for a business person to learn HR and carry out HR strategy than it is for an HR person to acquire the required business knowledge. This misunderstands HR strategy which whilst acting in the context of the business needs to be fundamentally about people. It also under estimates the amount of people/HR related knowledge people need in order to act in this strategic role.

Other than this, the report contains some great thoughts about potential future models of HR.

  • Consulting   Research  Speaking  Training  Writing
  • Strategy  - Talent - Engagement  - Change and OD 
  • Contact me to create more value for your business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

Thursday, 23 March 2017

A synopsis of The Social Organization

Sorry for the lack of posting here recently, but I've been busy on my new book, The Social Organization.

Actually, I finished writing this in January, and completed the main edits a few weeks back, but I've also been suffering from a bit of a blogger's block. I guess that writing 100,000+ words had used up most of the words I wanted to write.

Also, I have been busy on other things, including some consulting work related to the book. You can find out more about this at my new site I've been developing: Organisation.Social.

The site also includes a synopsis of the book if you want to find more about it now. You can pre-order the book already too.

But there has been loads of interesting things happening in HR whilst I've been away and I'm feeling increasingly motivated to write about them. So I'm going to spend a couple of weeks catching up, and should then be helping you keep up to speed with developments in strategic HR as they happen.

Oh, and I'll be celebrating this blog's 10th anniversary this June too!

  • Consulting   Research  Speaking  Training  Writing
  • Strategy  - Talent - Engagement  - Change and OD 
  • Contact me to create more value for your business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com


Tuesday, 21 February 2017

HR Carnival

Back in the golden age of social of social media, I used to contribute to the monthly HR carnival, a collection of posts from different HR bloggers, providing a great access point into the HR blogosphere.

I'd occasionally host the carnival on Strategic HCM as well, usually with a picture from the Notting Hill Carnival, like the one above.

The HR carnival is still going and has just celebrated its tenth year anniversary - and it's still well work a look.

Carnival of HR - 10 Year Anniversary Edition!

Tuesday, 24 January 2017

HRExaminer's Executive Conversation

I'll be speaking to John Sumser on HR Examiner's Executive Conversation on Friday, 24 March, at 3.00pm GMT, 7.00am US pacific time.

  • Consulting   Research  Speaking  Training  Writing
  • Strategy  - Talent - Engagement  - Change and OD 
  • Contact me to create more value for your business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

Tuesday, 29 November 2016

Executive Pay and Other Reward Innovation

In advance of today's announcements from the UK Government on executive pay here is my summary of the recent event 'Positioning Reward for the Future' where I presented a few ideas about innovating and transforming enterprise reward agendas. This was delivered to a group of senior reward leaders in a session at Microsoft’s London HQ ably organised by beqom.

I opened the session by describing the changes in total rewards and the ‘new pay’ which have taken place but may not have lived up to their initial promises. Certainly if you compare changes in reward to the huge changes which have taken place in recruitment, learning, communication etc, and now even in performance management, I think reward looks increasingly out of step. And given all of the concerns with and challenges to current reward approaches this might be a good time to look again at what we can do. These challenges include a still increasing numbers of shareholder revolts, and people questioning the value of bonuses etc. It also relates to the new types of employees and other workers (including in the gig economy) often with new expectations. All of this is supported by ongoing changes in legislation together with increased uncertainty following the Brexit referendum over here and the US election over the pond, e.g. with the likely unpicking of DOL overtime regulations etc. And if Trump’s planned investments in US infrastructure do send global interest rates upwards this will give us greater opportunity to make larger reward increases and to change the basis for paying people as we do so.

I asked those attending about the recent innovations they had implemented or were planning in their organisations and was initially met with a suggestion there had not been that much; that where there had been innovation it had tended to be incremental rather than transformational; and that there may not even be much of an opportunity to innovate anyway. I challenged back that I believe there is and referenced Gary Hamel and Julian Birkinshaw’s suggestions that the greatest opportunities for innovation today may not relate to our products, processes or business models but be about the way we manage our firms, very much including HR and Reward. I also think the current debate around basic / universal income shows the extent of what we may be able to do.

I was pleased to see that as the session progressed we did flag up quite a few examples of what I thought were absolutely transformational approaches. My personal favourite example was the alignment of reward around behaviours displaying a growth mindset e.g. developing, coaching, collaborating etc.  Some of the main opportunities which we discussed were:
  • Making better use of what we are already trying to do. E.g. taking a more employee centric perspective ensuring rewards are designed to motivate people; and then communicating the value they are gaining (eg through total reward statements). Also allowing managers more direction to set pay (within a framework) - partly because this is one of the key responses required in firms which have abolished performance appraisals or have dropped performance ratings.
  • Team level reward. CEB suggest the proportion of work which is now collaborative vs individually based increased from 20 to 50% over the last decade. So shouldn’t our rewards be more team focused too? This might be about motivating people to demonstrate team behaviours; rewarding teams (whilst avoiding social loafing) or even enabling team members to agree their own pay levels across a team. It’s hard to do but I suggest we may now need to go there. I talked about Whole Food Stores as an example. This company empowers their teams to decide how they want to use their pay budget e.g. to decide whether to recruit another person or simply to work harder and take more out themselves.
  • Increasing pay transparency - partly because this is probably going to be the best way to resolve intractable equal pay problems and partly because organisations will need to do this to enable managers to take responsibility for reward decisions, or for team members to do the same. Transparency is only going to increase anyway - e.g. see the new Glassdoor ‘Know your worth’ (US) and Linkedin salary (US and UK) tools both launched earlier this month. See Buffer’s approach as an example of what can be possible.
  • Reducing pay differentials. The High Pay Centre suggest that an average FTSE CEO now earns 183x the pay of their average worked. This is having a huge impact on engagement, collaboration and even companies’ licence to operate. It’s why Whole Foods has a maximum pay differential of 14x. One of the attendees suggested they all understand that they need to tackle this in their organisations. I was pleased to hear that this is the case and didn’t challenge the point but if we understand it let’s do something about it! Taking a proposal to reduce the CEO’s pay to the RemCom may be a potentially career limiting move but if the differential in your business is anywhere near 183x and you can see the damage this is causing are you doing your job effectively unless you raise this?
  • Reducing or at least being smarter about the use of variable pay as so much research suggests this interferes with collaboration and innovation. Even investment bankers and salespeople often see their bonuses as a simple recognition of their value vs their colleagues rather than a fair reward. Attendees noted that this was something else they all knew they needed to do something about. So once again, let’s do it!
  • Taking advantage of the opportunities provided by prosocial rewards i.e. making a donation to charity, the local community or some good cause to show that the company wants to do the right thing and encouraging this response from the employees. I mentioned a recent attempt to do this at Virgin Atlantic but my understanding is that this wasn’t really prosocial. Offering an incentive of a payment to charity is still just an example of an incentive. Prosocial reward is about making that payment in advance in the expectation that this may encourage a return of effort and discretionary behaviours. 
  • Using gamification e.g. virtual currencies as at IGN, and probably even more usefully, social recognition. This builds on people’s traditional willingness to recognise each other and makes it easier for everyone to do it, all of the time. It uses the principles of social proof to create a reinforcing cycle in which people see recognition taking place which encourages them to recognise people too.

So I do think there is plenty of opportunity and I’m sure we’ll see other approaches emerging too. We didn’t even touch on some of the bigger opportunities such as switching from payment for peoples’ time to rewarding based on their outputs!

However I’d repeat the word of caution I finished with at the event. The above suggestions may prove to be aspects of the way forward in reward but they can never be the sum of what’s needed in any one business. There’s a lot of attention currently on ideas like disruption and the future of work however moving from one set of best practices to any other set, including the ideas listed above, is unlikely to be much of an advancement. The real need is for better, smarter, best fit thinking that identifies particular opportunities for a particular business. And the ambition, bravery and creativity to do things differently, or at least to run simulations and experiments in doing so. This is obviously enabled by having good data and technology which helps do the analytics necessary to inform good decision making.

My final words were an encouragement for attendees to go and create havoc - which I didn’t quite mean! But I think people understood my intent - that there is plenty of opportunity to shake things up in reward, and that increasingly, there may be a strategic requirement to do so.

Organised together with beqom

Happiness is the best driver for success

Our mission is to make the workforce of our customers happy. beqom drives happiness by allowing business managers to lead, align and motivate employees and partners. The beqom Total Compensation platform is used globally across all industry sectors by over 100 large companies such as Microsoft and Vodafone. It addresses all Performance and Compensation aspects such as Salary Review, Bonus, Long-Term Incentives, Commissions, Benefits, Non-cash rewards and all key drivers towards Employee Performance and Sales Performance. HR, Sales and Finance organizations leverage our platform to drive performance, retention, cost optimization and... happiness among their people. 

beqom – to make your people happy

And this is my sign-off too:
  • Consulting   Research  Speaking  Training  Writing
  • Strategy  - Talent - Engagement  - Change and OD 
  • Contact me to create more value for your business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

Thursday, 10 November 2016

TechHR - Putting People at the heart of Digital Technology

Here is the video of my ignite presentation at People Matters' Tech HR conference in India this August.

My suggestion was that the latest breed of workforce productivity tools correspond to the creating value level of strategic HR and that they therefore need to be used in a creating value way.  We err when we forget this and try to treat these systems like traditional technologies.

A good example is measurement through wearables and other technologies - the tendency is always to grab hold of this data to manage people tighter.  See this post from WEF -They’re already here: devices that let your boss monitor your brain.  

Creating value actually needs us to loosen up and give this data to our people to help them manage themselves.

  • Consulting   Research  Speaking  Training  Writing
  • Strategy  - Talent - Engagement  - Change and OD 
  • Contact me to create more value for your business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

Wednesday, 9 November 2016

#CIPDACE16 10 years of Blogging at CIPD conference

I'm not actually at the CIPD conference, but from a content perspective that's not too important today, given how much of conferences get blogged and tweeted.  I do miss the connections - and the basis for developing social capital - but Manchester doesn't provide this opportunity in the way Harrogate used to do.

I was looking up my post on this from a long time back, in my early days of blogging, and realised this was actually ten years ago!

Back then there was no blogsquad, in fact I was the only person blogging. There was no Twitter to promote my posts either. But blogging was already a great way to reinforce my own learning.

Then blogging started to catch on and I remember a couple of years spending time in small huddles with people like Mike Morrison and Steve Bridger tweeting together from the plenaries and then catching up with each other and sharing insights from our separate sessions in the syndicates.

Today conference blogging is a lot more mainstream and the Twitter stream is full on too. But if anything there's now less, not more, actual online conversation, which I think is a shame.

Anyway, happy anniversary to the CIPD and all those blogging on the conference!

  • Consulting   Research  Speaking  Training  Writing
  • Strategy  - Talent - Engagement  - Change and OD 
  • Contact me to create more value for your business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

#CIPDACE16 Margaret Heffernan on Social Capital

Maraget Heffernan has been keynoting at this year's CIPD conference this morning.

She has some great ideas and interesting research on and around social capital published in her books, A Bigger Prize and Beyond Measure. These focus largely on the increasing need for collaboration rather than competition.

She puts a lot of our current focus on competition down to the role of testosterone which can lead to aggression, dominance, poor judgement and weaker emotional intelligence. It also impairs our ability to infer people's intentions and emotional states. Most importantly research shows testosterone causes a decrease in the capability of collaborative groups. In men it rises when we are challenged and again if we win, but it falls if we loses. This creates a hormonal feedback loop in which those who need power get it and continue to demand more power. This doesn't happen in women as testosterone levels do not rise to challenge.

The effect depends on nurture as well as nature. Low power distance societies such as Finland, New Zealand and Austria tie power to expertise and in particular the ability to secure the participation and collaboration of others rather than status and dominance. For example their tax systems act to reduce income differentials.

In the US, UK etc we are told we have to compete to be successful, but this has negative consequences too. It's like Heffernan's CIPD session and TED talk comparing super-chickens with an average group in which the individually productive chickens succeeded by suppressing the productivity of the rest. This superflock is like a lot of our companies. But managing by pecking order and giving organisation superstars all the resources and power mainly creates aggression, dysfunction and waste.

We need a better way to work and a richer way to live.

I love and support Heffernan's work though I don't think it offers much direction to
HR or our organisations. My own book The Social Organization will be out next Summer and will show how companies can build success on a collaborative approach.

  • Consulting   Research  Speaking  Training  Writing
  • Strategy  - Talent - Engagement  - Change and OD 
  • Contact me to create more value for your business
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com