The CIPD is leading - but in the wrong direction?

 

   

During its centenary this year the CIPD has been congratulating itself on its long history of leading HR into the future.  I agree that the institute has been leading, but as I noted in my previous post, it’s also great to see it starting to lead the profession much more proactively.

Leadership is a difficult business, and I’d much prefer the institute to be leading in a way that I disagree with than not leading at all - as this still gives people something to bat against.

So here goes, as I do think they are leading in the wrong direction!  Take the CIPD’s new framework for the future of HR:

 

 The framework consists of the following four aspects:

• Changing context.  I completely support the need for this to be here.   Business needs, workforce expectations and the opportunities provided by technology have all changed beyond all recognition over the past few years.  So has our experience of the different ways of doing HR.  But these ways still aren’t well enough known.  There’s still far too much belief that HR’s just about doing basic things well and that there’s nothing new in HR anyway.  Nothing could be further from the truth!  The changing context, and the impact of this context, need to be much better understood than they are.

 

• HR and Learning Processes, Practices, Policies.  What’s this doing here?   There’s nothing new about these.  OK, the way that we need to do HR, including learning, has been transformed, but why not put something like HR innovation, or internal transformation in the framework to make this clear?  And if we do want to put something about what we’re doing now, let’s make it clear that what we really need to focus on is outcomes, not activities!

 

• Science of HR.  This is where the framework really loses it!  OK, there may be a need to introduce more scientific approaches, to learn from neuroscience etc.  But science isn’t the difference that will make a difference to our organisations’ success.  What we need is to be more strategic; to build more compelling workplaces; to be more creative; and artful in our solutions.  The difference is ART - you’re going to be hearing a lot more about this during this year!

 

• Business and Commercial Insight, and Analytics.  Oh dear, oh dear.  Firstly, yes, we need business and commercial insight, but again, that’s not going to make the difference.  Much more important than this is insight into people and organisational culture.  That’s going to help change our organisation’s much more than developing the same skills our business colleagues already have!  Similarly, with analytics - yes, we need to use whatever tools and approaches we can to further our insight about our people, but it’s what we do with the analytics that will count.  Most of that is still going to come from good, calibrated intuition, and enhanced imagination!

 

So how has the CIPD got themselves stuck down this blind alley?

Well the fact that Peter Cheese spent 30 years at Accenture, promoting their systems, solutions and structured methodologies probably has something to do with it.  (This experience takes more than a few years to recover from - I know I’m still getting over just 5 years at Andersen Consulting.)

But more importantly to me, this leads to the other flaw in the CIPD’s leadership approach - that they’re trying to add leadership to the HR community, rather than leading from within the community.  It’s a subtle but important distinction.  Leading from within is about shaping and promoting an agenda, but taking that agenda from what the HR community believes, rather than developing this themselves, largely independently from the membership community.

I have lots and lots of conversations with HR practitioners and they’re not saying what the CIPD says.  This isn’t about needing leadership - these practitioners are already acting to promote agendas within their own organisations.  What they need is for the CIPD to understand this agenda, take hold of it and make it happen.

Still not convinced?  Take a look at the '100 Thoughts’ the CIPD asked for over the Summer and was going to publish but has apparently dropped (because these thoughts don’t align with their own agenda?).  Only one person in here mentioned science and one other metrics.  And this isn’t because we’re scared or suspicious about this (more about that soon), in my opinion at least it’s because we’ve investigated these and we don’t see them as the future of our profession!

Peter’s absolutely right about the importance of the following questions:

“The world of business is transforming. The recession and the banking crisis that triggered it, combined with a multitude of high profile crises in organisations across the public and private sectors, have changed the game. The questions that business leaders in both public and private sector and in all sizes of organisations are looking to answer are those of people management and development: How to restore trust; build employee engagement; tackle skills shortages; and help solve economic and societal problems like youth unemployment and issues surrounding fairness in pay and reward."

 

It’s just that in my opinion again, the CIPD’s new framework provides the wrong set of answers.

Your thoughts?
 

 

• 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: analytics, CIPD, HR, Peter Cheese, framework, science, art, imagination

Preparing for workforce growth in 2014

It’s that time of the year again! Christmas advertisements and decorations are out and I’ve already seen a few other posts starting to give advice for 2014.  Personally, I always try to avoid doing this, at least not until the start of the year.  However, there’s a good reason why 2014 should be an exception – growth!

In the UK, the Bank of England has confirmed the recovery has finally taken hold and new jobs are accelerating with unemployment set to fall potentially to 7% by the end of 2014.  It’s not all hands on pumps quite yet, but organisations will need to dust away a few cobwebs to support the new opportunities a revitalised economy will need.

For one thing, the whole focus of HR and Recruiting may need to change.  I’ve never been that sold on the idea of Recruiting as a profit centre – some functions will be able to take this opportunity but most will not.  However the idea that HR and Recruiting should focus on the value they are creating rather than costs of running the function, are totally spot on.  HR costs a small fraction of a business’ total expenses but its impact on a business is huge.  We can save pennies by watching our costs or add on pounds by providing the right people our businesses need.  Spending on HR support to enable business success has to be the right move, and the need for this contrast in approach will become clearer as the economy takes off.

You’ll see this shift in the metrics we use as well.  We need to focus on quality-of-hire (as a contribution to this value we are creating) rather than cost of recruitment. We also need to focus on time-to-hire as well. In a growing market we’ll increasingly see those functions which are slow-to-act missing out on the prize.

• Quality of hire will always depend on a particular business’ strategy, its context, the people it is recruiting, etc. But for me, the key is to link it back to what the organisation as a whole is trying to achieve, not just a specific job.  The fact that someone can do their job is one thing, but what’s more important is improving a company’s core capabilities. Will a new hire be capable of thriving in areas like innovation, collaboration, quality of leadership and speed of execution, etc? Although quality of hire proves to be a more complicated calculation to solve than that for time to hire, organisations should strive to do both.

• As well as being less complex to measure, time to recruit is also more comparable between organisations.  However, give careful thought to what the target should be, as this should be unique to each business.  Are you driving this towards zero? Perhaps try scouting for candidates in the marketplace, recycling candidates, or putting more focus on internal successors and alumni.  Or, are you setting a negative target? For example, are you hiring people in advance of identifying specific needs?  This is something that should be possible in many businesses in high growth mode, as the cost of doing this is often less than having a role left unfilled.

These strategies are not solely about the HR / Recruiting function – we also need to engage hiring managers in changing their role. They should become more strategic in their demands, more creative in their search, and more focused and proactive during their recruitment campaigns.  This is one reason why we need an integrated approach where HR and Recruiting work closely together. In many organisations this is going to require more effort than just good influencing by the recruiters.  We’re going to have to grasp the nettle of who gets to manage and whether they have the capabilities and motivation to manage, and also recruit.

This post is sponsored by iCIMS.

iCIMS is the leading provider of talent acquisition software for growing businesses. Through the implementation of easy-to-use, web-based solutions, the iCIMS Talent Platform helps organisations manage everything from sourcing, to recruitment, to induction all within one streamlined application 

Check out a free walk-through of the iCIMS system or make contact at +44 (0) 118 9000 706 or europeansales@icims.com.

 

Technorati Tags: Hiring, iCIMS, IT, Recruiting, System, Technology

CIPD 2013 Review

 

The CIPD’s 2013 annual conference has been a great event - well organised and thought provoking.  See my live posts from the conference (links at bottom of post) and I’ll be following up with more on the CIPD’s new framework, HR as data science and external reporting over the next few weeks.

Here are ten, mainly positive, comments on the conference:

• Peter Cheese is clearly having a big impact on the CIPD.  I tend to believe that a CEO”s impact on an organisation is often overstated, but Peter provides an example of how transformative a good (or bad) new CEO can be.  (I’d be careful not to overdo this though - do Peter and CIPD staff need to introduce each session for example?)
• A lot of new stuff was being presented, particularly new research from the CIPD - see the above.  I disagree with a lot of it, but am pleased to see it taking place.  (I’d like to see it being formed by rather than imposed on the membership though.)
• There was a great buzz throughout the conference and exhibition and I thought the reduced number of concurrent sessions probably helped this.
• The speakers were generally very good and got me thinking (eg about the living wage) which isn’t always the case at conferences.
• The free exhibition was good and the exhibition sessions added a lot of value to those visiting just this, which is important as this is organised by our professional institute.
• The changes in work, the workforce and workplace provided a good context for the conference (though I don’t think classifying each session within these three categories worked.  And if we’re going to focus on the workplace, let’s get someone in who knows about workplace design - Nigel Oseland and / or Neil Usher would provide a good point to start.)  I’d like to see the CIPD do more to communicate the extent of change HR is going through at the moment - I still don’t think this is well understood by many members.

 

 

• It was great to see yet more conversation on social media, and more visibility for this too, including on the conference app.  (The back channel screens should have been up throughout the conference though, not just making an appearance for 30 seconds before sessions in the main auditorium.  The tweets on the couple of display screens were too small to read.  And let’s get rid of all the slide print outs and put these on the app as well.)
• Two days was good - I’ve changed my mind on this.  I do think it’s reduced the conferences sole remaining differentiation (post the community focus in Harrogate) versus other events but this is probably a good trade-off to get the additional buzz.
• It was great to hear that the CIPD wants to involve the substantial proportion of its members who work as consultants.  (I’ve still not seen much happen to support this yet though - and o think Kenexa / IBM had too big a role in the conference - although…
• It was great to see no sign what so ever of Bridge!  Has Peter achieved my fifth objective for him too???

 

Thanks to the press team for having me there to tweet and blog.  I hope you don’t mind that a fair bit of my blogging and tweeting was quite critical - but I stand by position that disagreement is a positive aspect of engagement - apathy is the opposite of engagement, not disagreement.  And I believe my blogging and in particular my tweeting will have helped get the CIPD’s agenda to a much broader group of people than if I hadn’t been there.

And hopefully this post evens things up!  Next for a bit more constructive criticism! (sorry)...

 

My other posts from the conference:

• #CIPD13 Innovation, culture, hackathons and a few babies
• #CIPD13 A hundred years of change, engagement and the living wage
• #CIPD13 Dreams and the Best Workplace on Earth

  

• 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: 2013, CIPD, conference, Peter Cheese, CIPD13

#CIPD13 Innovation, culture, hackathons and a few babies

 

I'm in two sessions on innovation and entrepreneurship this morning - one with Innocent and Alcatel Lucent (in person), the other on the CIPD's hackathon (via the tweets).

Innovation is important - Peter Cheese suggests that the top 5% organisations have a 1 in 3 chance of being toppled within 3 years.

And there are a number of ways of encouraging it - firstly there's the development of an entire innovation oriented culture, which is what Tom Fraine from Innocent Drinks talked about - recruiting entrepreneurial people, agitating people to take risks, mixing people up etc. I particularly like their baby wall - helping them think differently by looking at their people differently.





And there's a focus on a more discreet group of people, proving a process and coaching for entrepreneurship. This is what Olivier Leclerc from Alcatel Lucent talked about - firstly through their Sharepoint site and secondly through an entrepreneurial bootcamp, a little bit similar to the hackathon process Peter and co were discussing.

I think this can work in an organisation - particularly one in which there is the culture to match. Facebook is a great example, though I don't think they talked about this in their session.

However, I don't believe hackathons work that well outside organisations - that's whether they're face-to-face or virtual - unless they're reformatted for this environment. Eg see this write up of one at the Enterprise 2.0 conference.

Most innovation occurs based on trust and social connection. All organisations have this - to some extent at least. Virtual groups working around the world don't - unless it's created first.

The CIPD's hackathon didn't do this. There was no social connection at the start - with the exception of the HR social media community, but without broader action that perpetuates a separation between those on Twitter and those who aren't, which isn't helpful either. And although this connection came later that's too late to generate really innovative ideas.

Worse than this, as I've already posted, the hierarchical nature of the MIX and the CIPD's hackathon process imparts a hierarchical structure onto this innovation process, which further reduces the opportunity for true social connection.

So I'm not surprised that the hackathon came out with nothing that new. That's no criticism of any of the hackers - it's the process not the people that's at fault. That's why the previous MIX hackathon into performance management failed to come up with anything either (I mean if you can't even innovate this creaking process, there's something going wrong!)

Yes, there were some nice ideas in there - I particularly liked this one about scrapping stupid rules (something Goffee and Jones talked about as well and also fits beautifully in the sort of culture Tom described.)

But if you go back to Peter's challenge that given the changes in work, the. Workforce and the Workplace, much if not most of what we do in HR is no longer fit for purpose (something I agree with totally!) then there are much, much bigger prizes to be had!

I hope I don't annoy anyone to much by this post - I would still like to win the MIX's #SAPmPrize and get uninvited back to #CIPD14!  But Peter asked me last night how we can continue the hacking process, and the first part of my answer is not to do more like this.

I'd go with something more along the Innocent vs Alcatel Lucent lines - find some entrepreneurial HR, business and otherpeople, agitate them to take some risks, mix them up...

And if you want to send my your baby photos, I'm happy to share them here!

 

Credit for fruit rule pic: Perry Timms (photo of Gemma Reucroft)

 

• 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: Alcatel Lucent, CIPD, conference, innovation, Innocent Drinks

#CIPD13 A hundred years of change, engagement and the living wage

 

This is the CIPD's Centenary so it's great to see speakers here from a couple of organisations involved in setting up the institute.




Shaun Rafferty has been talking about the early involvement and current role of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and its support for the Living Wage - also particularly relevant as its Living Wage Week.

Joseph Rowntree started paying productivity wages, basically the same idea as today's living wage, back in the 1920.  However, apart from them, nothing much has changed in that most don't pay it.

Shaun shared some shocking data about the levels of underemployment and in-work poverty which hasn't changed over the last 100 years as much as you may think.

This has a profound impact on engagment as its hard to be engaged if you're purely focused on your pay.




Stephen Lehane then shared some information on Boots' journey over the last 100 years - from when the average lifespan was 41 years. So I suppose customers back then were probably less interested in today's Heath and beauty agenda, eg Boots products which help you keep your skin the same colour it already is.

We've now got the opportunity to engage them, and our employees too. But that doesn't come without commitment and effort eg Boots' championing colleagues so they can and will champion customers' right to feel good.

Oh, and after paying people appropriately too.

Shaun pointed people at Engage for Success' website for ideas on engagement and I'd echo that call. In fact I think I've agreed to host an E4S podcast on Monday - more on that soon.

But I'd also have a look at Goffee's and Jones' DREAMS - and other suggestions I've made here previously.


Two not particularly well thought out reflections before the Centenary dinner tonight:

Firstly - the founding Mssrs Rowntree and Boots' perspectives definitely help these two organisations to do what they do. But it's taken a lot of focus since then too (Boots is a recent client).

The same advantages are often seen in new and recent start-ups, especially Californian hi-tech companies. (Though just because a company is a startup it doesn't guarantee that it's going to be managed well.)

But it is more difficult in existing, traditional businesses. I'm planning in blogging about this tomorrow or at least early next week...


Secondly - I took up blogging and social media partly to be more transparent about my views. I therefore feel a need to note a slightly mixed and potentially reactionary view to the living wage which I’d like to feel I support but am not sure that I do (I generally focus more on executives than cleaners so it’s not something I’ve thought about as much as I probably should)...

I’m not objecting to anyone earning £7.65 / £8.80 an hour and I’m generally supportive of the living wage as long as it’s kept voluntary and there’s not too much focus on making it required.  So I think some of my reaction may be linked to the London living wage and other policies on London (having had to move out of London myself because I couldn't afford to live there I’m not overly positive about paying taxes for housing benefits to help others to live in places that I couldn't.)

However, I do think we need to be careful about potential distortions in pay strategy and the potential dysfunctional consequences of forcing more people out of jobs.  I want to see people at the bottom of the pyramid paid better because I think that’s the right thing to do and because I believe it’s appropriate - the pay differentials we have in place today are a disgrace.  But I’d rather tackle that by helping employers understand the differentials in peoples’ contribution simply aren’t as large as we tend to think, and that the differentials themselves reduce the opportunity for good business performance.

More importantly, given all of the changes in the world of work we've been discussing, I believe we need to make jobs and other forms of work more similar, not more differentiated, with jobs being more comfortable and protected. This just means other people with even harder lives pick up the strain elsewhere. There's a real risk of some major divisions between employed and un- or under- or alternatively- employed if we do.

Rowntrees' productive wages were a great idea 100 years ago but as the presentations pointed out we face different issues now.  Work doesn't come in discreet, 40 hour packages in the way it did then and we shouldn't design our organisations, or our approaches to reward or engagement, as if it does.

Thoughts?

 

• 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: CIPD, CIPD13, conference, Stephen Lehane, Boots, Rowntrees, Living Wage

#CIPD13 Dreams and the Best Workplace on Earth

I'm at the CIPD conference today and tomorrow. We're starting with Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones on their new book about Best Workplaces.

It's a great agenda and I particularly like the idea of creating dream workplaces. However, I think the speakers' acronym misses the point. The best way to create a dream workplace is just to encourage and support employees to dream.

Doing this is always going to be far more compelling than engaging employees in corporate aspirations.

The rest of this is good but is just In Search of Excellence type stuff. We shouldn't be trying to create generically good / best organisations but figuring out what type of organisation we want to be, finding people who find these things compelling and then delivering what you've designed your organisation around.

 

• 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: CIPD, Best Workplaces, Rob Goffee, Gareth Jones

Don't blame the Ulrich model

I’m looking forward to chairing Symposium Event’s Successful HR Business Partnering Summit on 5th November. We tend to focus on the problems often involved in business partnering (I know I can do this too) but given the title of the event it’ll be great to find out what different companies are doing to make business partnering work. 

I expect to hear a lot about best fit. Well, maybe not quite these words… but examples of businesses that have identified and developed business partnering approaches which make sense for them – their sector and organisational context, business strategy, capability of existing HR staff and line managers etc. To me, this focus on a specific business is a major part of driving success in business partnering.

And where things do go wrong – something that thankfully we won’t be hearing that much about (but which I do review in the Business Partnering workshops that I run for Symposium), it’s often due to the opposite of this – the complete lack of attention to what makes a particular organisation unique.

The biggest and baddest problem of course is due to organisations trying to implement Ulrich’s HR business partner model – the (in)famous three legged stool.  But note, I said the problem is organisations trying… – not the Ulrich model itself. I think this is often misunderstood!

I’ve even been to one session given by the head of a major global HR consultancy focusing on what’s wrong with the Ulrich model – whether the Ulrich model is inherently flawed or if the problem many organisations have in implementing it is down to sheer poor management and implementation. (They concluded it was generally a bit of both.)

It’s completely nuts!  The idea that you can just take any organisational model and just apply it to a particular organisation is just bizarre – and it completely the opposite of what really needs to happen to develop an effective organisation – whether in HR or in any other area of the business (I talk a lot about this in the Organisation Design workshops I run for Symposium.)

The Ulrich model has only ever been promoted as a description of what a lot of organisations have been doing (starting in the 1990s), or possibly a straw model to benchmark your own HR function and ask useful questions about how it can be improved. There’s never, ever been a suggestion that you should turn your own team into any stool of any number of legs, but that is unfortunately what a large number of businesses still tend to do.

Don’t! Instead, do design a best fit solution that meets your particular needs. Consider the full range of alternatives and pick the one that best meets the needs you’ve identified. It’s really not too hard. And if you do that, you’ll be much better positioned to develop a successful approach to business partnering yourselves.

Oh, and don’t think it’s all about stools and legs anyway. Embedded advisers, service centres, centres of excellence, etc, etc, may be part of the solution, and can make a big difference.  But actually the things that really count (which Ulrich writes and talks about as well) are:

• Strategy. Do you have an ambition, objectives and processes that are going to make a difference to your business through your people?

• Technology. Are your processes supported by good and effective HR systems that enable you to implement the processes you’ve designed? (also see details on Symposium’s Leveraging HR Technology Forum)

• Capability. Do your business partners understand what partnering really means, and do they have the skills to achieve this?

• Measurement. Do we know how well we’re doing – in partnering and in delivering enhanced business results.

On this last point, it’s also often a specific focus on the particular organisation which makes the difference in measurement as well. Measurement is generally not that hard – the problem is understand what we need to do. Once we understand who we want to achieve through HR business partnering, it’s often a lot easier to identify the appropriate metrics to use to measure it. (I could perhaps also mention that we focus on this point a lot in my Symposium Measurements and Analytics workshops.)

So if you do come to the conference, do remember to pay attention to what speakers are doing in these areas, not just to the numbers of and how they’ve arranged their legs!

And remember that the speakers are only providing examples and descriptions of potential best practices. Some of these may be useful thinks to adopt yourselves, but most of them will not. However, they should help you to consider what would drive success in the above and other areas of HR business partnering for yourselves.

Originally posted at HR Review.

Recruiting for Hard-to-Fill positions

We all have those few particular roles which, for various reasons, we struggle to fill. When I was an HR Director, I always found it difficult to find senior business process specialists for large audit teams. Why? Talent was scarce and the skills were, excuse the redundancy, specialised. It’s common for recruiters to experience these challenges. If you have found yourself in a similar situation, here are a few questions you may want to consider in order to improve your opportunity to recruit for these roles:

 

1. Are they really hard-to-fill?

Start by evaluating your competition. Is your organisation exclusively having difficulty filling these positions or are your competitors struggling too? There may be underlying barriers preventing you from reaching and engaging ideal candidates. For example, how accurately are you positioning roles and how aggressively are you promoting opportunities? Are you simply defining your roles too tightly or are you limiting your recruitment sources?

 

2. Do you have a compelling proposition for these people?

If the positions are truly difficult to fill, then you probably do need to change your recruitment strategy. This may include evaluating compelling roles and company culture prior to putting more effort into actual recruitment efforts. For example, when I was sourcing those business process specialists, I found the most common reason why they left was because the existing auditors rejected them. They weren’t treated well. Perhaps if we had improved the current company culture, those hard-to-fill vacancies would have stayed inhabited.

 

3. Are you hiring key influencers?

Once you have identified a compelling proposition, you are ready to start recruiting. Try to align your recruitment strategies to not only meet key needs for today but to also promote future growth. For example, recruit candidates who not only meet the vacancy description, but who could also attract future candidates for that specific position. This is where key influencers come into play. Use their network and talent pipeline to promote your organisiation as “the new hot place to work”.

 

4. What’s your workforce planning process like?

Take the time to evaluate the role workforce planning or non-planning has played in bringing you to the situation you are in today. I’m not suggesting that WFP can always solve hard-to-fill recruiting challenges, but very often it can. Think further ahead, considering whether the hard-to-fill roles you have today are likely to be the same ones you’ll be struggling with 10 years on, or whether additional roles will join them. Be proactive and start taking action on these now to prevent you or your successors from experiencing the same roadblocks in the future.

 

5. Is your recruiting process sound?

Identify any cracks in your recruitment strategy that might hinder performance. Are your processes up-to-date? What about the capabilities of your recruiters? Are you using appropriate technology? An effective e-Recruitment system is not going to produce hard-to-find candidates out of thin air, but it can certainly help you identify them, and manage their interactions with your organisation in a more professional way.

 

This post is sponsored by iCIMS.

iCIMS is the leading provider of talent acquisition software for growing businesses. Through the implementation of easy-to-use, web-based solutions, the iCIMS Talent Platform helps organisations manage everything from sourcing, to recruitment, to induction all within one streamlined application.

Check out a free walk-through of the iCIMS system or make contact at +44 (0) 118 9000 706 or europeansales@icims.com.

 

Technorati Tags: iCIMS, IT, recruiting, system, technology, hiring

Teneo's #talent7th - integrating acquisition and development

I've been at Teneo's 7th Talent Management seminar ( #talent7th ) yesterday and today.

We've had a good tour through talent acquisition and development, and am now onto a more integrated perspective reviewing the balance of global and local strategies, and focusing on the input from workforce planning.

The most interesting session for me also focused on integration within the talent acquisition slot of the agenda - and was delivered by Chris Taylor at SAB Miller.

Approaching the need for integration from a talent acquisition perspective, Chris suggests recruiters need to move from a sales force mentality:

• Focused on short-term, KPI driven hiring
• Internal service to HR managers
• Process or mechanistic
• Not involved in wider HR team goals
• The 'pick up' and 'put down' approach.

 

The future is being a talent partner - this doesn't have to apply to everyone but top 10% of roles / recruiters.

• Greater focus on key, business critical roles
• Partner directly with senior stakeholders and customers
• Has an authoritative voice on employment brand, engagement and talent management
• Shares and delivers wider HR projects
• Looks to longer term event horizon - so important things don't get left because 'we're all too busy'.

 

The three key enablers for this change are:

-   Hiring date into performance review - eg it may take 20 to 20 conversations to convince people to relocate to Switzerland.   But as soon as they are selected all that data goes out of the door.  We also need to think about the use of the data eg he would prefer rather than being measured on time into job, focusing on performance after first year.

-  Career path into development programme - eg they have 16 roles you can do in procurement mapped out on a career path.  But after recruitment this is not very integrated into talent management - they had some deep conversations about likely succession, potential routes etc.  So that they can offer more input to candidate, or at least being seen as a sort of independent adviser.

- Talent pipeline into succession plan - list 3 or 4 best people in the industry.  Regular contact is difficult - top 40 positions - 3 names for each roles = 2/3 internal and 1/3 external - identified in competitors or elsewhere.  If not sharing succession plan, why not?  We need to feed back on who got promoted / progressed so talent acquisition know whether they recruited the right people.

 

I also thought it was interesting that only 3% of web traffic on the SAB Miller main site goes to their career page - so they need employer brand to be reinforced, or even led, though other areas of talent and business management.

 

Also see: http://strategic-hcm.blogspot.be/2011/10/role-of-recruitment-in-integrated.html

 

• 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: integration, learning, Recruiting, Talent Management, Teneo

The perfect storm of HR technology

  I've had this article published in Computer Weekly.  It's meant for CIOs but if you're a CHRO you may still find it interesting.  It builds on Thomas Otter's focus on the HR nexus (I've relabelled it the perfect storm) at HR Tech Europe last year, in the run up to this year's conference that I'll be chairing again.

It's always good getting published but I'm particularly pleased with getting into CW finally - about 20 years after I gave up my regular subscription, leaving the world of IT for change management and then HR!

Good to see the two world getting closer finally!

 

• 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: big data, cloud, conference, HR technology, mobile, SAAS, social, Europe, analytics