Tuesday, 16 July 2019

HR Masterclass: Innovating Performance Management



I've been working with Lighthouse / Human Resources Online in Singapore to deliver training there, and in Malaysia, and occasionally elsewhere for about five years now.

My main course is on HR business partnering where I review opportunities for truly strategic people management and organisation design, and we then apply these principles to looking at the HR organisation.

But I'm also going to begin delivering a new workshop, focusing on opportunities to re-engineer performance management, and based on sessions that I also deliver elsewhere.


If you're in Asia and want to increase the strategic impact you're making to your organisation, you may want to come along:


  • 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, 10 July 2019

HR Recognitions in first half 2019




Thanks to everyone who has seen fit to recognise this blog, my tweeting, or other HR work over the last six months. Most recently, thank you very much;



 



 








 


 







So if you feel you need a bit of strategic influence, get in touch:
  • 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, 8 July 2019

Hacking HR: Culture and the Future Workplace




I'll be joining this virtual panel for Hacking HR's Linkedin Live summit  next week, speaking about culture and the future workplace.

We're on at 8.30am ET on Wednesday 17th July, and you can catch other sessions on both the Tuesday and Wednesday mornings.


  • 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, 1 July 2019

How to redesign your organisation for people-centricity




This is the third of my articles on Making HR truly strategic on HR Zone: 
Employee experience and journey mapping are great, but can feel a bit like putting shiny engagement lipstick on a clunky organisational pig!


This was my first article in the series: People centricity vs business support

  • 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, 26 June 2019

The human focused workplace and competitive success



This is the second of my articles on Making HR truly strategic on HR Zone: 


HR is now not just a driver of competitive success in your business – it’s the driver.

So please do not call HR a support function. It is not helpful, as it just closes in our thinking. And it is not true.

In the days when our businesses competed on competitive positioning we were, by definition, a support function. But now that firms compete on organisation capability and health, we are by definition the most strategically important function your business has.


This isn't just me saying this, but the world's pre-eminent firm of business strategy consultants too (sort of).



This was my first article in the series: People centricity vs business support.


  • 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, 22 June 2019

Digital HR Transformation training




I'll be running this session on digital HR transformation in Dubai at the end of October.

We'll be talking about use of digital technology in HR, but I'll also be emphasising that the bigger shift is down to changing business models, with businesses finding new ways to get closer to customers, developing ecosystems, and yes, using new digital technologies, data and analytics to do this. And also the changing workforce, with people being more proactive in asking for what they want, working in new relationships with organisations, and also using digital technologies themselves. This means our organisation models need to change, developing horizontal teams, communities and networks.

HR in the digital world, as opposed to pure digital HR, is then responding to all of these changes too.

It's a big agenda and I'm pleased I get three days to cover it all.

Contact info-mea@informa.com for details.


  • 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, 20 June 2019

Speaking at Business Process Management




And the next conference after that is this one, because I love spending time at the periphery of our profession, and also because I do quite a lot of process design and management work (including this training session).

But even so, attending the other speakers' sessions is going to be a really interesting experience for me, and should hopefully result in some great learning.

I'll be tweeting and posting here as normal.



  • 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, 18 June 2019

HR's Strategic Value and the Connected WorkSpace




I'm featured in an excellent article on HR's role in organisational collaboration published by the new WorkSpace Connect conference in Dallas (where I'll be keynoting this September), also featuring comments from Harald Schirmer from Continental.

"IT and facilities may seem the natural cohorts for driving and overseeing connected workspace initiatives, but HR leaders have a vital leadership role to play, tooif they’re willing to step up to the challenge. Not only can HR help foster a culture of collaboration, but it can turn itself from a support organization to a true value-driver in the process.

In HR parlance, what Ingham and Schirmer are talking about is social connectedness. Just as the group, or team, relationship is at the center of the modern, collaborative business today, so too must it be at the center of HR 'Lots of people still talk about the primacy of knowledge workers in today's business, but actually knowledge is going the way of the dodoyou know, robots, artificial intelligence... can do knowledge much better than us,' he says. The real opportunity or, rather, requirement, he adds, 'is to create the right connections, relationships, or conversations.'"

The Continental case is about the successful migration from an IBM enterprise social network to the Microsoft Office 365 platform for 150,000 employees by facilitating 1,400 volunteer change agents and 350 cross-functional teams including HR, IT and communications. 

I also talk about Microsoft 365 linking their inner and outer loops framework to centralised, decentralised and distributed organisations and suggesting the missing piece from Microsoft's framework is community.

"The second approach to decentralized work is more of a 'volunteer' nature. Perhaps Joe in Accounting, Sue in Marketing, and Paul in Sales are all passionate about wellness in the workplace. They can work as part of a decentralized group dedicated to wellness projects. 'This taps people’s intrinsic motivation rather than needing to extrinsically motivate them, which tends to be the case in teams. [Work] gets done in communities, traditionally communities of interest or communities of practice, but increasingly more proactive ones, which I call communities of performance, as they can achieve important outputs for a business,' Ingham explains. 

At some organizations, communities of expertise have begun replacing centers of excellence. 'These can be around the same size as teams but operate from a different basis and with a different dynamic,' Ingham says."

The article is well worth reading, both for insights on social collaboration, and also HR's strategic, value creating role in developing this, and you can download it here (the whitepaper at the top right).

And of course you can read more in The Social Organization 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



Monday, 17 June 2019

Speaking at Teneo HRcoreACADEMY




I'll be speaking about social HR and The Social Organization in a session titled 'Creating Value through Relationships' at Teneo's HRcoreAcademy in Amsterdam on 16 October.

There are some other really interesting speakers there to, so do come along and look us up.





  • 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, 11 June 2019

Overall Reflections on Creating Inspirational Business from WOBI




I really enjoyed WOBI (World of Business Ideas) last week, and it's definitely had me thinking. I don't think I've changed my mind on anything, but I've connected a few things together a bit differently.

So what were my main insights? Firstly, that there wasn't a lot of focus around the conference's non-social media tagline, Exponential. I might go for something like Inspirational. I'm not saying it was, though I wouldn't say it wasn't, but I'm not one of those who look for inspiration from speakers, I look for insight. But there was a lot of focus on running business in a way that will inspire employees (Hamel, David, Sinek and SMR Covey) customers (Lindstrom) and society (Porter).

So how do you create an inspirational business and / or organisation? Well, I think in a number of ways Hamel got very close. I do think becoming more human is the key. I just don't agree that eliminating bureaucracy, especially managers and management layers, is the main way to achieve this. Managers do add costs and layers do make businesses inefficient, but they're not the biggest thing to point at. Using Porter's ideas they're part of operational effectiveness or execution, they don't impact strategy. Using my terminology, they're value for money, not adding or creating value.

Layers are becoming more important with an increasing focus on being more human, and on employee experience, etc. And I accept that if you were to design an organisation just to develop a compelling experience, you probably wouldn't invent hierarchy to do it. But hierarchy doesn't really get in the way of experience that much. I don't agree with Hamel that being 8 layers down in an organisation feels like being buried under the other 7. I accept that organisational life is often awful and we do need to be more ambitious the way we sort that. But do we really need to start with layers to do that. In my view, not so much. For one thing, hierarchy provides some really useful benefits that it's still difficult to provide as easily through other means. Eg I thought Porter made a very good case for a hierarchical aspect to strategy in our interview.

I'm absolutely not saying that we don't need to redesign our organisations. As Hamel says, our business models have changed but our organisation models haven't done so to anything like the same extent. They now need to do so. That's why I think the opportunity of applying Porter's thinking about business strategy to our organisations is so important.

I loved the way he described this in our interview: "Competition is about what you actually do in the marketplace to achieve value for the customer. Then you back up and that’s where the resources are. There is a cause and effect. We can keep on going further and further back up, keep going upstream to look at cause and causes. Supporting every piece of the value chain there’s another value chain like activity which are the steps you take to get there. And as get more about insight about management we have more insight into what some of those things are. What’s helpful is that we’re getting up the causal chain. Business strategy is about what you do in the marketplace but how you get to doing that is a fascinating question. That’s why I’m interested in the dynamic view of strategy."

We need to start thinking about creating unique and differentiated organisational strategies by developing best fit activities in the organisation value chain. These activities then need to provide the right outcomes which will add and create value for the business. Porter seemed to agree with this perspective too, saying: "if they’re good resources they can be an advantage, part of doing it better."
 
But as well as what our organisation needs to provide, we also need to think about how it is going to do this. So Hamel is absolutely right in suggesting that we need to set clear organisation principles. These provide an additional driver for our organisation design.

And because employees are now more important we need to include their expectations as the third main driver, so that we don't just end up trying to make horrible organisations less awful for people through things like journey mapping (putting experience lipstick on a nasty pig). Or, and this may be the one change I have come away with, we introduce more of a shared value perspective by focusing on societal expectations here.

If these three objectives indicate that we need to reduce hierarchy then so be it, but in my experience that's not the main result most of the time. What I think is a more common result is that we align our organisational groups with the business that needs to get done, including through the use of horizontal teams, networks and, as Hamel mentioned, communities. Doing this ensures that people can get their work done easily and provides a much better basis for their engagement than worrying about bureaucracy.

I think the above steps need to take place before we do anything else, but they're not the most important thing. Hierarchical thinking is a bigger problem than hierarchical structure. And sorting this is about developing David's emotional agility, Sinek's infinite game or Covey's trust and inspiration. Which could of course be principles for  the organisation design. Or simply deeply embedded leadership behaviours getting people to act differently and to provide time and attention for themselves and each other. My worry is that this is difficult to achieve unless you've got the right organisation in place first, so again, I think redesigning the organisation is the most urgent thing. But then you can move on to the most important (I admit I was inspired by SMR Covey's father) and ensure people are acting in a human way in the newly human organisation. (In The Social Organization I call this these the organisational society and architecture).


  • 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, 10 June 2019

Interview with Michael Porter (part 3)



I interviewed Michael Porter at WOBI London this week. This was partly on my main areas of interest in his work and the links between our ideas, and also the points made in his presentations and recent articles:


So to start with, there are increasing claims that it is becoming harder to gain to sustainable competitive advantages for example from Rita McGrath on the end of strategy. Are you seeing this?

MP: No, I don’t understand what Rita is saying. The data is very clear that there are wide and sustained differences in profitability in the same industry. And that it lasts for a long time, not all the time, sometime it’s easy to imitate. And it’s ubiquitous throughout the economy. And I get a little tired being everybody’s foil for everybody to make their name.

There is going to be a dynamic about how long you can sustain things. IKEA has publicly disclosed their strategy for at least 30 years and no one else has come close to it. Because the things that they do are very hard to construct and completely different to the way any other furniture company operates because they’re made those trade-offs.

Part of sustainability is about things you can control. And part of it has to do with what you’re basing your advantage on. Those things can be very different. If you’re Google and you’re competing in the search business it’s a natural monopoly, the more data you have the more valuable your search is. And if you get out ahead nobody will ever catch you. But for other things, if you just have some good people providing a certain level of customer service or support then other firms can find good people to and maybe do it even better by enhancing the technology.

I think there is a highly variable set of circumstances. Every case is different. But you do see companies that have sustainable advantage. And right now, the big GAGA, these big platform models. the whole idea is scale, if you get too big they can’t catch you because your scales too big. It’s a self reinforcing process. So for Uber, the more drivers they have, the less you have to wait, the more convenient the service, There are a lot of businesses now that people see that have these scale effects on the demand side. We used to see scale effects on the supply side but now we’re seeing the demand side can create these scale effects. The trouble with these is that we’re in another internet bubble type phase where we have all these companies that are trying to play these games and the they’re finding out they can’ make money.

And if you apply the five forces model to something like Uber, you’ll see that who is going to capture the profitability is the drivers. To make money you’ve got to able to charge a price that’s great than full cost. We forgot that during the internet period. People were keeping score and thinking you were a success if you had a website with massive number of visitors. But that doesn’t actually produce revenue.


What about the suggestions that the resource based view is becoming more important?

MP: The resources are just one level down. All the things I was talking about today, how you compete, how you do your HR, how you do your service, all those things are that strategy. That’s the choice and actual impact you’re having on the world. All the resources allow you to do those things. So if you’re going to have a superior salesforce with superior technical support then you need a certain type of resource, certain people in order to do that. It involves a set of resources and technology that enables that activity.

Competition is about what you actually do in the marketplace to achieve value for the customer. Then you back up and that’s where the resources are. All the components in the value chain are going to be resources. And if they’re good resources they can be an advantage, part of doing it better. So I never thought the resources was a competing view of strategy. It’s about the level at which you’re looking at the analysis. There is a cause and effect. We can keep on going further and further back up, keep going upstream to look at cause and causes.

We are expanding all the time our understanding of how to best configure and manage and motivate people to do these things. Right now the biggest thing about people is making them excited about working for the company and a lot of that relates to the culture view of the world. Hopefully employees will be pushing their companies to be more shared value and less window dressing. So I’m liking the trends I’m seeing now. More and more people are thinking this way.

For me it’s all about ideas. It’s ideas that move the world and it’s ideas that help people do things better. So I’m in the ideas business, with the idea that the ideas are always evolving as opportunities and technologies change.


So are things like core competencies, or McKinsey's Organisation Health an important idea in strategy?

MP: What does core competency mean, what does it really mean? It means you’ve got some asset and some way of doing something that is distinctive and unique, it’s the same thing, it really is. These people are making up distinctions that aren’t real. It’s not that they not good people I mean they’re great people. And I think different lenses and different ways of looking at things and explaining them is very helpful as it forces people to figure out what they really think and where the cause is and where the effect is and so forth. But unfortunately in the management thinking industry there’s all kind of efforts to create distinctions where maybe there isn’t such a distinction and actually it’s all the same thing.  I’m not mad at anyone, I’m just trying to help people understand not to think that if you use a resource based view of a firm you don’t need a strategy. It’s just about where the roots of the advantage are embedded.


You also suggest in ‘Towards a Dynamic Theory of Strategy’ that creating a theory of strategy involves a the chain of causality. Is it valid or useful to think about customer value chains or workforce / organisation value chains which inform your business value chain?

MP: That’s fine. Strategy is about what you ultimately do at the end of the day to compete in the market How you ultimately get there, I think there is a lot we can learn about that. But it’s so unique and there are so many different nuances.  It’s been less powerful but I’m totally of the view that to get to this kind of salesforce delivering this type of value with these kind of unique strengths there’s a long process, you’ve got to hire these people, you’ve got to figure out how to hire them and how to equip them  with technology and so forth. Underneath every piece of the value chain there’s another value chain like activity which are the steps you take to get there. And as get more about insight about management we have more insight into what some of those things are.

What’s helpful is that we’re getting up the causal chain. Strategy is about what you do in the marketplace but how you get to doing that is a fascinating question. That’s why I’m interested in the dynamic view of strategy. We also find that very few companies that have a great strategy figured it out in advance. It’s partly some core  insights that you have and then you learn how to do it better, so it’s a dynamic process.


And has the role of business leaders and CEOs been changing? For example, Gary Hamel was talking about everyone in a company needing to think strategically. Is there now a need to get more people involved in strategy, rather than just the CEO or a small planning department?

MP: In general a top down view to strategy doesn’t work so well because the people who need to work on it, need to execute it, need to contribute to it, need to be involved in fine tuning the net view.

What has always been important and always will be important that everyone involved in the company needs to understands the strategy. Somebody needs to be able to articulate it, make is explicit, make sure it comunicated, and in multiple ways engage all the different parts of the organisation. Or you’re going let each function of the company drifting off in whatever direction is cool in that function.

What do CEOs do? What’s the job, what’s success? What are the activities involved in this role and how do they work with these massive number of other people involved in these companies as they can’t engage everyone, how do they best create leverage? And strategy turns out to be one of the major uses of CEO time. Because it’s the way they get alignment and get all the people in the organisation to understand who we are and what we do and who we’re serving. Otherwise they’re taking a risk that people drift of in whatever direction is cool because they get a deal but the deal’s not consistent with the where the company is going.

Strategy is one of the tools for developing social capital, for getting alignment and most CEOs invest a lot of time in that, they particulate activity in the strategy process, they’re always out there talking about the strategy, and reminding all their employees whenever they do out and meet with thousands of people, they’re telling a consistent story and they want everyone to hear the same story.

CEOs spend a lot of time on strategy, reviewing businesses, operating reviews, they start with the numbers but also understanding how well is this business doing and why and usually the analysis ultimately it cuts through to strategy issues.

So I’m fascinated by the role of a leader in a company employing 200,000 people - what do you do? We have these enormously complex enterprises now, and lots of really small interesting companies that are growing up. But the key thing we have to have to do, we have to have some higher level guiding principles otherwise we get lost in idiosyncratic discussion that’s not anchored in the real world and what competition is really like - for example, if you are going to have a sound strategy you need to figure out what customers you’re going to serve and so on.

Ultimately, strategy is a creative act, it’s a group of people figuring something out that nobody figured out before because if someone had figured it out it wouldn’t be distinctive and it wouldn’t lead to success. So I always talk about strategy as an act of innovation, involving a lot of different people in a complex system called a company. So how do you get people opened up to think creatively?


But between creating the strategy and implementing it, does it need to come back to a small group of people or person:
 
MP: Somebody has to be able to see the whole and help articulate articulate the whole and make sure there is alignment across all the functions. Any part of a company, product department, quality control, sales force, there’s a certain logic in salesforce management and without clarity on the strategy they’ll just do that. So if the cool thing to do in marketing now is to do social media they’ll just do that. But then the question what is the purpose of the social media  and to what is it contributing and how does that work? So there is a need for a holistic thing to ensure that the whole company is contributing in some consistent way to some consistent strategic positioning.

 
And does that person who can see the whole need to be the CEO?

MP: Not necessarily, there are multiple levels of strategy, business strategy, group strategy, etc. But ultimately the CEO of that business unit is the only one who has right perspective. Everyone else at last somewhat worried about their part. They want to preserve their importance as Chief Marketing Officer or Head of Logistics. The CEO is the only one who is actually neutral and only cares about does all this come together into something distinctive and important and are we reinforcing ourselves rather than fragmenting ourselves?

You can have a lot of people involved in the process but ultimately the people need to come together with the overall company success at issues, not their function, how many people they get to hire. You need to get people away from the functional logic. So there’s a certain good practice on what a good supply chain looks like. Well, it tuns out a good supply chain really depends on the strategy. Do you need to be there every day, do you need to show up on time? - there’s lots of different variations in the supply chain. There’s no such thing as a good supply chain, only the supply chain for this strategy. That’s a point I have to make all the time because people don’t understand that.

We talked about a few other things indlcuing national competitiveness, Brexit and clusters, but I think the above points are the main ones which will interest readers of this blog.


These were my other posts on Michael's presentation:





  • 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, 8 June 2019

More from Michael Porter: Shared Value (part 2)



Part 1 of this post described Michael Porter's points on business strategy at WOBI London this week, as well as my additions on organisational strategy.  However the session was really on shared value, but I think Porter needed to go through all of his earlier thinking in order to make his input on shared value make sense (since creating shared value is really just strategy, in an environment where the broader community is more important).


So competitive strategy is still really useful, but these days it isn't enough. There are growing societal problems which everyone is aware of, and a growing NGO movement etc.  But businesses aren't doing enough and its image and people's trust in it are declining. Young people are being turned off capitalism because it's not what they want their society to be like. Even the desire of company leaders to do something has changed dramatically.


Aside from the ongoing technological revolutions this is the biggest shift and strategic opportunity companies need to respond to. We need to contribute to society rather than greedily take away from it.  Business is the only instrument that can meet needs like this at scale, whilst also making money. Doing this means that we need to link society and core business strategy. We can then regain the acceptance of capitalism, and make our businesses more strategically successful too.  


Creating shared value takes our involvement in society to a new level. It addresses societal needs through business and the business model - doing this and making a profit, seeing it as part of doing business. So not just doing business and making a profit but innovating the way a company is dealing with a social issue at a profit. It moves business from Milton Friedman's concept of business just being to maximise profits, and where philanthropy is not our job, as well as from a focus on CSR which is often just window dressing and gives away money rather than earns it, and even having a social purpose which tend to be very vague, and doesn't connect with the business or how to succeed. Can shared value be something customers value, or a differentiator for the business?


Walmart is a good example. It used to be seen as company than exploited its workers. Now it pays better than average, and has introduced career paths so that lower grade workers do not get stuck. But of course, this is really just what Walmart should have always been doing anyway. So actually, all CSV is, is doing business strategy with an eye on the broader community. Or perhaps recommending a shift from low cost to differentiated competition.

And, of course, companies are only going to invest in shared value when they make a profit too. If one opportunity comes with high shared value but a low or long-term profit and another with low shared valued but high and short-term profit it's obvious which they're going to pick. It's still an inelegant way to help the world do what it needs to do. We really need to be putting that extra value at a higher, or at least at the same level as the profit.


And Porter suggested that investors are crying out for companies to do more of this, and talked about Larry Fink's letter to CEOs. But that wasn't received uncritically. Or look at the problem Paul Polman had at Unilever trying to get their investors to back that company's social approach.

It's why on balance, that for the workforce at least, I still prefer my approach based on the organisation value chain which I addressed in my last post. I like the way shared value sees people as an intrinsic good not just an instrument to achieve profit. But companies are only going to invest in shared value when it provides profit anyway, so this is a very minor distinction. And I think the organisation value chain helps companies understand the investments they need to make more clearly.

Part 3 of the post will focus on my press interview with Michael. Up next.

  • 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