Wednesday 22 May 2013

#ECTalent Managing in the Great Reset / 1


DSCN5093.JPG  A lot of the Economist's Talent Management conference did focus on changes in the world of work.  Dean Royles even nicked Peter Cheese's phrase about work, the workforce and the workplace.  Here are my highlights:


Firstly, Will Hutton provided en excellent context for this change.  The great reset is being caused by the depth and length of the current recessionary period.  This of course varies by country - Will is upbeat about the Eurozone but pretty pessimistic about China.

In the UK, we've got to deal with ineffective innovation, the dysfunctionality about our approaches to ownership (I think Will was talking about housing but I'd put the stock market in the same category).

There are big shifts in technology underway as well.  The last century has seen 9 general purpose technologies - technologies which impact other technologies - the internal combustion engine, electricity, motor vehicles, aeroplanes, mass production, the computer, lean production, the internet and biotechnology.  But the next generation will see about 20 - the mobile phone, nanotechnologies, fusion energy, advanced materials, carbon sequestration, space, managing the nitrogen cycle, water, health informatics, durable customised infrastructure, customised medicine, the brain, cyberspace security, enhanced virtual reality, personalised learning, new manufacturing methods eg 3D printing, and the internet of things.  Oh and big data? - eg the driverless car and pilotless airplane are dependent on sensors and communication networks - transport as big data (so car manufacturers are having to learn from Google about the next generation of cars!)

In her later session on how HR is impacted by all of this, Naomi Stanford mentioned Anybots too.  Well, their impact may be less profound than most of the above but they're a great example of how technologies can be humanised too:


Screen Shot 2013-05-22 at 09.11.35.png


We need to get serious about innovation - no company is smart enough alone to navigate this new world.  So we need to be open to outside influences, ideas, people and agencies.  Firms need to be really clear about what they think is their core business and hence which ecosystem they need to join.  Then open up - co-invent, co-create and co-produce, eg P&G and Unilever with their 'open innovation' orchestrators.  Develop absorptive capacity.  Organise open innovation calls, exploratory 'dates' and open contracts.   Change behaviours (and change rewards - especially of top executives who Will thinks are well over-paid):




(The point about unknown unknowns is why I'm down on big data in HR - at least in aspects of this which are strategically important.)


All of this, and other factors, are causing big changes in the nature of employment and hence talent management.  One of these shifts is the move to knowledge based roles which are driving improvements in the economy.




According to some economists, this is leading to the people-less economy, a world in which 50% do not work.

The remaining jobs are moving into things like micro-production, human well-being, 'wicked' issues and the digital world itself, from cyber security to digital clutter management!

We're also seeing labour market flexibility morphing into indentured labour.

More in part 2...


  • 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: , ,

Tuesday 21 May 2013

#ECTalent - big data analytics

DSCN5103.JPG  I'm at the Economist's Talent Management Summit today.  It's been trailed, and I've trailed it, as being focused on the mobile, agile workforce.  I have to say that I've not seen much about this far (and it's now lunch time).

We did have an absolutely great kick off from Will Hutton, but that was about the new mobile, agile business - not the workforce.  And after that, most of the focus has actually been pretty transactional.  We need to engage our people, yes, but we need to go beyond this too.

So I was pleased to listen to a short input from the Economist's Kenneth Cukier on big data.  And that's without being a huge fan of big data, but I certainly accept it's part of the move to a mobile and agile future, whereas I think most of the rest of this morning has been mainly about what's already been going on today.

Kenneth started by supporting Andy Albon's message that big data analytics are about knowing which way to jump when our assumptions provide wrong.  He then provided a summary of some of the emerging big data practices:

 1.   In the US, 60% of employees are hourly wage (call centre) workers.  50% of these will change jobs over the course of a year.  So it's a big problem.  One organisation looked at 3m data points based on 30,000 employees and found that when people apply for these jobs, if they apply using a browser they have installed (eg Firefox or Chrome) they are 15% more likely to stay longer than if they apply from a browser that came bundled in with a computer (Explorer / Safari).  You can't use this as the only signal but it's still interesting.

2.   Another organisation found that selecting people with a criminal record can lead to improved performance and likelihood to stay.  But the best predictor of whether they stay in a job is if their friends work there, or better, if they like their supervisor .  So it's more valuable to ensure that supervisors are better trained and give better reviews that paying the employees more money.

3.  A large international brokerage pays £10m to a couple of thousand highly paid employees.  Everything these employees do is measured and they're fine with this.  The company scores each research report whether it's opened, printed out etc.  And it turns out there's a correlation between if this is not a solo report but has ben co-authored with someone from a different area and whether it is likely to be seen as more valuable. Employees are now measured and rewarded on this.  It may not be the way for all employees as it's too intrusive? 

4.   Finding diamonds in the rough through social media, eg using git hub (a repository of software networkers) - spying on them - finding out who are the developers who contribute most, who's code is downloaded most.


Kenneth and the organisation have no idea why these things works like this - perhaps something about the gumption of those who take an extra effort to improve their computers being the same sort who take a bit extra care in selecting their next role.

But does that mean you can then recruit on these measures?  Kenneth seems to think it does.  Eg if you could use credit score to raise the quality of your recruit wouldn't you do it?   Well, I wouldn't, no.  That's not a moral issue but a business performance and effectiveness one.  Even if there is a real and meaningful correlation here, it's not a causation.  Changing your browser does not make you a better employee and neither does a higher credit score.  Something else is causing both factors.  Find out what that something else is and then recruit for that.

That's my first worry about big data.  No matter how large the data set there'll always be other stuff outside it.  And if it's that other stuff that's truly causal, not just predictive or correlated then you're not going to know and you're likely to be led towards recruiting for completely random reasons.  Especially as the more important aspects of HR are often the hardest to capture in quantitive data form.  And are therefore less likely to be included in your data set.

My second worry is about how much all of this is being over-hyped.  Yes, data, big and small, and analytical insight into this data is important.  But does it deserve to be on every conference, every magazine issue, ever blog?  For me, the answer's no.  This isn't the future (thought it is probably a part of the future) of our profession.

Actually I thought it was interesting that most of Kenneth's examples were from the Economist's recent article on robot recruiters.  Is this the extent of the interesting case studies?  And OK, this could just be because it's early days on the journey to a more mobile and agile workforce.  But I still suspect it's something else.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

More about me:

Also develop your Strategic HCM capabilities at my new Strategic HR Academy

Dave Ulrich Support Act - South America

Screen Shot 2013-04-11 at 22.55.09.png  I'm also going to be doing my Dave Ulrich support act once again at Seminarium's annual HR conference in Chile and Colombia next month.

This promises to be a great event:

"Today the HR function is evolving and expanding their responsibilities to provide a skilled workforce to improve communication, attraction and retention of customers, increase the value of the company and create a sustainable business leadership through people.

Seminarium presents The Annual HR Conference 2013. Three international experts presenting the keys for Human Resource Management, along with their teams, build organizational changes affecting business growth."

I'm certainly looking forward to the conference, and more generally to the trip.  I'll be talking about social capital - more here on that shortly...

However if you're in Bogota, Colombia or Santiago, Chile, do try to come long.  Or if you're a regular reader, do at least let me know you're there and perhaps we can get a chance for a quick face-to-face '¡hola'?


  • 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: , , , , , , , , ,

Social Media Applications in Asia / Singapore

Screen Shot 2013-05-21 at 08.15.15.png  I'm back in Asia at the end of June delivering this programme on effective use of social media.  It's being held in Singapore on 24th and 25th June.

If you'd like to know more about how social media can support HR, effective management and business operations too, do come along (book at enquiry [at] long [dash] trends [dot] com).

Or if you're a reader of this blog and would like to meet up whilst I'm in Singapore, or just want to say hello, do get in touch with me (at 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



Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday 15 May 2013

#ECTalent: Creating a Mobile, Agile Workforce

Wuhou Temple.jpg  I had thought I was going to be in China straight after my session in Malaysia, but that trip has been delayed to August so I am going to be at the Economist's Talent Management Summit on Tuesday 21 May now.  Woohoo!  (not Wuhou :-( ).

This year's event focuses on 'creating a mobile, agile workforce'.  So the Economist has clearly selected a very important, and increasingly topical, theme again.  I'll be blogging from the conference as I have done for the last couple of years but here are my top three high level thoughts on what I think should be some of the key issues to come up:

1.   Neither mobile nor agile are about technology or infrastructure but attitude and behaviour.

2.   The behaviour change isn't about replacing one set of best practice behaviours with another set of better practices, it's about clearly understanding what needs to be different and then making a small but important set of changes to align around this.

3.   Generating the desired behaviour change isn't easy.  Old traditions and ways of working are hard to change.


I've already posted on this last point in connection to a couple of things I'm involved in or paying attention to - eg the CIPD / MIX's hackathon, the CIPD's 100 thoughts and the Engage for Success movement.  However I've criticised the way these are being implemented* (suggesting that this is being done in a non-agile / adaptable sort of way) and I haven't spelled out how I think they should be executed differently - which obviously has a link to how mobile, agile businesses need to run as well.  So here are my suggestions:

1.   Leaders need to get out of way.  They don't need to do everything themselves, and in fact doing this detracts from the ability of followers to do things for themselves - it makes the entity (hackthon, movement, community, organisation…) less adaptable, not more.  It's not you - it's us.

  • Peter Cheese / Gary Hamel - let us do the hangouts, or at least let us hangout with you and stop hogging the front page.
  • Peter / your CIPD colleagues - stop making special invitations.  It makes the other contributors seem / feel less valued.  If special people can't be bothered to contribute off their own backs they're maybe not so special after all.
  • David McLeod / Nita Clarke - let the movement do the presentations.  I mean give us the slides if you must, though perhaps we can all co-create them.  But let us take the movement forward.  You're over exposed, and whilst the movement's all about you, it's not able to grow.  You've already earned your OBEs - get off the stage.
  • Business leaders - ask your staff about what your organisation needs, listen to them and try to do what they suggest.  And as much as possible, let them take things forward.


2.   When leaders intervene they need to do so in an enabling sort of way.  The role of leaders isn't to provide expert insight, it's to facilitate and encourage others to provide theirs - shaping, building on or challenging these if they need.  Their focus needs to be managing the community not providing all the content.  Wait, back off and comment when you think someone's missed a point - and nobody else is stepping in.  Or come in to recognise those you think are contributing great insights.

Now I will admit that David and Nita do some of this rather well.  Though you probably don't need to be on so many of the movement's podcasts - so spend the time helping find other members of, or people associated with, the movement to be guests, or to co-host some of the shows too.

Peter, Gary (and most of the other hackathon coaches and guides) - we see nothing.  If you can't be bothered commenting on other people's suggestions, even when they directly ask you for yours, you've missed the point I'm afraid.  Well, you both clearly understand the future of management - time to start acting like it too!


3.   This one is a smaller point but when you do ask for opinions, ask about what's important, and what you want really want to know.  Don't ask dumb questions! (and don't provide the answer when you do):

Eg: "Is your organisation changing as fast as the world around it?

Let's face it, for most organisations, the answer is no."


Err, right.  Like that's going to generate a lot of comments then!


4.   This one is more of a personal reflection but think carefully about who you include / exclude.  As someone who has participated in a few hackathons previously and is deeply involved in this agenda I was bound to get involved.  If I'd be invited to be a coach / guide I'd have been more likely to have got on board.

This isn't an issue for me (really - I've got lots of other things to do) but since I haven't been involved it's much easier to snark from the sidelines.  Both the MIX and the CIPD know that I'm a trouble maker (ahem!) so it shouldn't have been that hard.

That's the problem with hierarchy really - not that it naturally constrains adaptability (and implemented well, I don't think it does.)  But that as soon as you put people at the top, you place others at the bottom, and the people at the bottom are never going to feel the same way about the initiative / organisation as people at the top.

(It also makes it more important that the people at the top exhibit the very best behaviours whether that's not cheating their expenses or not abusing their status as a guide.)


* Note I'm a big supporter of all these things (the Engage for Success movement, the CIPD / MIX's hackathon and the CIPD's 100 thoughts) - I just think they could have been done better if they were being done in more agile / adaptable way.  And these are current initiatives focusing on creating agility and adaptability.  If they can't rise to the opportunity, what hope do our organisations have?

Well quite a lot hopefully - but I think the above illustrates how hard generating more adaptable behaviours can be.

Anyway, more on this probably from the Economist Talent Management Summit next week!


  • 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 13 May 2013

Qinetiqette qits - can it be true?


Screen Shot 2013-05-10 at 06.17.31.png  I don't get to spend anything like as much time as I would like to read other peoples' blogs.  But one of those that I have paid a lot of attention to for several years though, and very often talk about at workshops to illustrate one reason why we need to give more attention to our employees and candidates, is Qinetiqette.

You might have seen that I blogged on this issue in relation to recently, but it's always worth remembering that employees don't need something like Glassdoor to express how they feel about things.

Qinetiqette has been a blog written by a disgruntled employee at QinetiQ for several years, providing a caustic insight at developments in the UK's former Defence Research Agency.  Each post gets something like 30-70 comments, mainly from other disgruntled employees.  (And actually the Glassdoor reviews for the company aren't great either.)

Will this have had an impact on Qinetiq's employee brand? - absolutely.  Will it have had an impact on the main corporate brand? - yes, it will as well - despite the CEO's protestations - particularly as the blog comes third top in a Google search on the company.

Don't get me wrong - if I was the HRD at Qintetiq I would be immensely frustrated by the blog, particularly as I'm sure the reporting isn't always / often fair.  But as an external commentator it's been a really interesting phenomena to observe.

So, it's also interesting (and good or bad depending on your perspective) so see that the blog may have come to an end.  The last post (pictured above) was put up some time ago and asked for guest posts from other members of the company.  Someone commented that this was the last desperate act of a site that has passed its sell-by date.  Someone else suggested the author had been sacked.  And as of this weekend the site has been taken down.

Is this the end of Qinetiqette?  I hope at least that if it is, we'll see more author blogging on workplaces issues somewhere else.  And if they'd like to come along to the ConnectingHR unconference and share some of their experiences and perspectives on less-than-Brave HR it'd be great to see them there.


  • 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: , , ,

Friday 10 May 2013

Modern HR, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia


Screen Shot 2013-04-12 at 09.27.20.png  Next week I'll be out in Kuala Lumpur delivering the first two days of Marcus Evans' Modern HR Week (Monday 13 and Tuesday 14 May).


In most organisations, top talent recruitment and retention should already be a number one priority. The real challenge will be in adjusting the strategy to accommodate changes in the workforce, thus it is critical for HR professionals and the business to develop an innovative strategy to meet the new complexities of the business world. A range of measures that provide insights on the effectiveness of talent management practices and explore the efficiency and effectiveness of the HR organisation will be vital.

Benefit from these 2 day course led by Jon Ingham during which he will bring together key knowledge and case studies in adapting and re-aligning talent strategies to develop a sustained approach to talent management. This course strives to address critical metrics to measure human capital in organisations, focusing on talent delivery and return on investment. 

I'm a bit late letting you know, but if you're  a reader of my blog based there, do get in touch and let me know - it'd be great to meet up or chat.


  • 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: , ,

Wednesday 8 May 2013

#CIPD #Hackmanagement - Hierarchical ideas dying slowly


Screen Shot 2013-05-08 at 22.26.22.png  I've been thinking about posting something on this for a few weeks, linked in to my previous comments on employee engagement becoming more social.

As you may know, I'm involved in the Engage for Success movement for promoting engagement, e.g. being one of the team which host its podcast show.  I also got involved in one of the special interest groups, focusing on the future of engagement, recently.  And I was going to facilitate one of their workgroups but felt I had to back out for a couple of different reasons.  One of these was that I was planning on facilitating a session to identify the major forces acting on engagement, and how these forces and therefore the way we need to engage people, needs to change.  But it turned out that we'd already asked a number of academics to give us their perspectives and my work was to help people react to these.  I don't like this split between academic and practitioners - I think we all have an equal potential to comment on anything like engagement - and particularly on something as unmeasurable as how this may change in the future.

Even more importantly, it's a poor way to engage, so if engagement in an idea is as important as the idea itself, it makes no sense to just tell people the idea and ask for their comments - this is never going to be as compelling as getting people to input into the original idea.  Particularly when the idea is actually about engagement!

I talk quite about this with business leaders about this too.  I think the tendency is to worry about employees coming up with the wrong suggestion if they're consulted in major business or organisational decisions.  I try to remind the executives about the wisdom of the crowd i.e. that if employees come up with a decision which is different to the ones the leaders were going to have made it may well be that the employees will be right!  Plus of course, whatever the decision is, it means the employees will be more committed to it.  Better a less good strategy executed well than a perfect strategy which nobody wants to support.

Of course if executives are going to consult like this they need to be prepared to take the actions their employees suggest.  Acting on employee suggestions will be more motivating than telling employees to implement something, but telling them this will still be a lot more motivating than consulting employees for their views and then ignoring what they say.

It makes a lot of sense to me, but I'm increasingly noticing how hard we find it to do.


So in my last post I talked about how pleased I was that the CIPD is pursuing some actions to stimulate innovation in HR e.g. the hackathon it's running with Gary Hamel's Management Innovation Exchange (the MIX).  I also suggested that it'd got off to a poor start.  Maybe it's just me but I find being given the perspectives of a supposed expert on something (can anyone really be an expert on the future?) and being asked to comment as a lot less engaging than being given the opportunity to leap in on an equal footing to everyone else.

And why have the experts make their inputs first, meaning it is less likely for others to find space to contribute their ideas (like Gary Hamel opening up the CIPD's hackathon - surely if they really are experts, they should be in a better position to fill in the gaps once everyone else has already had their go?

There's a further incongruity in that the hackathon is designed as a forum to encourage social innovation in which people can act together to swarm and cluster around good ideas, building on these and developing them organically and naturally into new management approaches, or hacks.  So why limit this ability by imposing hierarchy on what is supposed to be social and spontaneous? Ie do we really need the MIX's mix (sorry) of mavericks, guides, coaches and hackers (which I've just noticed includes me apparently).

I also thought that innovation is supposed to come from the periphery.  This isn't Gary, it's us!

I also think that social innovation is more about social connection that it is social content sharing.  It's great to be able to share ideas on innovating HR, but if we're not connected with each other, if we don't trust each other, it's going to limit our ability to build on each others' ideas.


The other action the CIPD have been taking is asking people to suggest '100 thoughts' on how the profession is going to develop over the next 100 years.  I really, really like some of the suggestions in this - and plan to post soon.  But why give a 'special invitation' to supposed experts - and why give them more space to comment than everyone else?


The only answer I've got to these questions is that, whilst we understand the future needs to be more social and collaborative, we're still thinking hierarchically about how we create this future.

That's not that I'm set against hierarchy - there are quite a few suggestions in the hackathon about ditching hierarchy but I can't see it happening.  And I don't think we necessarily need to do so anyway.  Most of what people object to in hierarchy aren't natural, necessary aspects of hierarchy, they're symptoms of hierarchies implemented badly.  Hierarchies have a use, and, implemented well, they shouldn't stop people doing what they need to do - working sideways as well as up and down.

Hierarchical thinking is different - it serves no purpose and we need to try harder to get rid of it.


  • 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: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday 7 May 2013

Peter Cheese CIPD Progress Update


Screen Shot 2013-05-07 at 09.50.17.png  So Peter Cheese has been in post as the CIPD's CEO for 9 months now and I thought it might be time for a review of progress during this time.

That's partly because I feel a level of, well, not quite ownership or even involvement, but something a bit stronger than interest, in how this is going, having included Peter as my third out of 10 suggestions for the role back in February 2012).

I also advised Peter on five points for his new strategy when he started work last July (quite without any request for this of course, just as this review is similarly unrequested).  So I thought it might be useful?, or at least fun? to review how Peter and the institute are doing against these five things:


1.   Developing more focus on Strategic HR (or HCM)…

I've got to give Peter full marks for this.  I love his suggestion that the HR profession is at an inflection point - that given the changes in the world of work, the workforce and workplace, much (most?) of what we do in HR is no longer fit for purpose.  And I also love to see the way the profession has responded to this with some really revolutionary (and some counter revolutionary) suggestions for the development of the profession in this '100 thoughts' series of provocations.

I'm not too impressed with the way the CIPD's hackathon, together with Gary Hamel's MIX, has been set-up (see my comment on Gary's article, Changing the Way we Change) but I'm still hopefully about using this sort of approach to reinvent what HR does.  It's certainly a breath of fresh air that we're trying to do this now!


2.   …. Including more focus on Social HR

We're seeing less of this so far but there are some good early signs that Peter understands why HR needs to be more social.  (Actually I know he does as I saw him present on this at Gary Hamel's Management Lab back in 2009).

It's also good news that Peter's taken to Twitter, and I love his early tweet I've included at the top of this post.  HR's got to get to grips with dealing with communities and not just individuals.  This lies at the heart of where I think the HR profession is going to have to go.

The rest of CIPD still could be using social media before - blogging, tweeting and as Michael Carty XpertHR notes, commenting on other peoples' blogs as well (if the President of the HR Institute of New Zealand can do it, we should be able to do it to).


3.   Being more social itself ie more membership based

Just about top marks for this one too.  I've not seen that much of this myself, but that may just be because I'm not involved in branch events as much as I've been in the past.  But I've heard Peter talking about the need for the CIPD to be more social / inclusive e.g. responding to and including consultants rather than just practitioners, and doing more through local groups.  Great stuff - though future reviews will need to focus rather more on the execution.


4.   Getting rid of Bridge (spit!)

No change here unfortunately which makes Peter's intent to include consultants feel rather hollow too.  (We're not going to feel included whilst your competing with us.)

Get rid of it Peter - ideally before July!


5.   Developing these themes through the conference

Coming on nicely - I didn't get to the CIPD annual conference last year as I was keynoting at HR Norge, and I missed this Spring's HRD conference too, but I did follow the tweets and things seemed to be developing well:

  • More of a strategic focus, though I still think there's more that we can do.
  • More on social HR, but this needs much more focus still.  This is partly about more use and more talk about social media, but it's about using more social approaches too.  I thought we could have done the live hackathon at E20S better than we did, but the approach has got potential, and it'd be great to do us trying this at the CIPD conference.
  • More of a social approach from the CIPD and it was great to see Peter getting some comments on his approachability.


So just a bit less than full marks for this area because the CIPD are still wheeling Lee Sears round their various events spurting the same nonsense about Next Generation HR (it's great to see most people in the 100 Thoughts putting forward a different type of agenda though).

In summary, great performance on four out of five of my suggestions.  I may come back with some new thoughts for Peter's second year, though I probably won't, and in case of this, here's one more suggestion for next year.

We know the average tenure of CEOs is continuing to fall and if he's not already done so, Peter needs to start thinking about succession (the institute should be role modelling good HR after all).  We really shouldn't have to be paying an agency to find us the head of our profession (as my post in February 2012 was designed to illustrate).

But given everything that I've just been discussing, can't we do this in a more strategic, social was as well.  Eg I love the way the CIPR have been asking their members to elect their new President. If we could do this for the next CIPD CEO I think we (the institute and the profession) would really be moving forward...


  • 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: , , ,