Showing posts with label People management strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label People management strategy. Show all posts

Wednesday, 23 December 2015

HR Plans for 2016



Still need to do your planning for 2016?  You may interested in reading this white paper I wrote for HRZone and CoreHR:


What are your plans to be more effective in your HR role in 2016?

Focus on these four strategies, based in the reality of the working environment, to become more efficient and effective throughout 2016.

Curated and written by independent workplace expert and commentator Jon Ingham, this piece looks in detail at core things that HR need to focus on in 2016 and provides insight into how to make sure you are doing these things well - like finding the right talent and making it count.

If you're looking to become more effective in 2016 and ensure you're focusing on the right things at the right time, this is a must read.

Don't delay - get up to speed with what's important in 2016 today.

  • 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, 15 October 2015

CEB #ReimagineHR - Workforce of the Future




The third area addressed at Reimagine HR was the workforce of the future.

This addressed firstly the changing preferences of employees, for example the growing demand for work life balance or at least increased flexibility rather than just compensation.  People increasingly want to work on demand - putting in time when they need or want it.  It’s why Uber drivers prefer this way of working to having a traditional taxi - they work when they want to, when they’ve got time and need some money.  They have flexibility over their life.  They don’t want to work according to a company’s time requirements, to be beholden to them and under their control.

And this is something CEB finds from everybody - not just millennials.  Employers have to respond to this pull from employees.

I liked Rio Tinto Australia’s policy switch of making managers justify why flexible working would not be appropriate in a certain position rather than requiring an employee to have to make a case to ask for it.

This change should work well against a big shift in the way businesses require work to be done.  (The big challenge for me will be finding a way to fit them both together.)

This is the development of spot markets for talent or the packetisation of skills in which we start to focus on skills rather than individuals and applying these skills in more discreet ways.




The change is enabled by technology and Jean gave the example of EffectiveTeams.com which can be used during a conference call to flag up the background of all participants so that everyone can help utilise the skills and insights of everybody on the call.

The shift will lead to a further increase in the contract / contingent workforce and elance.com was suggested as a model for this type of arrangement.  HR has to change as well as the value it can provide shifts into spotting exactly somebody’s talent and inserting this precisely into the appropriate work streams.  So I think the answer to 'are we there yet?' has to be a resounding no.  HR's only just started to change and there's a long, long way to go.

Jean and Brian referred to this shift as a really liberating idea, and I agree it could be.  But only if it’s used to match more closely with the changing way that people want to do their work.  More likely I’m afraid will be its use to increase the control of the employer, reducing the opportunity for the employee or worker.  (My recent post about zero hour contracts relates to this as well.)


  • 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, 24 February 2015

Why HR must focus on the future(s)




HRZone have launched a great new site this week and to support it, I was asked to input something future focused - the result is an article explaining why we do need to focus on the future, or futures, as I think there will be, or should be, multiple versions of this, and a suggestion for why navel gazing, not analytics, is a necessary part of this.


  • 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, 5 May 2014

Fleming Europe - Gamification in HR












 
On most topics in HR I'm pretty sure what I believe, and although I do sometimes shift on this slightly, my learning tends to be more about how I argue my position, and case studies, pro and con, etc. 

However there are a few other topics I find I touch a lot but don't feel as confident in my perspectives.  One of these areas is gamification.

I know that some companies do find benefits from these approaches but I know there are a lot of nonsense being promoted too.  Eg "most of us want to earn points, gain badges and move up levels" is firstly just rather bizarre, and secondly, complete tosh.

Gamification is more than pointsification for a start.  But as to exactly what it is, I want to be more sure than I currently am.  So next week I'm off to Paris for Fleming Europe's Gamification in HR 2014 Summit.

I'm looking forward to some good debates as there's a pretty amazing list of speakers presenting, representing a broad diversity of roles:

  • Mario Herger, Founder and Partner, Enterprise Gamification Austria
  • Willy Christian Kriz, Chairman, SAGSAGA, Austria
  • Tom Chatfield, Author of ’How to Thrive in the Digital Age', United Kingdom
  • Phaedra Boinodiris, Global Serious Games and Gamification Program Manager, IBM; Founder of WomenGamers.com
  • Roman Rackwitz, Deputy Chair, International Gamification, Germany
  • Tim Ackermann, Senior Director, Talent Acquisition, PAREXEL International, Germany
  • Déborah Lasry, COO - Services, Brand Communications and Quality, BNP Paribas, France
  • Anja Andersen, Employer Branding Leader, Maersk, Denmark
  • Laura Hugonnet, Competencies and Training Project Leader, Suez Environnement, France
  • Fredrik Tukk, Head of Communication, Marketing and Branding, Maersk Drilling, Denmark
  • Noemi Biro, Talent Attraction, Recruitment and Employer Branding Leader, PWC, Hungary
  • Eric Gueronniere, Head of Competencies Development and Training, Suez Environnement, France
  • Magnus Kobke, Head of the Cargo Dynasty Project, Transport Sector Educucation Trust, Denmark
  • Martina Mangelsdorf, Founder and Chief Engagement Officer (formerly Head of Talent Management and Staffing at Novartis), GAIA Insights, Switzerland
  • Pascal Picault, Director of Formaposte, La Poste Group, France
  • John Pugh, Director for Innovation, Boehringer Ingelheim, Germany
  • Tuba Surucu, Vice President, Training and Development Support Services, Yapi Kredi Bank, Turkey
  • Helene Michel, Senior Professor, Grenoble Ecole de Management, France
  • Christian Harpelund, Learning Architect, Grundfos, Denmark
  • An Coppens, Chief Game Changer and Gamification Design Expert, Gamification Nation, United Kingdom


It's a three day long event (based on three levels!) so by the end of the event I should have a clearer focus on what I think.  I'll be blogging from the event too, so please join me to comment on my posts and we can learn about this still fairly new, and potentially important, aspect of HR together.


Or if you want to join me in Paris, you can book for the event here.  I'll even throw in a couple of points for you!


  • 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

Most of us want to earn points, gain badges and move up levels. - See more at: http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/features/1143732/game-afoot#sthash.pj2hUdc9.dpuf
Most of us want to earn points, gain badges and move up levels. - See more at: http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/features/1143732/game-afoot#sthash.pj2hUdc9.dpuf

Friday, 19 October 2012

#E20S - Social HCM?

 

   There’s a new term in town – social HCM.  Or so it would seem….

It might just be coincidence of course, but I recently received a press release about a UK based system called Fairsail, linked to the USA’s HR Technology conference last week.  Of course many HCM systems are already quite socialised (see this post) and Saba branded itself the people collaboration system for a while, but this is the first time I’ve seen one describing itself as a Social HCM system.

Then I got a Facebook invite to discuss Social HCM with Bjoern Negelmann who runs the European Enterprise 2.0 Summit in Paris and which has led onto a Google + Hangout discussion I was supposed to talk at on Wednesday, but unfortunately didn’t manage to make (actually it’s a Hangout On Air which means you can watch the archive on Google / YouTube too).

So what is this thing – social HCM? Well you can see Bjoern’s thoughts here.  As usual, I have a rather different take.  One of my beliefs about HR – taken from Dave Ulrich – is that we need to focus much more on outcomes than we do on activities.  This 1. makes us more strategic as we avoid investing in activity for activity’s sake; 2. makes us more credible as people who deliver things are always viewed more highly than people who do things; 3. gives us a chance to take accountability for the outcomes we produce; and 4. gives us more opportunity to create value by taking these outcomes to our business colleagues as things we can deliver which will help the business improve, rather than just talking about how we can support the business to do what it already needs to do (ie moving from adding to creating value).

It’s why I define HCM as managing people to create human capital – activity to provide an outcome.

So what’s social HCM?

There are probably three possibilities.  The first is doing HCM – or probably more realistically HR – in a social way (activity).  As Bjoern suggests, this might be about being more open, co-creating, collaborative etc.  These are great approaches but this still leaves the door open for following these approaches for their own sake.  Also I’m not convinced that all organisations need to use them.  And I expect that those who believe most organisations are going to become highly open, co-creating, collaborative are being overly optimistic.  I can’t see it happening, and don’t necessarily think it needs to anyway.

The second possibility is focusing on creating human capital through social approaches (a mix of activity and outcome).  For example trying to raise employee engagement by creating a more collaborative environment, as most people – though not everyone – would agree this is one of the major engagement drivers for employees around the world.  This is good too, but is really just an aspect of HCM – I’m not sure there’s enough to justify a new name for it.

And the final option is about creating social human capital (outcome) – which you can just call social capital really – so social capital management (SCM) then, ie the management of people to accumulate social capital.  The problem with this is that you can’t really do this – ie manage people to create this outcome.  You have to lead and enable them instead.  (Actually the same thing applies to HCM but the requirement is even more pronounced with social capital – and the dissonance associated with calling it SCM therefore that much greater too).

It’s the third of these options which excites me, and I’d suggest organisations, their HR functions and Enterprise 2.0 practitioners need to think about.

 

Also see my posts from the E2.0 Summit last year:

 

  • 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, 12 September 2012

HR from the Inside Out (sorry, ahem, Outside In)

HR-from-the-Outside-In-Ulrich-David-9780071802666.jpg  I'm missing Dave Ulrich in London next week, and also at the Singapore Human Capital Summit I blogged at last year.  But it's not long till I catch up with him at the Middle East HR Summit in Dubai, and I have also been reading his latest book: HR from the Outside In, providing more detail on his newest HR competency framework.

I'm going to be posting on the framework again shortly, but I can't let this Outside In thing go unremarked on (again - since I have remarked in it before).

I just don't see why Ulrich has got so hooked on this.  OK, customer centricity is all the rage these days, but the talent centricity has never been getting so much attention either.  And it's this which needs to be the future of HR for me.

Plus I just don't think Ulrich's analysis works.

He suggests we should do placements, promotion, training, rewards, performance management, leadership, communication and culture development all from an outside in perspective, so selecting the employees our customers would want, involving customers in providing training etc.  Fine, as far as it goes - but the best innovations don't come from customers.  The opportunity for an organisation is to understand customer needs, and then to interpret them - to build, extend or challenge them.  If you simply define your business by what your customers want, you'll never do any better than your smart competitors (because they'll be doing just the same as you).  It's the spin you put on your customers' needs which is important, not just the needs themselves.

Ulrich also ties himself up in knots with his analysis of the six paradoxes facing HR:

Screen Shot 2012 09 12 at 14 10 19

Each of these, other than Outside / Inside apparently, are about HR copes with both ends of each dimension - strategic AND administrative, business AND people etc.  So why outside TO inside?  That's just a choice, not a paradox.  It should be outside AND inside at least (and actually that's all I'm suggesting - I'm not saying don't focus on your customers' needs, just that what's happening inside is at least equally important.)

But the best illustration of why HR's approach should be Inside Out comes from the book's case studies.  BAE Systems, MOL Group, Singapore Housing Development Board and Novartis - they're all great case studies, but the source of energy for each one was internal - not external at all.  Ie the HR teams in these organisations took account of the external environment but what makes them good case studies is the insightful, unique strategy developed by the organisation.  None of them would have been helped by input from an average customer.

I can only think the cases were consultancy projects done by some of Ulrich's team at RBL and he hasn't read them properly!

Anyway, apart from all this, I think it's a good book, and will undoubtedly set the tone for HR's development over the next few years.  So I'm going to come back to it again soon.

 

 

  • 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

.


Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Monday, 3 September 2012

Succession planning and integrated talent management

 

   Writing about integrated talent / human capital management last week reminded me that I still(!) haven’t finished my review of the Executive Guide to Integrated Talent Management (featuring me, Dave Ulrich, Peter Cappelli etc).

We’re now on to  succession planning with two chapters from Marshall Goldsmith and then Rob Reindl at Edwards Lifesciences.

Marshall first, writing, not surprisingly, about CEO succession.  And on this topic it’s a decent chapter, but as a contribution to the book and the topic of integrated talent management it’s pretty week as there’s actually nothing here about the need for integration.

There’s a lot on the benefit of focusing on internal vs external succession which you’ll probably realise I’ll support.  But I do disagree with Goldsmith’s argument for this:

“How do you decide when not to develop your successor from inside the company?  The answer, though complicated at one level, is quite simple at another.  Do a cost-benefit analysis.  What will it cost to bring in an outsider?  What are the potential benefits?  What are the costs to promote each candidate?|  What are the benefits?  And finally, are there any outsiders who cannot be matched by someone in the company? If the answer is ‘yes’, by all means hire the outsider.  If the answer is uncertain or ‘no’, promote from the inside.”

 

There’s nothing wrong with this as a generic approach but in terms of CEO succession, the choice is all about the individuals you might consider.  If you believe you’re likely to have stronger candidates outside, this should always be part of the process.  Ideally though it should still start before you have a succession opportunity (or crisis).  Ie you need to keep an eye on the market and identify potential candidates from outside at the same time that you do this internally.  (Of course, if this early process suggests you’ve got the people you need inside you can relax the external scanning a little but it’s probably still worth continuing at a high level in case your internal talent leave.)

 

The following chapter from Rob Reindl, HR VP at Edwards Lifesciences is much more interesting and compelling.  In particular, there’s a really good little case study of a CFO succession which I think is very progressive but possibly a little too focused for most organisations! (it’s a lot of effort for one person who could leave so hence very risky):

“After a couple of years of successful performance, the controller was identified as a successor to the CFO, to be ready in three to five years.  His development needs to prepare to become CFO at that time included experience with treasury, risk management, tax matters, and working with the outside investor community.

During the next five years, Edwards incrementally added staff responsibility for the treasury, risk management, and taxes who reported directly to the controller, who thus began to take on these responsibilities on a developmental basis….

No doubt it took some finessing with some of the functional leaders who were told that they no longer reported to the CDO but were now going to report to the controller, but such tough calls need to be made, especially when you are preparing someone for a role like the CFO job.

In this case, we also needed to pursuade the existing CFO to relinquish these reporting relationships.  Fortunately, she had aspired to be a business unit leader and we felt that she needed some operational experience before taking on that role.  So we created a President of Global Operations role that included global manufacturing, supply chains, information technologies, and quality control.  That experience prepared her to become a business unit leader.”

 

Isn’t that a great case study, and a lovely example of creating value – structuring the whole organisation around the key people, rather than simply the other way around.

The key then is to know your key roles, and, as Reindl describes, your development jobs – though I do think it will present problems for most organisations perhaps less focused on people than Edwards Lifesciences if the CHRO position is always seen as one of these jobs!

 

Also see

 

 

  • 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, 20 April 2012

Challenges and Opportunities for Talent Managers / 2: Creating Value

 

   Right, well I’d half-started a series of posts on talent management (see ‘the truth about talent’) which I’d better complete… and rather than turning this into something that I’ll never get done, I’m just going to summarise a couple of the latest inputs on talent management which have caught my interest.

So for example, there’s PwC’s recent CEO survey which always provides useful insight and that comments:

“Theoretically, finding a good candidate to fill a position should now be a very straightforward exercise. There have never been as many educated people in the world, nor has it ever been as simple for employers to tap this vast pool online. Highly skilled talent is also highly mobile; but just in case, networking advances also mean that many more tasks can be handled remotely or outsourced.

The reality is far different. A Chinese automaker attends job fairs in Germany, even though China produces large numbers of graduate engineers each year. High jobless rates persist in the US and Europe, disproportionately among the young, even as businesses fret that they cannot attract the digitally adept ‘Millennial’ generation to pursue careers in their industries. Too many well-educated citizens of the Middle East and elsewhere are not in the workforce at all. ‘Before, people looked for jobs. Now, companies look for talent,’ said Erdal Karamercan,

-   President and CEO of Eczacibasi Group A S.”

 

I am therefore a bit confused by one of the results in the survey which is that unavailability of key skills has dropped once again as a key threat to business growth prospects (loosing the gains from 2009 and falling back again to 2009 / 2010 levels, having been reported as the very top threat to business growth in 2008 and before). Particularly as:

  • One in four CEOs said they were unable to pursue a market opportunity or have had to cancel or delay a strategic initiative because of a lack of talent.
  • One in three is concerned that skills shortages impacted their company’s ability to innovate effectively.

 

However, there is at least some powerful evidence of firms focusing on smart talent management approaches to deal with the challenge, however significant this is seen. 23% of CEOs surveyed expect ‘major change’ to the way they manage their talent.

There’s also evidence of firms putting their people at the centre of their business strategy, rather than just as means to execute it (creating rather than just adding value):

“CEOs are determined to be more strategic in the way they manage their workforce today and plan for future needs. Up to now, an assumption has held that the market analysis element of a strategic plan is paramount, and how a business ‘resources up’ to meet the plan is something that’s worked out later. Now, leading businesses are looking beyond the next budget round to plan talent needs. A longer-term strategic view is needed, if they want to close the gap today and map how talent needs will change.”

eg: Marijn Dekkers, Chairman, Bayer AG:

”But what is interesting and what is changing is that among Western companies, the ability to hire, develop and retain talent in the developing economies has become a major point of competitive differentiation.”

It’s because talent is so central to competitive success, that I think business management needs to focus on talent (not talent management on business).

 

I’ll be continuing to post on challenges and opportunities for heads of talent next week.  And I’ll also be describing how you (internal practitioners only, sorry) can win a ticket to the Economist’s Talent Management conference this June, where I’ll be chairing one of the panel sessions, and am once again the sole official blogging partner too.

 

 

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

.

Tuesday, 13 March 2012

Trust and Social Responsibility

 

   I’ve been reading the recent research on trust completed by CASS on behalf of the CIPD and am posting a half-way review in the hope that Changeboard will include it in their HR carnival focusing on social responsibility coming out tomorrow.

The research focuses on the need for trust with a variety of different constituents including the mission of the organisations, its customers, leaders, line managers and each other (se my recent post on people like us).

The research strikes what is to me a rather naive and apologistic tone, suggesting that employees need to cut senior leaders some slack:

“The crisis in trust many organisations are facing can be repaired, but not if we continue to blame the economy and focus solely on senior leadership. In reality, we all need to recognise that we each have a stake in the future success of the organisations in which we work. That’s according to new research published by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), which found that the crisis in trust predates the economic downturn and is a function of a breakdown of five types of trust relationship within an organisation*. The report’s authors are warning that relying on any single one of these relationships will not suffice to build the climates needed to enable the economy to grow and innovate.”

 

So for example, we find out that when leaders started to make decisions which revealed lack of ability, integrity, predictability or benevolence it was down to the pressures of the recession (cop-out!) and that employees should avoid having unrealistic expectations and show benevolence towards senior leaders who are trying to do the right thing in the face of adversity (Chairman Mao couldn’t have said it better!!!).

The report therefore suggests that HR needs to ensure that approaches to management and leadership within an organisation do not undermine genuinely good intentions, eg by balancing its stewardship and business partner roles.

I have to admit, I’m not convinced…

 

Personally, I don’t think the issue is that the right intentions are being diluted by misaligned policies and practices, I think it’s our intentions which are out of kilter with what they need to be.  In particular, I think we need to start treating employees as the prime stakeholders in their organisations.  Until we do this, until we start seeing employees as people and not as chattels I don’t think trust is going to improve.

I also argued this point last week in my post on HR’s need to focus on employees, not just the business.  Or see a variety of my other posts, for example on HCL’s employees first approach.

 

The reason I think this is important for social responsibility is that the same argument applies to customers and other stakeholders etc.  Businesses aren’t going to restore levels of trust until they truly put customers and society, as well as their employees, at the heart of what they do.  Not just shareholders.  And particularly not just the fat cats at the top.

But it all starts with the employee.  And I liked the way that John Ainley at Aviva described this in the last edition of People Management in an article linked to one on the ICP’s trust research:

“One of the ways in which we want to distinguish Aviva is by being the company that you can trust,” he says. “We’ve all seen examples of banks putting posters up saying ‘You can trust us’ – well, that doesn’t count for much; people need to feel it. And, in order to do that, we have to have the same feeling among the people who work in the business.”

 

Those feelings are then supported by people focused action:

The “culture of recognition” that Ainley is attempting to instil is based on the idea that we all need to feel significant. “It’s a human need – like food or air,” he says. “If you don’t feel significant, you look to other ways of becoming so; when you see riots, or crime, it’s often people seeking to be significant. So recognition is about recognising the ‘you in you’, getting to know you as a person. If we do that for all our employees, then our belief is that we’ll have a better engaged workforce, and a better engaged workforce means better engaged customers.”

Practical examples of this approach include… Aviva’s talent management process. “In contrast to a number of other organisations who have ‘star’ talent programmes, we have a very clear statement that says ‘If you work for Aviva then you’re talented.’ Everybody in Aviva will have the same conversation about their development, so all our colleagues, wherever they are in the world, are now covered by the same process.” According to Ainley, this has resulted in annual employee engagement scores rising from 64 per cent in 2009 to 68 per cent in 2011, while recognition scores (in response to the statement, ‘At Aviva I am recognised for who I am; what I contribute matters’) have gone from 67 per cent in 2009 to 74 per cent in 2011. “Every company has a process, but the difference is the level of conversation that you have with people,” says Ainley. “We spend a lot of time encouraging our people to have authentic, honest conversations about their development.”

 

For me, it’s creating this sort of attitude that will lead to increased trust, and more effective social responsibility, not naively hoping employees will start cut their leaders more slack whilst their existing attitudes remain in place.

I’d be interested in your thoughts…

 

By the way, I’ll be hosting the HR Carnival here on Wednesday 11th April.  Potential theme, given that it’s Easter: change and renewal?  If you’ve got a blog, please send in a recent post by Monday 9th.  If you’ve not got a blog, what better time to start one?

 

 

  • 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, 5 March 2012

HCI Summit: employees and the business

 

   I’m back at the HCI Summit in Arizona, virtually again – engaged by the content though not quite so much by the experience as when I last managed to attend there irl.

The best sessions for me from the first day were the early ones – and (see the tweet stream) for me, these were the most thought provoking too.

Because we started with Doug Conant, former CEO at Campbell Soup talking about touchpoints – those back-to-back meetings, endless emails and chance encounters in the hallway which most people feel keep them from doing their ‘real work’.  But Doug suggests these are often overlooked opportunities to expand our influence and deliver measurable better results.

At Campbell’s he made the best use of these touchpoint opportunities through various activities, including sending 10-20 personal thankyou cards per day (30,000 of them during his tenure):

 

Very nice, very human.

Which is why I disagreed with Michael Gregoire, CEO at Taleo, in his observation that HR is about managing business, not employees.  Not at Campbell Soup it’s not (wasn’t).  There, talent management is about inspiring each individual in each opportunity a leader has.  And it works…

 

It’s not not about the business.  But it’s not not about employees either.  I’ll say again: ignoring employees is the problem – it’s not the solution.

 

 

  • 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 February 2012

#E20S: Shouldn’t we talk about HR 2.0 instead of Enterprise 2.0?

 

   I’m at the Enterprise 2.0 Summit in Paris today – you can see my posts on the conference at Social Advantage, these include, so far:

 

I’ve been attending some of the most technically oriented sessions rather than the organisational ones, so initially missed one called ‘Maximising Social Work Mindset’.  However, I started to see lots of tweets about HR 2.0, and as I hadn’t been tweeting from my own session (a good sign that I’m not getting much out of it) I decided to move.

Actually, I didn’t find the session itself that exciting, but the twitter stream was particularly good, and included the tweet in the above picture: “shouldn’t we talk about HR 2.0 rather than Enterprise 2.0”.  The basis for this was that if we’re talking about people then HR should have prominence in the move to the social business – obviously something which resonates for me.

Nevertheless, I don’t agree that these are the same thing.  I’ve shown the following slide on here before, taken from a webinar I ran last year:

 

 

The diagram attempts to show that there are a number of things we do in an organisation (activities) around managing people, facilitating connection, and developing an enabling organisation – including use of Enterprise 2.0 technology.

From this perspective, HR 2.0 (the use of social media in HR – for recruiting, learning, performance management etc) and Enterprise 2.0 don’t have much to do with each other – other than they use basically the same technologies and approaches (eg the role of communities) and so doing one makes it easier and more appropriate to do the other too.

 

But there are also three critical capabilities we need to create in an organisation, namely human, social and organisational capital.  Each of these can be supported by the three groups of activities identified above.

Eg I write here mainly about human capital, and although HR – including HR 2.0 - approaches will be the main part of a strategy to create human capital (hence HCM), social and organisational activities will also play a role (eg through creating communities of practice to share knowledge and build capability, or by creating organisational structures which make it easier to contribute and hence raise engagement).

But our focus here is on social capital, or the social business / enterprise (the theme of the Enterprise 2.0 Summit is ‘Designing and the Social Business Excellence’.

Social capital / the social business can also be developed through HR activities (eg managing team performance or introducing pay transparency) and organisational ones (eg creating structures which break down silos and get people collaborating).  So HR and ‘enterprise’ activities are certainly both key parts of a social business strategy.

Both HR 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 technologies and approaches can also be used to build social capital / the social business, so again, from this angle there is an additional overlap.

However, the most critical enabler for social business are just social activities, whether these are:

  • Face to face – eg just getting people talking to each other, or playing with DUNDU dolls which we’ve just been doing here, or

 

 

  • Virtual – eg using a social networking system to support management of a community.

 

So perhaps, rather than HR 2.0 or Enterprise 2.0, we should talk about Social 2.0 instead?  But I’d prefer us just to focus on the social business / enterprise (outcomes vs activities).

(Actually I think social organisation is the best name for this, but again, that’s another whole other blog post, and I suspect you’ve probably had enough!).

 

 

  • 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, 30 January 2012

What is now business critical on the HR Director’s agenda?

 

   We’ll be following up on the issues raised in the HR Directors Business Summit unconference, and discussed in the final unpanel, at the organisers’ new community forum, HR InSights.

However, I thought my summary as chair at the beginning of day two covered both days of the unconference quite well.  The three main issues for me were:

  • Performance.  Of the business, and of the HR function too (eg in Ed Lawler’s presentation, and also demonstrated in the HR with Distinction awards).
  • Leadership development.  In business (particularly given the passion expressed in the unpanel about ‘toxicity at the top’) and in other areas, particularly sports (eg in Sir Clive Woodward’s presentation on coaching in rugby and basketball which suggested some interesting opportunities for business coaching too).
  • Planning and analytics.  Eg I liked the way that David Clutterbuck suggested that we need to be analytical in order to remain caring for our people.

 

I also suggested that ‘social’ should be a key theme for HR, even if we hadn’t mentioned it on day 1, and would come through more strongly during day 2 - which of course it did - particularly given the unconference on the agenda.

And actually it came out in other presentions – eg Penny Ferguson’s keynote on leadership which had nothing obvious to do with being more social.  However, I think this quote is exactly what it’s about:

“We need to get to know the people and get them to open up.  You can’t be a leader unless you know the people you’re leading.”

 

-   Yes, and of course, they need to know each other as well.

 

However, in at least one way, social had already come through as a key theme in the agenda.  I noticed this looking at the hosted lunch sign-up lists after checking on the unconference grid board on the way back to my hotel after the awards dinner on day 1.

There were two lunches on performance (performance through coaching, high performance culture) – both full; three lunches on leadership (inclusive leadership, new directions in leadership development, the living leader) – all full; two lunches on planning and analytics (strategic talent planning, learning and analytics) – both full; but also one lunch on social media and the workplace – also full.  Other lunches were much less well booked up eg the one on pensions auto enrolment was completely empty still (this may be more about how people want to spend their lunchtimes than any real indication of interest, but I think it still says something about the importance of social and the other three issues I’ve listed above).

 

It was interesting, given this, that the three issues people suggested during / straight after the unpanel that they thought were missing were:

  • HR innovation (I accept this omission, though I thought there was much more focus on the need for HR innovation vs just using common sense than there was in at least one previous year).
  • Youth unemployment (this was also a big omission, as it tends to be in most conferences, though we have addressed it in the ConnectingHR unconference).
  • Analytics...

 

Analytics was Peter Cheese’s suggestion and I can see why Peter thought it was less prominent than perhaps it should have been.  For example, look at Ed Lawler’s slides on the importance (and current ineffectiveness) of HR measurement:

 

 

But as I had said in my chairing, I do think analytics had come through as a key theme, and it could have been stressed more if people had been that interested in it.  However, it was interesting that although metrics were suggested as one topic for discussion in the unconference, nobody seemed interesting in discussing it, and we had to fold that particular group (falling, perhaps, for the pensions auto enrolment problem?).

I also thought that this may be another good opportunity to raise my own perspective that yes, measurement is important, but let’s not get too carried away!  The pig doesn’t get any fatter by measuring it – it’s what we do with our measures that counts!

This is another of Lawler’s slides:

 

It looks bad doesn’t it – 40% of CFOs have no understanding of the return on their company’s HR investments.  And this might indicate that HR really hasn’t got a good handle on HR measures and analytics.

But I don’t think it does.  I think it reflects the fact that most of HR’s outcomes are intangible – they can’t be accurately calculated.  From this perspective, the 40% isn’t a problem but a natural consequence of this type of role.

I’m not saying that HR measures, analytics, or approaches like the HR scorecard (which I think is the most appropriate basis for HR measurement) can’t help, but even then, I think ‘know’ is a bit strong.  We can certainly develop insight into this, but we’ll never be able to ‘know’, in detail, exactly what we’ve managed to achieve. 

Return isn’t the issue.  Let’s just accept this and move on – we’ve got bigger challenges to tackle - toxicity and the top; HR innovation and youth unemployment would be better places to start!

 

Picture credit: Rafaella Goodby 

 

  • 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, 22 December 2011

Innovating HR - webinar

 

   If you want to know more about innovation in HR eg developing some innovative activities in 2012, or just improving your / your team’s ‘HR innovator and integrator competency, perhaps implementing some of Vance’s suggestions, or setting up an internal HR app store, then join me for this webinar on Thursday, 12th January 12 2012 at 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM GMT.

This is about the sixth time I’ve had to reschedule this webinar (apologies again for those of you who have tried to book before) but I’ve deliberately rebooked it for before I get too busy after the break – so hopefully there won’t be any problems (and I really will do everything I can to ensure there won’t be).  So reserve your webinar seat now at: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/178781337.

I hope to see you there!

 

Picture credit: LaurMG

 

  • 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, 13 December 2011

Innovative HR in 2012

 

   I presented a session on the future of strategic HRM yesterday.  Now I’m no futurist – I much prefer to focus on the opportunities that are available to us today, but I think I’ve got a good idea of some of the changes we’ll see happening over the next 5 –10 years (I’m not going to repeat them here – just have a scan through this blog).

But of course this is the time of year that everyone produces their predictions for the next one.  I’m not going to do much of this either – I never seem to get these right so there doesn’t seem much point.

But I do want to single out one thing which I’m sure is going to become more important next year.  And this is being more innovative in HR.

There are three reasons for this:

  1. It’s going to be a tough, tough year – at least for those of us in the flatlining (developed) vs growth (emerging) economies.  We cut the fat before the last recession and after a tincy bit of jobless growth, there ain’t much of that left.  Trimming further is going to be harder, and require more radical approaches, than before.
  2. There’s just a ton of stuff to do eg see Josh Bersin’s predictions which include globalised specialisation in recruitment, glocalisation of HR, integration of recruiting/HR etc, social medialisation of recruiting and in fact all HR activities, holistic engagement, transformed development, agile performance management, strategic mobility, enterprise career development, borderless leadership, flexible use of technology and big data segmentation - all of these are mini innovations in their own right (no wonder Bersin’s additional prediction was for reskilling of HR – the function is going to need it!).
  3. Most importantly, no one organisation can (perhaps just the very largest), or should (including the largest), do all of the above.  What companies need to do therefore it to understand the future of strategic HRM for them, and then pick the developments from the above list, and other things, that best fit with their own strategic needs.  Few organisations are doing this well currently, hence some broader innovation in HR’s approach, rather than just what it does, is required.

 

It’s going to be a tough, but an interesting, year!

 

Picture from my recent visit to CERN on the day that we’ve possibly confirmed the Higgs boson – innovation at its most extreme (you may also recognise Katie McNab)

 

  • 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, 12 December 2011

Looking forward – Economist Talent Management Summit

 

   As well as Learning Technologies, the HR Directors Business Summit just before it, and the Enterprise 2.0 Summit shortly afterwards, there are a few other conferences I’ve already committed to attending / speaking / blogging at next year.

One of these is the Economist’s Talent Management Summit in June.  The focus of this year’s conference is going to be on the next generation of leadership, so as well as sessions on engagement and workforce planning, the event will focus on:

 

Differences in the next generation eg more female, and more mobile

The number of women in senior and top management roles is still shockingly small. What must be done to increase the female talent pool and get them into senior leadership positions?

  • How do businesses explain poor retention and promotion of women?
  • What can companies do to retain or increase women’s motivation to lead?
  • What strategies can help overcome invisible barriers?
  • How do you transform a corporate culture and management/employee mind-sets?

Sue Swanborough, Human Resources Director, UK and Ireland, General Mills


Future leadership teams will be composed of members of the “net generation”. How do you build, manage and retain leaders who are more mobile and eager to self-develop than any generation in the past?

  • What are their key values and motivators?
  • How should you align corporate strategy with different ways of working and career development?
  • What role can social media play in engaging them in the organisation?
  • What strategies do companies employ to win the loyalty of their high-potential talent?
A leading company will be quizzed about how they engage the net generation and help the brightest talent transition into the next executive team.

 

Business challenges for the next generation

Leadership quality is critical in times of change, whether moving from zero-growth to high-growth markets or managing a major organisational restructure.

  • What key characteristics does the modern leader need to succeed? In a period of upheaval, what behaviours instil trust?
  • What is that drives pattern observed in good leaders: a country’s culture or rather inherent characteristics of a complex organisation? What does this mean for selecting the right management teams for new, alien territories?
  • How do you define and find the intellectual leadership needed for serious organisational change?
  • What are the secrets of leading diverse or transforming organisations?

A panel of experts will discuss which leadership behaviours have the best chance to move the business forward in times of change and into new markets.

 

HR’s role supporting the next generation

  • Business-oriented HR: putting talent strategy at the heart of corporate strategy
  • How do you turn your top management into talent leaders?

In this discussion, senior management will be challenged on their views of the role of HR and talent professionals as business leaders and influencers.

Panellists:
Tanith Dodge, Director of Human Resources, Marks & Spencer
Doug Baillie, Chief HR Officer, Unilever

 

The 2011 Talent Management Summit was undoubtedly one of the best HR events last year, and I’m sure this one will be equally as good.

You can get discounted tickets up to the end of this / next month but I’ll also be looking for a couple of HR Directors who read this blog to come along as my guests – more details about this next month.

 

 

  • 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, 11 November 2011

The human and the machine

 

   The best session at CIPD11 by far was on efficiency and performance and was delivered by John Greatrex, Group HR Director at Unipart, and Franceso Mereu, Director, HR, Corporate Planning and CSR at Toyota Motor Europe.

For Greatrex there is a growing perspective that there needs to be more of the Human in HR.  He described the need not just to be lean and efficient, but for this to be combined with employee engagement too.  These are both central to the Unipart Way which includes beliefs about there always being a better way, that no problem is a problem etc, but also that engagement drives performance.

Unipart have some great approaches to support this, eg the communication cell providing a framework for daily 10-15 minute briefings ensuring that structured communication takes place every day.

I also liked the way their engagement survey is dealt with in work teams with the results only being passed up to group level if the team can’t deal with them, or the survey process needs to be improved.

More generally, they attempt to measure the process, not the score.  Eg they don’t compare everyone’s engagement score but look for and spread best practice.  The objective is to identify problems – they don’t want people to disguise them.

For Greatrex, all this is about combining lean tools with an engagement philosophy.

In a similar manner, the Toyota Way is based on continuous improvement and a respect for people with a big focus on teamwork.  This needs mutual trust and respect:

  • Setting goals together
  • Involving in decision making
  • On-going sharing of information.

 

For example, business planning is based on the concept of ‘nemawashi’ or consensus building.  Toyota seek to prepare the ground gradually, building opportunities to work as a team through 20 group discussions with 50 managers walking about – looking at documents, asking clarification questions.  If someone doesn’t feel involved properly they can register their desire to be consulted.  It’s then the relevant department’s responsibility to do this.  This encourages the mindset for people to be involved from the beginning.

Also middle and senior managers’ ratings are aligned across the organisation, ensuring that rewards are based on company-wide vs just departmental interactions and ending a clear message that managers are part of a wider team.

 

I loved the way that people were so central to business strategy in these two examples.

The point came up again later in a session on leadership for the future with John Burgoyne who suggested that leadership shouldn’t be either human relations or management science but a mixture of both - the human and the machine.

And it’s what Marcus Buckingham was talking about in his point about organisational leaders’ challenge being to take what is unique in their people, and themselves, and make it useful (he’s been reading Strategic HCM!).

 

I also thought it was interesting to see this today as well: How social media can make your organization stronger:

“For centuries, we have been intentionally creating organizations that are machinelike — rigid departmental silos, detailed policies and procedures, strict roles and responsibilities, detailed strategic plans, etc.

Becoming a human organization is hard mostly because you’re going against centuries of tradition that have a track record of success. We accomplished amazing things in our mechanically inclined organizations, yet becoming more human requires that we change the way we have been doing things.”

 

 

  • 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

.