Thursday, 30 April 2009

HR Carnival, 29th April, 2009: some more on web 2.0 and HR

 

    The latest carnival is published by Shauna Moerke, the HR Minion.

 

The carnival includes in little more on web 2.0 and HR courtesy of both myself and Mark Stelzner:

“I see you enjoy our digital offerings. Would you care to try more HR online? You can choose between HR 2.0 or HR 3.0, but, why not have both? Jon Ingham of Jon Ingham's Strategic HCM Blog offers Web, Management, & HR 2.0, while Mark Stelzner of Inflexion Advisors argues We are the Web: HR 3.0.”

 

Technorati Tags: ,,

Photo credit: Boninho

 

  • 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

    .

Final reflections on Romania / HR 2.0 conference

 

      I really enjoyed my trip to Bucharest – a beautiful, green city, modelled on Paris by Ceauşescu and apparently supporting a strong community of HR professionals (Jason was only joking when he said you were hostile!).

I found it very interesting that 120 HR people would come to find out about web 2.0, and am not sure we would have generated the same level of interest in the UK (not that the interest was in any way unwarranted).  I’ve written about this on my latest blogosphere bulletin at HR Zone: ‘Dangers of a tyrannical approach to web 2.0’.

I’d also like to take the opportunity to recommend a former colleague who now works out of Bucharest to anyone who may be after some HR support there: Sinclair Stevenson at Premier Global.  Although I’d also be very happy to travel back…

 

 

Previous posts on HR 2.0:

HR's accountability for social capital

Jason Averbook: Creating and deploying a Digital HR strategy

Scott McArthur: HR 2.0 – the end of the business delusion

HR 2.0 and social capital

HR 2.0 – a more strategic approach to HR

Web, management and HR 2.0

 

 

Podcasts on HR 2.0:

Talking HR 016: HR and web 2.0

Talking HR 017: HR 2.0

 

 

The photo is of Casa Scânteii – which rang a bell for me after having lived opposite one of Stalin’s seven sisters in Moscow, as well as having stayed several times in the Ukraina hotel.

 

 

  • 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

    .

HR’s accountability for social capital (Update from Bucharest HR 2.0 conference)

 

    As well as talking about outcomes, and social capital, one of the other important points I made at the HR 2.0 conference was about HR’s accountability for developing social capital.

One of the reasons I think HR fails to be strategic is that it lacks accountability.   It’s responsible for designing and supporting a set of activities, but not for actually producing anything.  Many HR professionals try to get round this by aiming to take responsibility for a proportion of business results (“this training will result in additional revenue of $x…”).  I don’t think they can.  There’s just too much of an indirect line between HR activities and the final business results.

As I’ve posted recently, trying to get closer to the business makes HR more proactive, but not actually more strategic.

To be more strategic, HR needs to take accountability.  Otherwise, it’s always just going to be a more proactive support function.  Not a true driver of competitive advantage.

So one good reason that HR should be excited about the opportunities of HR 2.0 and social capital (as well as HCM and human capital) is that these provide the function with an opportunity to be accountable for something really important to business success.

That’s the way to the strategic HR and the boardroom table.

 

See also: Can / should HR take on more accountability?

 

 

  • 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, 29 April 2009

Jason Averbook: Creating and deploying a Digital HR strategy (Update from Bucharest HR 2.0 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

    .

Scott McArthur: HR 2.0 – the end of the business delusion (Update from Bucharest HR 2.0 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

    .

HR 2.0 and social capital (update from Bucharest HR 2.0 conference)

 

    Organisation capability consists of three separate types of capital (something which is valued by investors in a private sector company):
  • Human capital is the value which is provided by the people working in an organisation.  It’s owned by the people not the organisation, but invested by the people if they receive an appropriate return on their investment.  When the people go home at the end of a day’s work, they take their human capital with them.
  • Organisational capital is the value provided by an organisation’s own business and management structures and processes etc.  When people go home, the organisation capital stays in the buildings and technologies of the firm.
  • Social capital is an emergent property that results through people working in the organisation.  It’s a combination of their connections, relationships, and the conversations taking place within the organisation. If the people leave the organisation, it no longer exists within the people or the organisation.

 

Each of these three different forms of capital need to be developed in different ways.  So for example, organisation capital can be developed in fairly mechanistic ways.  Human capital needs developing in ways that acknowledges its intangibility, and the complexity between factors.  This is why, while you can redesign a process very quickly, it gets time to get people to use the new process in the right way.  Social capital is even more complex and intangible.  It’s therefore much more difficult to manage than either of the previous two forms.

But it’s also more important.  Thinking about this in more traditional, non-capital terms, the point of performance is most organisations is no longer the individual, it’s the team.  So the value that will be most important to investors won’t be the human, but the social capital.

Going back to my previous two posts (1 and 2), I’m suggesting that HR 2.0 is defined as the management of people in a way that accumulates social capital (in the same way that HCM accumulates human capital).

Note that social capital is a better outcome to focus on than something like collaboration, because it’s more strategic.  As this month’s Harvard Business Review notes, excessive collaboration can reduce rather than increase performance.  But, as I mentioned previously, capital refers to something of value to investors in an organisation.  Collaboration can be good or bad.  Social capital is always good (or or more likely, great) to have.

So how are you managing your people and organisation to accumulate social capital and increase the value of your business?

 

Technorati Tags: ,

 

  • 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

    .

HR 2.0 – a more strategic approach to HR (update from Bucharest HR 2.0 conference)

 

   In my last post, I suggested that we should think about HR 2.0 as a change in management approach, rather than simply the use of web 2.0 technology.

I want to justify this perspective in this post.

A fundamental principle behind strategic HR is that we need to focus on outcomes, not activities.  Web 2.0 is about activity.  It refers to what we do, how we do things, and the technology we use to enable this.  It doesn’t deal with the effects of using this technology.  Therefore, in my view, it’s not a basis for strategic HR.

(I’m slightly over-stating the case here – there are occasions on which simply improving the use of technology without any further change will result in competitive advantage.  But I think these occasions are fairly rare.)

I think this is what we found with e-learning.  A major part of the reason why e-learning has failed to live up to the benefits that were initially anticipated is that we focused on e-learning as an activity (requiring us to introduce new e-learning courses) rather than the outcome of having learnt, including electronically, which would have taken us more quickly towards a blended learning approach.

I’ve made the same point in connection to HCM as well.  HCM isn’t a more strategic approach than HRM because it involves a different way of operating (although it does).  It’s different because it focuses on a new outcome – human capital – which HRM doesn’t include.  HCM is therefore qualitatively different to HRM.

I think HR 2.0 needs to be qualitatively different to HRM too.  This is what the ‘2.0’ tag is about.  If we were talking about a slight shift, an incremental improvement on HRM, we’d be talking about HR 1.1 not 2.0.   Or at least some people might be talking about it – I probably wouldn’t bother.  I am talking (today, at the Bucharest HR 2.0 conference), and writing (here) about HR 2.0, because I think it is a fundamentally different approach to HRM.  And I think this offers new and sizeable opportunities for HR to have more impact on their organisations, and provide a direct impact on competitive success.

(If your want some good arguments to support this case, consult Gary Hamel’s ‘The Future of Management’ in which he shows how management 2.0 is fundamentally different to traditional management still in operation in most of our organisations today.)

This is also why I recently updated the web name of my blog (the name in the top bar of your internet browser: ‘HR to HR 2.0 and human capital (HCM)’, and why I’ve included HR 2.0 in my elevator pitch.

The outcome of HR 2.0, is, I think, social capital.  I’ll write further about this link and explain a little more about social capital in my next post.

 

 

  • 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, 28 April 2009

Web, Management & HR 2.0

 

   In Monday’s Talking HR show, Krishna and I talked about how web 2.0 and HR – with a particular focus on reward.  As part of the show, I summarised my views on Graeme Martin’s report for the CIPD, ‘Web 2.0: Groundswell or Hype?’ (see also my post of the same name, published before the CIPD report, on my Social Business blog).

Today, I’ve flown out to Bucharest to present at a conference on HR 2.0, and this is the also the focus for our next Talking HR show.  So, just what is HR 2.0?

One of my co-presenters in Bucharest, Scott McArthur of McArthur’s Rant (on the left of the photo), defines it as creating meaning in the workplace and so promoting organisational and personal excellence.  I think that’s pretty good.

And Jason Averbook, CEO of Knowledge Infusion who is moderating the session (on the right), sees it as a key component of digital HR.

The important thing for me is that HR 2.0 is not just HR based on web 2.0 technology / social media, ie blogs, podcasts, wikis etc.

I have the same concern about ‘enterprise 2.0’ which the CIPD report (based on Andrew McAfee’s work) describes as web 2.0 behind an enterprise’s firewall (eg Yammer vs Twitter).  To me, enterprise 2.0, or ‘business 2.0’ anyway, is about a new way of working, which can be enabled through the use of web 2.0, but can also be supported through other face-to-face techniques.

This is certainly the case for ‘management 2.0’ which Gary Hamel defines as a new way of operating, which tends to exhibit many of the same attributes as web 2.0, ie being open, inclusive, democratic etc.  But the critical thing is that it’s not dependent on web 2.0.  The reason these two things are similar is that they are both informed by something else – a change in society (society 2.0?) which is based upon changing expectations, or maybe just increasing assertiveness in ensuring expectations are met, coupled with growing maturity in business and other organisations, which recognises the social needs of the individuals within these organisations.

HR 2.0 to me, is part of this broader change of management 2.0.  So in the same way that HR develops the architecture for managers to manage their people, HR 2.0 provides the architecture for management 2.0.

I’m going to continue posting on HR 2.0 over the next few days…

 

 

  • 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, 22 April 2009

Talking HR 015: Managing survivors - with book review: Future Savvy (show notes)

 

   In this episode Krishna and Jon talk about the management of survivors of organisational redundancy programmes.

We look at the need to recognise the emotional reactions of survivors. We also note the need to build resilience of a workforce to help them manage these sort of changes on an ongoing basis.

And we highlight the need for HR to gain support as well (it’s a tough job sometimes!).

Krishna also talks about disgusting videos at Domino’s Pizza; and the need for organisations to help people think about responding to negative feedback.

And Jon talks about ‘bossnapping’, the Chief Performance Officer and Paula Jones on the UK’s The Apprentice show.

We also review of the new book Future Savvy.

 

Listen to the podcast: you can download the podcast to your hard drive or play it streaming from the web.


Talking HR
is hosted by Krishna De and Jon Ingham and you can contact them with your thoughts and feedback about the show at talkinghrpodcast(at)gmail.com.

Follow Krishna on Twitter @krishnade and connect with her on LinkedIn

Follow Jon on Twitter @joningham and connect with him on LinkedIn

 

 

  • 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 April 2009

Globoforce webinar: HCM for positive change in a recession

 

     On Thursday 14th May, I will be participating in a webinar with Globoforce’s Derek Irvine and Compensation Force’s Ann Bares in a roundtable discussion and Q&A session on the importance of HR during this recession.

Derek will chair the session and talk about Recognition.  I will bring my expertise in Human Capital and Talent Management and Ann will join with great insight into Compensation and Benefits. The second half of the presentation will be left open to questions from the audience, so please feel free to submit questions on the registration form, or at any time during the presentation.

Register here

Time:
11:30 am Eastern Daylight Time (GMT -04:00, New York)
4:30 pm GMT Daylight Time (GMT +01:00, London)  
10:30 am Central Daylight Time (GMT -05:00, Chicago)  
8:30 am Pacific Daylight Time (GMT -07:00, San Francisco)

 

 

  • 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

    .

Monday, 20 April 2009

Employee engagement summary & consulting

 

   My recent series of engagement posts has been generating quite a bit of interest, but because there were so many of these, I wanted to finish with a quick summary of my arguments:
  1. Engagement is a bucket of attributes that form part of a bigger bucket of human capital
  2. Because engagement is part of human capital, it’s not the same as satisfaction (it concerns an outcome rather that satisfaction with activities in the HCM value chain)
  3. It’s also of a higher level of value (adding value in the HCM value triangle)
  4. Engagement surveys provide a great basis for increasing engagement, particularly if they link satisfaction, engagement and business results
  5. But why not survey more of your human capital at the same time?
  6. Surveys are only the start of the process - you can also increase engagement by treating people as individuals (creating value)
  7. Following these ideas will ensure engagement isn’t just a woolly concept but is something that will have a very significant impact on your organisation.

 

If you’re working in an organisation, I hope you get a chance to explore some of these ideas.  And if you want some help, let me know.  A quick one-day diagnosis will give you a heads-up on where the opportunities lie, the potential benefits to be obtained from these opportunities, and some suggestions for actions you might want to take to achieve these benefits.

And if you’re based outside of the UK, and during the rest of April and May only, I’m also happy to come to you without charging any travel time.  So get in touch…

(+44 1344 420 512, info [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com).

 

 

  • 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

    .

Sunday, 19 April 2009

Earth Day and Mall Madness

 

     Yesterday’s blog challenge was to visit a mall.  Huh?  Well I hate shopping so I took a couple of hours out of the Smithsonian to visit Earth Day on the National Mall instead.  I still didn’t get any good ideas for a blog post though, so I’m going to cheat and refer to Peter Ubel’s reflections on mall-life, described in his book, ‘Free Market Madness’:

“Is there any place where freedom is more apparent than a super market?  Walking the aisles of your local grocery store, you can freely choose from among dozens of shampoos, scores of cereals, and hundreds and frozen delicacies.

But are you as free as you think?  In some supermarkets today, an anthropologist is wandering the aisles watching how you shop, observing whether your eyes roam the shelves from bottom to top, and measuring how long you linger in front of display cases if you have toddlers in row.  Meanwhile, over at the kitchen store, the proprietors have just placed an expensive new cooker onto the shelves, a deluxe model with a control panel that would put a 1990s VCR to shame.  At nearly double the price of their next-best model, almost no consumers are willing to buy this new product.  But that doesn’t matter to the kitchen store, because the next-best model (which used to be its high-end, slow-selling brand) now races off the shelf, appearing to be a veritable bargain in comparison with this new product.”

 

Ubel goes on to draw from behavioural economics to show that people's’ search for ‘utility’ (basically, the ) is driven largely by illogical decision making.  His main example is the  number of people who eat too much and eat the wrong food, reducing the length and quality of their lives, even though they believe they are making a rational choice each time they reach for their next burger.

But (not) protecting our planet is a very good example of failed utility too.  Returning to the earth-day theme, each one of us needs to consider our decision making and how these decisions add to, or subtract from, a broader view of utility, which includes preservation of our world.  This applies to HR too - see my post on Green 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

    .

Becoming a Human Capital Strategist

 

   Continued from ‘The Future of HR’.

 

The reason for me posting from Washington DC is that I’ve been here to learn more about the Human Capital Institute’s Human Capital Strategist (HCS) / Master Human Capital Strategist (MHCS) course and qualification with a view to partnering with the HCI to deliver theses course and provide the qualifications within the UK and Europe.

I’ve been using the HCI’s research and attending its webinars etc from its very early days, and have been a professional member for a couple of years.  I also attended this year’s Summit in Arizona.  I’m attracted by the idea of working with the institute because it has the closest vision to my own in regard to human capital management, and nicely fills the gap in the provision of strategic level knowledge and training that’s still left open by the CIPD, SHRM etc.

 

If you’re in the UK or Europe, or potentially even in one of the other locations I’ve been working outside the US, and are interested in attending an open HCC / MHCS programme or organising an in-house programme within your organisation, and playing your part in moving to the future of HR, do get in touch (+44 1344 420 512, info [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com).

 

 

 

 

  • 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

    .

Saturday, 18 April 2009

The future of HR (more proactive support function or real driver of competitive advantage?)

 

   Continued from ‘Can an HR professional become the Apprentice?’.

 

Would Paula Jones be a more effective HR business partner if she understood here costs?  Absolutely, yes.  But she’d still be operating in a support role.  She’d probably be a more effective HR operator too as this might give Alan Sugar or her current boss a bit more confidence in her redundancy calculations etc.  But is her ability to add up going to inform her organisation’s competitive advantage (or, because it’s in the public sector, it’s ability to meet its strategic goals)?  Not one bit.

A lot of what’s written about the future HR deals with becoming more proactive – a better business partner – ie better supporting HR’s business clients to meet their business goals.  Even when HR is acting as business player rather than simply a business partner, so it’s truly contributing to business strategy and implementation as an equal to other business execs, I’d argue that it’s still not meeting its potential.

None of this is truly about becoming more strategic.  In my books, the only way HR can really become more strategic is to contribute directly to competitive advantage through its own activities, rather than by how these activities support the business to achieve its existing business goals.  And the way it does this is by thinking about activities in terms of the outcomes these produce and that HR can control – including human capital (via HCM), and social capital (via HR 2.0).

Simply improving the efficiency or even effectiveness of an HR process (value for money) isn’t being strategic.

Working with the rest of the business to achieve a business outcome (adding value) isn’t being strategic, it’s just being more proactive.

Developing a certain type and level of human capital that’s going to enable the organisation to transform what it’s capable of achieving (creating value) definitely is being strategic.  This is the future of HR.

 

 

Picture: Waterhouse, John William, The crystal ball

 

 

  • 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, 17 April 2009

Can an HR professional become the Apprentice?

 

   So now we know!

The big question on the mind of the UK’s HR media over the last few weeks has been whether an HR professional could become Sir Alan Sugar's Apprentice?  The answer, for Paula Jones at least, is clearly no.  I missed the actual episode of the UK’s Apprentice series this week, as I was flying to the US, but what I understand happened, is that despite putting in a generally sound job as project manager, and developing and selling her product, Paula made a rather unfortunate mix up in its costs.  Sir Alan Sugar commented:

"You are a human resources manager - but you can't say you can't do numbers, you can't do this or you can't do that. You know how to work out a redundancy package on a calculator, don't you?  You made a fatal mistake. You're fired!"

 

This need for some basic business acumen is something I haven’t focused on that much on this blog – perhaps not enough? – but then there are plenty of other blogs that do.  And I would like to take the opportunity to clarify that just because I don’t post on it, doesn’t mean that I don’t believe it to be true.  I absolutely do.  Understanding the business, talking the language of business ie Finance, are all absolutely crucial skills for HR.  I just don’t think it’s enough, that’s all.

Business acumen will get you so far, but it’s not the difference that will make the difference to the future 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

    .

Jessica Lee Speaks

 

   One of the things I really appreciate about travelling around the world as I do is connecting with other bloggers who increasingly make an important part of my social network, even if we’ve never previously met face-to-face.

Tonight, I was privileged to spend a short amount of time with a very talented Washington DC based blogger, and I sure HR Professional, Jessica Lee, author of Jessica Lee Writes; editor of Fistful of Talent and chief promoter of sexy HR.

As well as HR, and other stuff, Jessica writes some great posts on web 2.0, for example her recent posts on jumping into social media (my own thinking on this, by the way, is that HR needs to learn this stuff on a personal basis before involving their organisation – it’s very difficult to communicate the benefits without having experienced them first).

So my advice would be to put up with Jessica’s inability to use the Caps key; read her posts and subscribe to her feeds.

Great to meet you Jessica.

 

Technorati Tags: ,,

 

  • 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, 16 April 2009

Carnival Time (15 April 2009)

 

    The new carnival is published at Maximize Possibility.

There seems to be quite a reward focus this time, with two good articles from Ann Bares at Compensation Force and Ryan Johnson at World at WorkGireesh Sharma at Talent Junction, Darcy Dees at Compensation Cafe and Vivian Wong at Talented Apps post about performance management, and Jake Flanagin at Maximize Possibility brings these two themes together with a post called Three Common Pay For Performance Mistakes.

Enjoy.

 

Technorati Tags:

Photo credit: Wanblee.

 

  • 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, 15 April 2009

HR 2.0: Impactul web 2.0 asupra strategiilor de HR

 

    On Wednesday 29th April, I’ll be presenting at this event at the Intercontinental Hotel, Bucharest (Romanian version):

 

HR 2.0: web 2.0 impact on HR strategies

Although the benefits of Web 2.0 tools are becoming clearer for human resources departments, many continue to associate with this technology for social, more personal.  Attendees at the event can learn from the most innovative HR professionals how to use Web 2.0 in:

  • Optimize HR processes
  • Development of creative processes HR
  • Performance Management
  • Talent Management
  • Employee retention
  • Training & Development
  • Recruitment and retention
    • And especially in crisis management

 

I’m thrilled to be presenting at this event, partly because I think it’s a really important subject, partly because I really enjoy meeting HR practitioners from different countries, but especially because it’s going to give me the opportunity to meet face-to-face with two stars from my HR social network:

  • Jason Averbook, CEO of Knowledge Infusion
  • Scott McArthur, Management Consultant at Atos Consulting and author of McArthur’s Rant.

 

I need to check with the event organiser, but I might try to do some live blogging from the event.

 

 

  • 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, 14 April 2009

HR forums / communities [Day 9 – 31DBBB]

 

It’s DBBB day 9 already, and I’m running behind.  Fortunately, day 8’s and day 9’s tasks refer to things I already do anyway.

  • Day 8 suggested interlinking old blog posts.  Now I do link new to old blog posts fairly heavily already, and have started to add some new links to old posts as well.  But I’m planning to go through all my posts, checking formats, existing links etc, particularly from the old days when I didn’t really know what I was doing (do I now?), so I’ll incorporate this challenge into that action plan.
  • Day 9 suggests joining a forum.  The challenge includes some good suggestions, and I can definitely make more of the forums I’m already part of, and especially the one that I’ve created!, but I thought the first thing for me to do might be to note down in one place all the open (vs invite only) HR forums / communities I am already part of (harder than it should be as although most of them are ning’s, I use different email addresses, so can’t see them all together).  And I thought I should also share this with you.

 

Human Capital ning Human Capital (45 members).  Small, select but very well formed.
Human Capitalist Human Capitalists (511 members).  From the Human Capital Institute.
SHCM ning Strategic Human Capital Management (72 members).  Not associated with me, but a great name don’t you think!
Employee Engagement The Employee Engagement Network (1078 members).
A great resource.
Talent Social Talent Social (54 members).  UK focused, talent management.
HRM Today HRM Today Social Network (931 members).  HR bloggers and others.
HR professionals HR Professionals (661 members).  Gautam Ghosh’s social network.
HRM Journal HRM: The Journal (931 members).  An interesting mix of academics and professionals.

 

I think I’m also a member of:

 

I’ve not been at all proactive about joining forums, so I’m sure there are plenty more.  Do you have any suggestions for other forums I should be part of?

 

See also this post on HR podcasts.

 

Technorati Tags: ,,,,

 

  • 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

    .

Monday, 13 April 2009

Talking HR 014: Using video within HR with book review: the Differentiated Workforce (show notes)

 

   In this episode Krishna and Jon talk about the use of online video in HR support engagement, communications and learning and development.

We look at how you might take the content you already have and re-purpose it as video, sharing ideas and thoughts - both inside the company and externally to support your employer brand.

We also discuss how online video can help even when you have a reduced budget. We also share tips on how you can find low cost resources.

Krishna also encourages listeners to look at how your online video is not just push communication but engaging - inviting feedback and making it shareable.

We also review of the new book The Differentiated Workforce.

Listen to the podcast: you can download the podcast to your hard drive or play it streaming from the web.

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES DISCUSSED IN THE SHOW

Access Krishna's online video's as examples of how you might use them

Watch a video from Paolo Tosolini and the Microsoft Academy Mobile programme - see the video below

The Deloitte Film Competition

Details about the IIA white paper on podcasting - your input is invited

 

Talking HR is hosted by Krishna De and Jon Ingham and you can contact them with your thoughts and feedback about the show at talkinghrpodcast(at)gmail.com.

 

Follow Krishna on Twitter @krishnade and connect with her on LinkedIn

Follow Jon on Twitter @joningham and connect with him on LinkedIn

 

Technorati Tags: ,,

 

  • 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, 8 April 2009

3 key questions for HR

 

    Day 3’s task is to promote day 2’s list post.  One way of doing this is by commenting on other blogs and forums, and I’ve added a short review on Amazon.com.  Another is to add a follow-up post on this same blog.  So at the risk of completely overdoing this subject, here’s why - as I say in my Amazon review, and on the Talking HR show – I moderate my criticisms of Becker’s, Huselid’s and Beatty’s book, the Differentiated Workforce, by noting that the authors have asked some important questions that I think all HR practitioners should consider and formulate their own responses to.

These questions include:

1.   How is your company going to differentiate your people management strategy from your competitors?

As I posted previously:

“I agree that "most firms don't really have a workforce strategy" and clearly, this is a bit of a problem!  I agree that "Despite the tremendous attention in recent years to measuring the financial contribution of HR and talent, there is much less attention to getting the underlying workforce strategy right".  I've made this case several times - measures are important, but it's what you do with them that counts.

I also agree with the need to differentiate workforce (or people management) strategy.  I like the authors' point: "Just as any good business strategy involves making the right choices and the right investments, the same is true of a workforce strategy", and also Lucien Alziari's comment in the endorsements: "If you read your company's HR strategy, would you be able to tell which company it was written for?".  I'm a firm believer that you should be able to do so.”

 

If ‘people are our most important asset’, it’s not enough to treat this asset just like every other organisation.  You need to develop some kind of approach that differentiates you through your people (Becker’s, Huselid’s and Beatty’s Differentiated Workforce is an example of one of these approaches).

 

 

2.   What do you mean by talent?

In my view, you don’t need to follow any sort of talent management strategy to differentiate your people management strategy.  But if you do, and for it to be successful, you need to have a very clear view of what talent in your organisation means, and how if contributes to competitive advantage (Becker’s, Huselid’s and Beatty’s ‘A’ roles, based largely on Boudreau and Ramstad’s pivotal talent, are just one example of such a group).

 

 

3.   How are you going to navigate through the long value chain that culminates in improved firm performance?

The authors are correct in noting there is a long and indirect causal chain between HR activities, HC outcomes and business results.  However, I believe they reach the wrong conclusion from this realisation.  As I posted previously:

“The authors seem to disregard the opportunities for creating value by competing on intangibles by explaining that "the line line of sight between workforce strategy and strategic success is typically so indirect that figuring out how to get from here to there is difficult... There are few instances where a selection system, a performance management system, or leadership development has a direct impact on the firm's bottom line, making it hard to see how these decisions translate into strategic success."  I agree with the authors here - it is hard.  But this doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to do it.”

The right conclusions, in my opinion, are that:

  • HR needs to concentrate on human capital outcomes rather than just HR activities
  • These outcomes should be as important to HR as are business results, since these are not directly attributable to HR.
  • Agreeing with Becker, Huselid and Beatty, strategy maps and scorecards are the best way to understand the relationships between elements in the value chain.

 

 

 

 

  • 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, 7 April 2009

10 reasons NOT to implement a Differentiated Workforce

 

    The second of Problogger’s 31 day challenges to build a better blog (31DBBB) is to write a list post.

In fact I’ve already just done a top 10 for HR Zone (which although it’s been published today was actually written at the end of last week, ie before the challenge was set), but here’s another.  This is my top 10 reasons not to implement a differentiated workforce (at least in the way that it’s described with the Differentiated Workforce book).

I’ve already posted on this book, but only after having read Chapter 1, and there’s a lot more I don’t agree with, having read the whole thing.  You can also hear more on a recent Talking HR show, and my interview on HRchitect’s Web Mingle.

So, here’s the list:

1.   A differentiated strategy and a differentiated workforce are two different things.  I agree that people management strategies should be differentiated, but differentiating the workforce is only one way of providing a differentiated strategy.  It’s not a best practice all organisations should implement.
2.   Differentiating the workforce in the way the book describes is only ever going to result in added value.  Greater opportunities lie in creating value, by, for example, building an organisation’s HR architecture around a particular organisational capability.
3.   Differentiating the workforce can be done in lots of different ways.  Differentiating by ‘strategic capabilities’ ie core business processes is only one of many options.  The authors claim that traditional approaches to talent management are not the answer (p53) – and they do have a point here – but job evaluation isn’t the way most organisations identify their talent groups.
4.   It’s not often going to be practical to move ‘A’ players into ‘A’ roles unless these are the ones the players are skilled and qualified to perform.  Matching players and roles is about ensuring that over time a higher proportion of the most talented people are working in the most important roles.  It’s not necessarily about moving existing employees.
5.   ‘A’ roles shouldn’t be the same for all organisations in a sector (p76) – there’s nothing differentiating in this.
6.   Deliberately seeking to attract candidates from below the midpoint of the labour market into ‘C’ positions (p104) is a joke.  Yes, some organisation has got to employ these people, but there’s no reason that it needs to be you.
7.   Forcing a positively skewed performance distribution on ‘A’ positions (p137) is an even bigger joke.  Yes, you want more talented people in more important roles but you want higher performance from them too.  You set more demanding expectations, and still work towards a normal distribution curve.
8.   Holding both line managers and HR accountable for the development of a successful workforce (p88) goes against on of the fundamental principles of good organisation design – to only ever hold one person accountable (RACI analysis).  For me, it’s HR that needs to be accountable for the outcome – which could be the right match of ‘A’ players in ‘A roles’, and business leaders accountable with what they do with that.
9.   Being an employer of choice (vs employee of choice) doesn’t need to mean what they describe it as (p113) – see this post.
10.   The HR scorecard, Workforce scorecard and the author’s adaptation of Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Business scorecard (p156) make sense as a framework for objective setting and measurement at a high-level, but the perspectives within the first two of these simply don’t make sense as they’re not part of a strategy map (p169) – better use the HCM value chain.

 

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

 

  • 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

    .

Are engagement surveys a waste of time?

 

   This is the question asked by Human Resources this month.  Peter Hutton, a former deputy MD at MORI, and author of 'What Are Your Staff Trying To Tell You’ challenges the worth of engagement surveys, explaining that “no one has decided what engagement is and surveys don't ask what bosses want their staff to be engaged with. It's so woolly."

I think Hutton makes a good point (and have proposed some solutions to it in my last post).  However, I don’t agree that surveys are therefore a waste of time.  The type of surveys I’ve described are certainly very valuable, but I think even the less well developed surveys, including Gallup’s Q12, and Best Companies (both of which are criticised by Hutton), add a lot of value too.

The key point is that few business are very good at engaging their people, and that this has a serious impact on their performance.  As Mike Emmott at the CIPD explains:

“More and more employers now see employee engagement as an essential tool to drive improved performance at both individual and organisational levels. Research suggests that there is significant room for improvement . The unfortunate fact is that most UK employees are not engaged and fewer still highly engaged and unless this issue is squarely addressed organisations will continue to under-perform.


“The focus now needs to be on how engagement levels can be improved and how the barriers to engagement identified in the report can be overcome”.

 

 

I think until this situation is corrected, engagement surveys will continue to play a very important role in HR’s and business leaders’ lives.  I also think they’re particularly important right now.  Employees may be more ‘transactionally engaged’ that they were a year ago due to the fear of loosing their job.  But I think they are also likely to less ‘passionately engaged’, ie truly committed to their organisations.  Well designed engagement surveys can help organisations understand how they can turn this passion back on.

 

 

My engagement series of posts:

 

 

 

Photo credit: Fruggo

 

 

  • 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

    .

Monday, 6 April 2009

Strategic HCM Elevator Pitch

 

   I’m participating in Problogger’s 31 day challenge to build a better blog (31DBBB).  This is day 1: “write an elevator pitch for your blog”.

And after a little bit of thought, here’s my elevator pitch:

 

“This blog offers you (HR practitioners) thoughts, experiences, ideas and insights on:

  • Putting people (human capital) first – creating value through people management
  • Facilitating peoples’ relationships and conversations (social capital) - including through the use of social media (HR 2.0).”

The blog’s aim is to help you develop more strategic approaches, and therefore to have more impact on your business.”

 

You may have noticed that in line with this statement, I’ve recently changed the web title of this blog to ‘HR to HR 2.0 and human capital (HCM)’.  However, I’m still keeping the blog’s nominal title, and web address, as Strategic HCM.

 

 

 

 

  • 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

    .

Employee Engagement – MacLeod Review

 

      Continuing, and moving towards wrapping up my recent series of posts on employee engagement, here are my inputs to David MacLeod’s review of employee engagement*.

 

What is employee engagement?

One of my recent posts described engagement as a categorisation, or a bucket.  It will consist of a number of ‘outcomes’ describing the result of an organisation’s management on its people, moderated by the way each employee reacts to this type of management.  This will include things like retention, advocacy, pride etc.

Unfortunately, it seems MacLeod is mainly looking for key words, values or slogans, which I suspect won’t help provide any further clarity.

 

Why does it matter? (i.e. how robust is the evidence that correlates higher levels of employee engagement with organisational performance?)

Engagement has an important role as a key aspect of human capital, being informed by the way an organisation manages its people, and itself informing business results (ie changes in processes, customer satisfaction and financial results etc).  It therefore moves beyond seeing people as a resource to be used to support a business in meeting its objectives (although this is still included too), to a form of capital, which can help set new or more challenging business goals.

Few pieces of research are robust in themselves, but put them together and the argument is very compelling.

 

What does it look like and what enables it?

It looks different from organisation to organisation.  To some extent, each company needs to define engagement for itself, based upon what it sees as important, ie, what is it engaging its people to?

Obviously the activities which enable engagement are also dependent upon the way that engagement is defined.

 

Why does it not happen (i.e. what are the barriers to employee engagement)?

One of the problems is business leaders and HR leaders thinking that the approach I’ve described is too difficult (it’s not that difficult!), and settling for the definition given to them by their survey provider.

 

What should the review recommend should be done to enhance levels of engagement?

Read my posts! :

 

 

* The MacLeod review, announced in September 2008, is being conducted for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform by David MacLeod, working with Nita Clarke from the IPA.  Its purpose is to deal with the fact that only around 12% of the UK workforce can be considered as highly engaged by developing a better understanding of what drives some businesses to engage with their workforce more than others (especially in the current challenging economic circumstances) – in order that others can be urged to do the same.

 

 

 

 

  • 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

    .

Sunday, 5 April 2009

Improving and innovating performance management

 

   Thinking about Leighanne Levensaler’s post has made me realise I’ve not written on performance management for some time.  But I have posted on it several times before.  I’ve even countered Bersin’s (and others’) recommendations to kill the performance appraisal:

“And then read Wally Bock's thoughts on abolishing performance reviews at Three Star Leadership.  Bock refers to a recent Wall Street Journal article which suggests performance reviews are 'ill-advised and bogus' and should be replaced by 'Two-side, Reciprocally Accountable, Performance previews'.  Bock is absolutely right in explaining that it's the ongoing conversation rather than the formal set-pieces which are important, but I think, although I don't agree with ditching performance reviews, that WSJ makes some good points too.  However, I'd ditch the rather ugly name, and unfortunate acronym ('TRAP'), and just call this coaching, which I think needs to be part of any performance management system worthy of this name.”

 

One of the best things I’ve read on performance management recently is a review in People & Strategy (volume 31, issue 3), including a write-up of a discussion with Ed Lawler, about his new book, Talent, held almost a year ago.  The discussion group concluded that performance management is the most critical process in managing talent, but is executed poorly, and “actually, the system/process often gets in the way of managing talent.”

Moving on into the Point / Counterpoint article, Marcus Buckingham suggested that:

“The performance system in most organizations is among the least productive and least popular of organizational rituals. It tends to be disappointing to the employees, frustrating to the managers, and nets little productive output for the organization. It is the equivalent, one might say, of a visit to a bad dentist: Before it happens, you don’t look forward to it; while it’s happening, you wish it were over; and when it’s done, you rarely get the outcomes you wanted.”

 

And Lynda Gratton recalled:

“When Gary Hamel and I asked a group of 20 CEOs at London Business School what was the process that was most broken in their companies, we expected them to talk about production or quality—or even perhaps some manufacturing process. They did not. Almost all said that the process that most irritated and annoyed them was performance management. The emotion in the room was running really high. It was not just that they believed it was broken—they absolutely hated it. They hated the bureaucracy, they hated the form filling, and they hated the ranking.”

 

Supporting my points about design and engagement in my previous post, the group noted that “the ‘ideal’ system and process still will have to be designed, and accepted”.  These are some of the suggestions for improving performance management made within the article:

  • Cascading goals vertically but probably horizontally as well
  • Not using a forced distribution
  • Being based on the organisation’s needs and, where possible, on each employees’ strengths
  • Being employee driven
  • Being fast and frequent
  • Involving the entire community
  • Being web based
  • Being unique – not copying another organisation’s process.

 

 

Much of this aligns with my own recommendations although these tend to go a little bit further than the above - tending to focus on creating a more innovative, higher value approach I’ve called performance leadership, being based upon dreams rather than objectives, and being MUSICal rather than SMART.

But of course, these are only examples and suggestions.  I think the most powerful point emerging from the articles is the need for best fit, and uniqueness, in the approach.  I’ve criticised some of Lynda Gratton’s signature processes previously, but I do think she’s right in suggesting that:

“Good practice can be a real spur to action—but great companies also invent their own ‘signature experience’ that sets them apart. By explicitly communicating what makes your firm unique, you can dramatically improve employee engagement and performance.”

 

This applies to your performance management process as well.

 

 

Photo credit: Baskyes

 

 

  • 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

    .

Tours through the blogosphere: B is for Bersin

 

 

My second tour stop is at Bersin & Associates.

 

As well as producing lots of great research (for example, if you’re a HR / L&D practitioner, you can participate in this new research initiative, The Corporate HR and Training Profession), I think Bersin have some great blogs on their site.

And as I did for my ‘A’ choice, I’m going to select one recent post I think is of particular note (and, I’ll admit, because it also focuses on an area I want to do some posting on anyway).  This is Leighanne Levensaler’s post, ‘Performance Management – can we make it more engaging?’, on her Bersin blog: Straight Talk on Talent Strategy.

 

I think Levensaler makes some great points in noting:

“Let’s face it, at most organizations, employees and managers use the performance management system at the beginning of the year to set goals and to establish development plans - and do not return to the system until they are required by HR to enter performance evaluations and make compensation decisions. When they do have to return to the “system”, they view their effort as an arduous, compliance-driven task rather than a business process to support a high performance culture. Moreover, in our Essential Guide to Performance Systems we found that three out of four managers “do not feel their performance management system helps them do their job better”.

The problem is that the majority of performance management systems implemented today were designed as automation tools for HR practitioners to collect information and not to support the business user. As a result, these systems are highly transactional, cumbersome, and just plain unintuitive. More importantly, they ask a lot of the business user and don’t give them much of any “value” in return. More than half of managers (from the same study) see performance management as an event, not a continuous process or set of management practices to align and engage employees.

If we really want support a high performance culture by encouraging employees and managers to embed performance management practices into their daily work life (i.e., updating goal progress, logging feedback and tracking development), the enabling technology must help them understand what they have to do and get them to want to do it. We must engage them.”

 

This point on engagement is absolutely key.  I’m sure we’ve all seen performance management systems of varying sophistication fail to gain buy-in, and the issue for me is almost always about how they provide a compelling way for managers to do something that, whilst many may understand is important, most would rather put to one side.

The other key point to me is how, whilst still being compelling, performance management is designed in a way that is going to really have a substantial impact on performance.  (Performance management still isn’t going to be successful if it’s engaging but doesn’t really make anything happen).  I’ll return to this point in my next post (however, I will note now, that I don’t, on balance, agree with Bersin’s recent recommendation that killing the performance appraisal is the right way to go).

 

 

Other ‘B’ ’s on my blogroll

Social Media related blogs:

Barry Libert’s Mzinga blog

Bertrand Duperrin’s Notepad

Biz Growth News

Blog Write for CEOs

 

HR related blogs:

Bob Sutton Work Matters

BPS Research Digest

Brain Based Biz

Brazen Careerist

 

 

Note, I’m categorising some of these blogs by their name (eg Brazen Careerist) and some by the blogger’s name (eg Bob Sutton).  This categorisation is actually based upon the names of the RSS feeds, and therefore the letter they appear under in my RSS reader.

 

As well as these blogs, two other at least somewhat social sites I’d recommend are BNet and Business Week’s Business Exchange.

 

 

Review the other things I’ve tagged

As well as the above recommendations, and the blogs at myalltop, you can see other blog posts and other web pages I’ve tagged at:

My delicious bookmarks

My shared items from Google Reader

My ‘Best HCM blogs on my blogroll’

 

All of these are also available on the sidebar of this blog.

 

 

 

 

  • 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

    .

  • Saturday, 4 April 2009

    A is also for Alltop

     

        I started my tour of the blogosphere with 'A' for About.com HR, however, there’s another ‘A’ which is at least if not more important.

    Alltop is an “online magazine rack” of popular blogs, organised by topic, including HR.  One single page, http://hr.alltop.com, provides a really great selection of HR blogs, helping readers gain a good understanding of what’s happening in HR and, as Alltop phrase it: “enhancing your online reading by displaying stories from sources that you’re already visiting plus helping you discover sources that you didn’t know existed”.

    And of course, you can also search in other topics too.

    A recent addition to the site is ‘MyAlltop’ which enables people to create a custom Alltop page that contains only the subscriptions to the websites and blogs they want.  You can see my selections at http://my.alltop.com/joningham.

     

    Technorati Tags: ,,

     

    • 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, 3 April 2009

    Creating value through employee engagement

     

        My last few posts have looked at what engagement is, and how to measure it.  But of course, the most important thing is how to develop it and use it to drive business success (creating value).

    Creating value requires that people are put first, not just current business objectives.  Ie the energy for this comes from the outcome step of the HCM value chain, looking backwards at what activities will achieve these outcomes, and forwards to what business impacts will result – rather than starting with business impact and thinking about the activities and outcomes required to achieve these impacts.

    Putting people first requires an acceptance that people have different engagement drivers, and are engaged in different ways, so we need to take account of these when we look to engage them.  This principle is fairly widely accepted now – but hasn’t always been.  I remember being quite shocked when I read the following statement in Watson Wyatt’s book, the Human Capital Edge:

     

    Value for money through engagement

    ‘“Focus on the basics. People are more alike than different.” It seems counter-intuitive when researchers use detailed data to identify the unique factors that make people tick, but we suggest that companies stop looking so hard for differentiating factors. Over and over again we have seen organizations spending phenomenal amounts of money figuring out what their target employees (say, female Generation Xers) want, and then putting special program in place to attract them. In our view, this is a serious misallocation of resources. Because what those female GenXers want the most from the workplace is exactly what everyone else wants the most: pay for performance, opportunity, strong leadership, fairness. It is very difficult for companies to get those big things right, so they should place their resources where they do the most good.”

     

    I think this approach is about providing value for money as it will help improve existing, basic methods of engagement, but won’t help achieve business objectives.

     

    Adding value through engagement

    An adding value approach takes particular organisational groups – by level, function etc, or particular employee demographics, and looks to support them in different ways in order to achieve certain business results.  It’s about adding value because the focus is on the business results, not the people themselves.  It’s still not getting to the heart of their engagement.

     

    Creating value through engagement

    Creating value requires that organisations treat people differently because of their own individual requirements, interests, perspectives etc.  This is the only way that they will be truly engaged, and therefore will be more likely to make a meaningfully substantial impact on their organisation.

    It is still possible to take people together in groups, but these groups need to be formed using similar engagement drivers rather than organisational factors or traditional demographics (there’s an interesting post on this in the context of employer branding at Libby Sartain’s blog).

    However, even better is to deal with each individual as an individual.

    One obvious way of doing this is to talk to them, ask them about what gets them out of bed in the morning.  I participated in a conversation about this on David Zinger’s employee engagement ning recently.

    I think the other way, which in my experience can work best, is to give people hints about the sorts of factors which may engage them (this approach also helps people understand the variety in the sorts of things which engage different people.  See for example, these two packs of engagement cards:

     

     

    Photo credit: Ingolfson

     

     

     

    • 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, 2 April 2009

    Engagement surveys: the next generation. Survey your human capital (*)

     

         In my last post, I provided some advice on surveying the engagement of your workforce.  But why stop there?  What's so magical about engagement which means this is the only thing you think about surveying, when human capital consists of so much more?  As I've described, engagement is just one bucket inside the bigger bucket of human capital.  And this itself is contained within the even bigger bucket of organisational capability (human + organisation + social capital).  So why not survey these?

     

    What's in your bucket?

    The first step is still to decide what you need to put in your bucket.

    To do this, you need to think about the organisational capability you need to create value for your business - for instance a coaching culture (as a topical example).

    (In reality, this is a bit more complicated than I've just described it of course.)

     

    Or less ambitiously, you could think about the human and organisational resources you require to add value to specific, short-term business goals.

     

    Beyond engagement

    The second step is to think about what measures you can take to help you understand the development of these outcome?  Some of these measures can be provided by the use of employee surveys, and some through other things (eg management information systems for absence, turnover etc; exit interviews; joiner interviews; turn-down feedback; 360 degree feedback; performance rating distributions etc).  But if you follow this process, I bet you'll end up with questions you want to ask your employees that go beyond engagement outcomes into other things.  For example:

     

    Human capital

    • Demographics (for diversity)
    • Health
    • Capability
    • Quality of output
    • Utilisation
    • Productivity

     

    Organisation capital

    • Fitness for purpose
    • Changeability

     

    Social capital

    • Connections internally and externally
    • Level of support
    • Nature of conversations

     

     

    Link back to activities

    The third step is to identify measures for the activities you are undertaking to try and achieve the agreed outcomes.  Some of these measures can also be informed using the employee survey and in the same way that outcome questions will extend beyond engagement, these activity questions will extend beyond satisfaction to include employees' perspectives on different aspects of human, organisation and social capital.

     

     

    * = I'm not calling people human capital.  I'm saying you should survey your people ABOUT human capital.

     

     

    Photo credit: Pilaf 

     

     

     

    • 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

      .

    Engagement surveys - linking satisfaction, engagement and business results

     

    OK, so I'm still posting my thoughts on engagement following on from About.com HR's recent post on this that I referred to under the first stop on my new tour of the blogosphere, (ie the letter 'A').

    I've posted about engagement being a bucket, and about engagement vs satisfaction - about it being more about commitment, but also something that is a measure of output rather than activity, and which is also of a higher level of value in the HCM value triangle.

    These factors mean that engagement surveys can be really interesting because they provide an opportunity to link satisfaction and engagement, and to draw some conclusions about causal relationships between these elements in the activity and outcome columns of the HCM value chain (part of the general service value chain or strategy map).

     

    Engagement survey links

     

     

    Satisfaction (activity) questions should focus on 1) the elements in the employee value proposition ie those practices that the organisation is hoping will engage its staff; and 2) key concerns of staff which can picked up through an initial diagnosis before the survey itself begins.

    Engagement (output) questions should focus on the individual people themselves, for example:

    Rational

    • Alignment
    • Commitment

    Emotional

    • Advocacy
    • Passion

    Behavioural

    • Effort (discretionary behaviours)
    • Retention

     

    There's nothing new about this insight, but I'm still often surprised by the number of surveys that don't provide this capacity.

     

    Problems with Engagement Surveys

    Some of the problems I encounter include:

    • No attempt to link further forward in the value chain, ie to correlate engagement (outcome) with business impact
    • Not enough engagement questions - you need at least half a dozen measures to make it worth correlating responses for satisfaction and engagement questions
    • Not specific enough engagement questions ie lack of thinking about what needs to go in the bucket (survey firms that want to maintain their benchmark databases are the main cause of this problem)
    • No engagement questions, only satisfaction ones (Gallup is the main culprit here - Q12 consists of satisfaction questions which have been correlated with business impact but it misses out the vital level of outcomes in between.  Ie engagement is defined as something that is caused by satisfaction and itself leads onto business results, but Gallup deliberately avoids specifying exactly what engagement really is!
    • Lack of detailed reporting - no ability to interrogate the data, to be able to report locally on a team's engagement to the team manager etc.

     

    My advice - don't put up with problems like these.  Develop your own, bespoke survey in-house, based upon key engagement drivers that you've identified beforehand (through focus groups etc).  Accept the trade-off that you won't be able to benchmark your results with the fact that you'll end up with something much more meaningful for you.

     

     

    Previous engagement posts:

     

     

    My next post will help you extend beyond engagement to survey on human capital itself.

     

     

     

     

    • 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, 1 April 2009

    Learning to learning 2.0

     

    ITU Developing potential slide   During my session on talent management at the ITU event, I emphasised the need to rebalance traditional forms of training with mainly manager-led support, including on-the-job training and coaching, and mainly individual-led development, including use of e-learning, and ongoing informal learning.

    Later on, we also had some interesting sessions more focused on the requirements for effective learning, particularly from Clive Shepherd and Donald Clark.  Donald commented on the need for people to take notes and share their learning in order to enhance recall, so here is a summary of my take-ways (plus some personal interpretation supported by the usual mix of some personal knowledge, experience and perspectives etc) from these sessions.

    Basically, learning has moved on, and needs to change even more, in response to:

     

    Changing demands

    • The increasing stock of knowledge and increasing pressure on time means that knowledge workers can no longer know everything they might need when they need to know it.  Knowing where to find knowledge, but also knowing who might be able to provide required knowledge, both become important.  'Connectivism' emphasises the social nature of learning.

     

    Changing understanding of the processes of learning (from neuroscience)

    • Our brains can easily be overwhelmed by too much information, and forget very quickly most of the information that's been initially taken in.  Boredom isn't a state that's likely to enhance acquisition or retention.

     

    Changing mechanisms for learning (the availability of web and other technology)

    • New tools, eg web 2.0; virtual worlds, mobile devices etc are already helping people to learn more naturally (socially and excitingly) than they are often enabled to do in education and at work (helping gen y outsmart the older generations).

     

    Changing expectations (the supply of people to learn)

    • Gen Y demand authenticity, interactivity, collaboration - but so, increasingly do the rest of us - in Europe, in the CIS and elsewhere.

     

     

    In summary, traditional training isn't well suited for effective learning (or at least, it's just a 'toolbox with only one tool').  The future of learning is going to look very different, and will be very well linked to what's happening on the web / web 2.0  ie learning 2.0.

     

    I agree with most of what Clive and Donald presented.  I do however, find learning styles quite useful and Maslow's needs quite helpful too - even if they're not a hierarchy.  And I'm not going to throw NLP in the bin either - it may not fit with what we know, but I know it sometimes fits with what I need.

     

     

     

     

    • 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

      .

    A foolish HR Carnival

     

       The HR carnival is up at Fistful of Talent.  Or at least it was - it seems to have disappeared again.  Perhaps that's the April Fool?   Anyway, I'm sure it'll be back soon.  Take a look, and also read Kris Dunn's post on engagement surveys, then compare to my posts on engagement preceding and following this particular post.  I'll link back to Kris' post as I complete this series over the next couple of days.

     

     

    • 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

      .

    Strategic-HCM: #2 (well, really #1) in the UK!

     

         I recently added Strategic HCM to RiseSmart's Career 100 blogs and have just learnt that it has come out at #75 (out of over 250 blogs).

    So, thank you for reading - the ranking is all down to you!

    However, while being enormously grateful and really pleased to be in the top 100, to be honest I suppose the ranking is a bit lower than I was hoping for, especially having been in Fistful of Talent's top 25 in the past.  But the rating system is obviously very different and I think the categorisation is a bit broader, and I'm still #2 out of UK career blogs (and that's only because I'm behind my Talking HR co-podcaster Krishna De's Biz Growth News - and she's in Ireland!!! - so this blog is really #1!).  And I'm really chuffed with that.

    Still, I have been doing a particularly high amount of posting recently, and with ongoing publicity (see for example, All Things Workplace, Cheezhead, Gautam Ghosh, Great  Leadership, HR Thoughts, Punk Rock HR, Secrets of the Job Hunt - and obviously here!) and new blogs joining the list all the time, the trajectory is probably going to be downwards rather than moving higher up.

     

    You can help maintain this blog's ranking!

    Go and take a look at RiseSmart's Career 100 directory.  It’s a great tool for research — whether you’re a blogger, a jobseeker, an HR manager, a recruiter, or all of the above - see the site's search function, which enables you to query the content of all 250+ Career 100 blogs at once.  You can:

    • Search by blog name: You can search for specific blogs in the Career 100 and quickly find their rankings and other information.
    • Search content: You can search the content of all Career 100 blogs with a single search by either keyword or topic.
    • View recent posts: You can also view a popup window displaying recent posts from each Career 100 blog.

     

    While you're there, do providing your rating for this blog - click on 'rate this blog'  and score 1-5 (with 5 being the best rating) on:

    • Most Frequent Updates (mine are about once a day at the moment)
    • Biggest Scoops (OK, I don't really do this)
    • Best Writing (that's why your here isn't it?).

     

     

    Technorati Tags: ,,,,

     

     

    • 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

      .