Fistful of Talent

Will this Recession Finally Erase the Boomer/Gen Y Divide?

With the economy delaying Boomer retirements and the “new” generation taking on tasks left undone by those laid-off – will companies finally put an end to the rift between “old” and “new” workers?  The lack of experienced middle managers and the new longevity of Boomers means that companies will have to look for new ways to engage and connect these previous disparate audiences.

In the past, it was easy to allow the older workers to just fade away and have the young Turks take over but these times are not like old times.  The speed of business is approaching light speed, and allowing young managers to “grow” into their positions isn’t a viable strategy.  The vast quantity of information available via the internet and other sources means experience is critical to filter that information in order to separate signal from noise.  Older workers (or should we say more experienced), have the benefit of history to guide them and put that information into a perspective new managers just don’t have.

Two Heads Are Better Than One

Instead of looking at this economic period as a recruiting and talent management issue – look at it as a fundamental change in the way you manage your business.  This is the perfect opportunity to explore and utilize new technologies that connect your new Gen Y managers – and your Boomer knowledge repositories.

First of all, Boomers own history – they own the experience – they own the “wisdom” within your organization.  Gen Y, however, owns the fire, the desire, the fearlessness that new ideas and new opportunities require to germinate.  Your goal must be to connect those two audiences.  Now, more than ever, it is important to leverage the social network tools that have started to form the backbone of business.

Social Networking

First and foremost, as an organization you must begin to connect your people through informal networks – and formal ones – to allow for more conversations and encourage a diversity of input that will lead to better decisions and more innovative solutions.  Many believe that when companies are under stress, a more directive form of management is required.  However, true innovation comes from diversity of thought.  Doing the same things with fewer resources isn’t the way to drive success.  We have to do things differently – and the diversity of thought that social networks generate will bring more and better solutions to the surface.

Use the Tools – Recognize the Behavior

Gen Y will be familiar with these networks and will take advantage of them without much prompting.  And if you can believe the recent statistics, Boomers are one of the fastest growing demographics at sites such as Linkedin, Facebook and Twitter – the technology adoption hurdle has been crossed.  However, in most companies adopting, a fairly open management style will be different.  And different is scary.  Your goal is to remove the fear.  One way to remove fear is to reward the new behaviors.  Reward and recognize both audiences when they adopt and use social networking options.  Make your recognition public – make sure the audience understands the company expects and rewards sharing and collaboration.  While the past may have been about the individual – the future is about the team.

Look Outside

Depending on the way in which layoffs were handled at your specific company, there may be the opportunity to leverage the knowledge capital found in those who were laid-off.  In many instances layoffs are “packages” that employees may volunteer for and therefore they may have an interest in continuing their connection to your company in an “advisory” role.  Don’t assume everyone who left is negative and bitter.  Some may find the opportunity to “volunteer” as a great way to really let their light shine now that they are no longer under the scrutiny of their managers.

It’s About Diverse Input – Common Output

Set up teams of Boomers/Gen Y’s – create a common goal for these teams – then allow them to develop their own individual communication style and process.  Your job is to provide the tools – not the direction.
Gen Y needs the input from these constituencies.  They are a collaborative and consensus-driven group.  They thrive when they can discuss and get multiple inputs.  Social networks can satisfy that need.  Boomers have been marginalized in the past few years and now that they are adopting technology as a connecting force, they will welcome the opportunity to contribute.

By connecting your new managers with your “wisdom” employees and potentially those outside your company –you bring the passion of youth together with the wisdom of experience.  Leveraged correctly that is a powerful business force.

Editor's Note - Paul Hebert is the Managing Director for i2i (an influence consultancy), the brain behind Incentive Intelligence and a recognized authority on incentives and performance motivation... 

Capping CEO Pay - What It Means for All of Us...

The cause célèbre today is CEO pay and by extension, overall pay transparency, performance-based pay and letting a government entity manage what used to be a free-market concern.  While on the surface, it seems to be a good idea - less hidden pay, less excess, more connection to performance, more oversight - I can see why it makes sense to some.

But from my point of view these are well-intentioned ideas that will just cause more problems in the future - and require increased legislation that will cause more problems that will lead to more legislation, well, you get the idea.

One of the key elements of any incentive and reward activity is to look for unintended consequences.  In other words, what will increased transparency, capping CEO pay and a greater connection to performance mean in the real world?  How will these ideas manifest themselves if (and when?) they go into effect.

Well, we have some history to look to for guidance and I'll take a stab at some of the possible outcomes I can foresee.

1.  Capping CEO pay

This isn't a new concept.  In 1993, then President Bill Clinton signed a law restricting the tax deductibility of executive pay to $1,000,000 effectively giving those in that stratospheric pay range a huge incentive to find other means of compensation.  Enter the creative mind of the financial world.  People were given more perks that got around the cap - giving them bonuses in stock when they hit certain goals.  This is where stock options really hit their stride - and, thanks to the bull stock market of the 1990s, made everybody far wealthier than they would have been using the old pay structure.  So, the last time the government got involved in CEO pay, we got fabulously wealthy CEOs, and now we don't like it.  See what I mean about unintended consequences?

2.  Tying pay to performance

See #1 - we tried that and we didn't like the outcome.  The problem is that there will be few people who will agree on what performance metric to use.  As an example, If we use share price (which should benefit the shareholder) we get shorter-term management and a company that may do well for a while in a given market environment - but will tank when the world changes (can anyone say financial industry crisis?.).  Should we compare performance against historical company performance (absolute) or against the market and the industry (relative) performance?  Either is a good measure, but what is best?  Using stock prices as a proxy for performance doesn't work.  Too many people, internally and externally have an impact on the stock price.  Warren Buffet is fond of saying he doesn't buy stocks, he buys companies.  He does that because a stock is a representative of a company- but an imperfect one.  What would the best metric be?

3.  Increase pay transparency

Talk about unintended consequences.  One of the reasons cited for the huge salaries and pay packages available to top executives is in fact greater transparency caused by the disclosure requirements in Sarbanes-Oxely.  Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in response to a spate of highly publicized business failures and corporate improprieties.  The issue they said was a lack of oversight and transparency.  I don't want another Enron and can see why more transparency was needed but, some of the requirements of SOX may be what is driving CEO pay issues.  Specifically, once I can see what others get paid - that's what I want.  The highest salary now becomes the minimum salary and I want more than the minimum.  While this may not be a big issue for rank and file workers - CEOs are a unique breed and their egos probably won't allow them to be number 3 on any list. 

4.  Government involvement in market-driven issues

There are few places the government does a better job than the private sector.  With all its faults and with all the news you hear... the free market is still a pretty good place to test effectiveness and efficiency of an idea, process, or product.  I get that we need some one to make sure we don't let the market control and manage everything - but by and large the market does pretty well.

I just don't like the government getting their nose in the tent.  It won't be long before we see the definition of "exceptional assistance" go from taking bailout money to having greater than 80% of your business come from government contracts (I can see the argument on CSPAN happening) - 'cause if 80% of your business is coming from the government - isn't that exceptional assistance?  While I'm not too high on our lawmakers IQ when it comes to the market - I do know their olfactory senses work wonderfully well when the scent of money is in the air.

So what should you in the HR world worry about?

How 'bout this stuff...

• Once the CEO has a cap - expect others with larger than "average" salaries to be targeted.  Sales, VPs, etc. 
• The government will control your compensation plans - everyone will be on the same playing field and true talent will go "free-agent" because you can't meet their requirements within a corporate environment.  Why not be a contractor and get twice as much money?
• If you deal with government contracts, expect to see more and more oversight into your total pay practices - not just those that deal with the specific contracts.
• Pay transparency will start to trickle down - and everyone will see what everyone makes - and will have input into how much a job is worth - regardless of reality - the crowd will rule - and salaries will start to cluster around an average - an average that is not representative of the job or the market - but of what most employees think it is worth.

I, for one, am not looking forward to this stuff...

Crime and Company Culture - Broken Windows & Broken Companies

Everyone wants to work at a quality company.  Each of us wants to feel good about our place of employment and see our company's name on the "most admired" lists published each year.  It's an admirable goal and the right thing for your employees.  From a talent standpoint, it's critical.  Attracting the best and brightest - those you can rely on for superior performance year after year - is not only a function of great recruiting on the part of the recruiter, but also a function of the company's reputation in the market place.  Face it, it's easier to recruit for Google than for Countrywide Home Loans (voted wost company in America in 2008).

It's Not About the Big Stuff

When working with clients on ways to influence their employee behaviors and reinforce cultures, it seems that the first discussion is always about the "big" stuff - the program, the reward, the system.  The client almost immediately wants to launch something with a splash and show the employees they mean business with their reward and recognition initiative.

I'm not against big launches, but what's really important is the little stuff - not the big stuff.  I think we can take some direction from the "Broken Window Theory" (BWT).  While still a bit controversial among social scientists and psychologists, I believe there is enough directional evidence that we should pay attention to it.

For those that are unfamiliar with the BWT - it probably got its best press during the Rudy Giuliani years... 

"Thus, Giuliani's "zero tolerance" roll out was part of an interlocking set of wider reforms, crucial parts of which had been underway since 1985. Giuliani had the police even more strictly enforce the law against subway fare evasion, and stopped public drinkers, urinators, and the squeegee men who had been wiping windshields of stopped cars and demanding payment. Rates of both petty and serious crime fell suddenly and significantly, and continued to drop for the following ten years (see: the 2001 study of crime trends in New York by George Kelling and William Sousa). - wikipedia"

 

The concept is that by paying attention to small things like fixing broken windows, painting over graffiti, cleaning up areas of the city, cracking down on pettier crimes - it will have a positive affect on the people and a detrimental affect on crime.  By keeping up with little things in the environment it communicated to people that the area was a good place and that crime wasn't welcome.

Sweat the Small Stuff

When it comes to company culture and having a reputation that attracts and retains quality people, the small stuff is the important stuff.  If the boss adds a little to the expense account, maybe the CFO adds a little to the balance sheet.  If the person in the cube next to you treats a vendor poorly, then maybe that vendor adds a little extra to the invoice next time - or tells 100 people not to do business with you.  In fact, in November, CBS on line had an article entitled "Bad Behavior Contagious, Study Finds" - highlighting some of the research on this phenomena.  For me, steeped in social psychology and the impact of the social norms - it's a no-brainer.  But most folks blow off the effects of small behaviors.

Keeping your eye on the small stuff is probably the single biggest thing a company can do to influence culture.

Some Comic Relief

When thinking about the Broken Window Theory for this post, it reminded me of a Demetri Martin bit... for your enjoyment...

HR is about HUMAN resources - Do You Get That? (I'm Not Sure You Do...)

This post has been bouncing around in my head for a while with no home.  An itch I couldn't scratch, a sound with no location, a pixelated picture I couldn't make out.  Until now.

In the November issue of CRM magazine is an article entitled "Six Sigma:  What Went Wrong?"  The subhead to the article is "A 60 percent failure rate suggests process change requires behavior change."

Hmmm.... process change requires behavior change.

Who Should I Talk to About People Issues?

I've spoken to more than a few clients about how to use rewards, incentives and influence techniques to increase the adoption of new processes and technologies resulting in a better overall return on those expenditures.  It only makes sense.  The sooner I can get people to use the CRM system, or the new enterprise knowledge sharing platform, the sooner I realize the benefits - ergo - savings!  But, in most cases, the advice is brushed aside and (the CIO in most cases) goes on about how easy the software is to use and how folks will get it.  Or in extreme cases, the employee is simply told - "do it or lose your job."

What has bothered me - and what caused me to have that unsettled feeling that ended up in this post, is that someone in the organization should have seen the logic of instituting a behavior reinforcement program along side any major change in the process and requirements of the employee's job function. 

I have to ask, who is responsible for making sure the resources that use the tools are prepared and engaged with the change?  Who, in an organization, has the responsibility for the resources that are human within a company.  Who?  Hmmm, who...?

Then it hit me... HUMAN RESOURCES is!!!

That's right.  Under our collective noses is a group of folks whose charge, responsibility and raison d’être (reason for living, for those of you in Rio Linda) is making sure the resources that are human, perform best.

Yet, it is rare that HR would even be involved in the process.  If manufacturing was to change the process for putting together the product on the assembly line, I'm sure there would be folks there from facilities to make sure it's set up correctly.  I'm sure Maintenance would be involved to make sure they understood the impact on service, cleaning and repair. 

But, whenever there is a change in the process that involves people - (cricket chip sound effect here) - nothing.  I find it hard to believe that a million dollar installation of new accounting software, a million dollar installation of a CRM system or something like Windows SharePoint wouldn't be discussed in a fairly high-level meeting, around some mahogany table on some top floor of a building.  When the heads of all the departments got together to chat about business, did they discuss the new software or the new process being considered, implemented, installed?  If so, where was the person from the department that is responsible for resources that are human? 

Why didn't their hand go up and say..."Excuse me, but I think I can help the transition be simple, easy, accepted AND save the company money."

There have been a lot of posts out here in the ether about HR having a seat at the table.  Having a seat is one thing.  Knowing how to use it is another.  Expand the HR thinking from managing the paper that surrounds the people to managing the environment that surrounds the relationships people have to the company. 

HR is about resources that are human - how do you define your role when you change the order of the words?

Editor's Note - Paul Hebert is the brain behind Incentive Intelligence and a recognized authority on incentives and performance motivation... 

Goodbye 2009 Bonus - We Barely Got to Know Each Other....

So, the economic crash of 2008 is well documented at this point.  Some of you have given up hope of your company or division hitting the 2008 numbers necessary for your annual bonus, while some of you are hoping for a delayed effect - maybe the numbers will hang on long enough for the company to pay out a bonus, even if a partial one.  Just maybe...

Here's another trend that's already being documented for 2009 - the elimination of the incentive pay plan, which many of us know as "bonus".  Ann Bares of Compensation Force has a nice rundown of the trend:

"Results of a recent Towers Perrin "pulse" survey were released today.  There are a number of interesting findings here, but one in particular caught my eye.  In examining how companies are likely to respond to the economic crisis in a number of reward areas, the survey asked about plans to reduce annual incentives/bonuses.  Survey participants responded as follows:

• Very likely - 18%
• Somewhat likely - 21%
• Somewhat unlikely - 23%
• Very unlikely - 25%
• Too soon to tell - 13%

My interpretation of this - which is important here - is that it indicates plans to reduce the incentive/bonus program and its award opportunities, not merely that the participants are expecting lower payouts due to lower results.  The latter makes complete sense, the former - to me - makes very little and prompts concern.  According to the survey, 39% of respondents are likely to reduce annual incentive/bonuses and another 13% haven't yet decided.  Meaning - again, if I am interpreting this accurately - that over half have not yet determined whether they will follow through on the commitments of their existing incentive/bonus plans."

Ann goes on to voice concerns regarding the fact that companies are looking to reduce the scope of the bonus program and award opportunities, citing the fact that a down economy should have nothing to do with whether companies offer bonus programs.  She's right - just because the economy is down is no reason to eliminate the bonus program, even if the economic circumstances make attainment of the payout triggers less likely.

For companies with real bonus programs that trigger payouts based on some combination of attaining revenue and profitability goals, there's no reason to eliminate the plan.  However, the revenue and profitability goals embedded in such plans may be less realistic than normal.  Think about it - a company that is seeing revenue fall year after year may be super aggressive in setting a goal that suggests revenue will remain flat for 2009 (when projections say revenue will likely fall 10-15%). 

But, that doesn't mean they have to eliminate the plan, it just means that employees have to understand that maintaining current revenue trends will take an incredible effort.  But, your workforce still needs to know that a great year in a recession will be rewarded.

As to companies who don't tie annual bonus programs to revenue, profitability or some mix thereof, to Ann's point, those really aren't bonus or incentive programs.  They're more like a company "holiday ham" program, delivered based on the whims of the company. 

The less bonus programs are tied to revenue or profitability, the less understanding employees have regarding how the company is doing.  Also, discretionary bonus programs paid multiple years in a row without being tied to numbers are dangerous, since they can become employee entitlements that everyone takes for granted.

Kind of like the company ham during the holidays.  There's probably going to be less of those this year as well.

No Free Prize Inside - Why Don't You Prepare Your Team Like The Sports World Does?

Living in the upstate of South Carolina, you either root for the University of South Carolina Gamecocks or the Clemson Tigers.  There is no middle ground.  Unfortunately, I’m a Buckeye fan and our history with Clemson (anyone remember Woody Hayes and the 1978 Gator Bowl?) makes that even more difficult.

Recently Tommy Bowden, the coach for the Clemson Tigers quit or was asked to leave, depending on your source.  He received a contract update last year, and as part of that contract he gets paid $3.5 million dollars over the next 6 years – and doesn’t have to work.

Big Money = Big Rewards = Big Effort

Now, this isn’t about the high cost of top coaches, or a rant about golden parachutes (sports-related or business) it’s about the fact that collegiate and pro sports are big money games.  We all know that whenever big money is on the line, performance is demanded – or you’re out.  But what is rarely talked about is the behind-the-scenes work that goes into a top-ranked sports team.  Yeah, the results they demand are big and the money they pay is big.  But the effort that the teams put into getting to the results is also big.

We’ve seen the movies and heard the stories about the practices in 100 degree heat, the players who leave the field dehydrated after giving 120%.  We know that they have one-on-one attention for the different parts of the game – specific Coaches for receivers, for the defensive backs, for the offensive line.  Each element of the team gets very specific and focused attention.  This effort is there because we’re talking big money. 

Where is the business effort?

Many companies put big money on the line with their incentive programs.  Big payouts for top performers - expensive trips to reward the elite performers - bonuses for the top brass.  But rarely, and I mean RARELY, do I see the same effort going into the preparation of the team tasked with hitting the big goal.  Not the effort that the sports world seems to invest.

Too often, companies put a program in place, with the associated budget, in order to motivate the troops to hit their goals.  But most of the time, the program is announced, the awards delineated and the “auto-pilot” button is pushed. 

Everyone sits back and assumes because the reward is big the folks will do the job.  Where’s the one-on-one coaching?  Where is the daily practice on areas that need it?  Who is watching from the tower and yelling instructions to the team below?  In most cases, business is talking big money too.  Lack of performance – whether that be your sales organization or your call center, can lead to either big wins or big losses.  But we don’t want to put in the effort.

I spend my time talking to clients about the design of the incentive and reward system that helps align their audience to the goals for the organization – but I also ask what effort they will be putting into coaching, training and leadership.

It’s Not Just The Prize

The greatest incentive program in the world won’t get you to the results you want, unless you’re willing to put in the time with your audience to make sure they have the skills and the information needed to help achieve the goal.

The National Championship is a big prize – the Super Bowl is a big prize.  Just offering them as an incentive isn’t enough to drive performance for those that compete at that level – and it shouldn’t be for you either!

Use Cash Money and Payola for a Successful Affirmative Action Plan...

We're taking a shot at writing to one of the most sensitive topics available this week - Affirmative Action Plans, also known as AAPs in corporate America.  Why would we subject ourselves to this topic?  It's the lead story of the Workforce Recruiting Newsletter, where Fay Hansen writes on "Companies Brace for OFCCP's List of Compliance Evaluations".  Plus, we're suckers for punishment...

Wow.  You can almost feel the energy on this topic.  Seriously, talking about Affirmative Action does one of two things - it either gets people emotionally fired up from talking about quotas, or.... it puts them to sleep.

In an effort to keep you fired up, here's my big thought on the topic.  Don't wring your hands about Affirmative Action and the potential for OFCCP audits.  Instead, go on the offensive, spend a little cash, and buy your way to a positive outcome related to your Affirmative Action Plan.  Stuff some cash in some pockets.

That's right.  I'm telling you to embrace payola related to your Affirmative Action plan, and should you ever be audited, the OFCCP will love you for it.  (disclaimer - only ethical payola is discussed in this space... but it's still juicing your recruiting efforts with a little cash...)

First, a quick note to those who have never dealt with an Affirmative Action plan.  If you're in an Affirmative Action company (and you are or should be, if your company does 50K or more in revenue from government contracts), the OFCCP requires you to establish an Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) by doing the following things:

-Split up your workforce into 14 or so job groups..

-Establish the % of women and minorities in each job group within your workforce..

-Using Census and other data related to occupations across the USA, establish % "goals" for female and minority representation within each of the job groups..

-If the % goal from the external data exceeds your current workforce % for women and/or minorities, that job group is tagged as "underutilized".

-For each job group that's underutilized, you need to get together a plan, commonly called "good faith efforts", about how you are going to conduct special recruiting and outreach efforts to close the gap.

OK, now that we've got the drudgery out of the way, back to the concept of payola.  If you have an AAP with underutilized job groups, you live in fear of the OFCCP audit.  When the audit comes, the OFCCP is going to focus on the underutilized job groups and really question whether you've done anything to change it.

So, here's your game plan, complete with the straight cash money theme:

-Find sources that can help you conduct outreach and target women and/or minorities so you can close the gap in your underutilized job groups.  Examples could be targeted publications, niche job boards, and targeted organizations in your community.  These are the most common of Good Faith Efforts (and it should be noted, everyone tries to find these, establish relationships and document the efforts).

-Once the relationships are established, keep in contact with them, and in a classy way offer an external referral bonus that gets the attention of everyone in question.  Don't have an external referral bonus program?  Great - start one.  Already have one?  Double it for these hard to reach groups.

-Once you have candidates in the flow from the special sources and you're ready to hire one (because he/she is the most qualified candidate), offer a signing bonus that exceeds what you normally do in your organization. 

-When determining the starting salary for your candidate, get multiple sets of eyes on the offer to the diverse candidate, and document the incumbents you mapped him/her to when comparing experience, education, etc. to determine the offer.  Go above and beyond, and err on the side of the candidate.

Work your sources, offer the incentives, and sleep like a baby at night.

It's important to correct the common misconception - that affirmative action plans establish quotas.  They don't.  They're called goals, and when the OFCCP audit comes, the primary 2 things being discussed are 1) whether you have taken actions to maximize your chances to address the underutilization, and 2) whether you have systemic discrimination.  If you have systemic discrimination, I can't solve that with a blog post.

By going beyond finding normal AAP good faith efforts (simply establishing connections with diverse organizations or using niche job boards), you can maximize your chances for success and even if you don't correct the underutilization, look pretty good in the audit.

Here's what you'll tell the potential auditor - we've established the connections with diverse organizations we think can assist us in addressing the underutilization, and to make sure incentives are in the system, we've 1) doubled the referral bonus we provide to "normal" external sources, 2) established a signing bonus for diverse candidates in the final stages of the offer process that's above and beyond what we usually do, and 3) used a compensation review panel to ensure our offers to diverse candidates are at market rate when compared to similar candidates.

Remember!  I'm not here to debate whether these steps are right or wrong from the standpoint of society.  I'm here to maximize the chances you close the underutilization and look progressive in the audit.

Follow these steps, document them, and your audit will be sweet and peaceful compared to most... 

Pay for Performance, Your Schools and Unions....

Jessica Lee recently riffed about pay-for performance efforts in the Washington DC schools, outlining  how the buzz of change has become louder and louder in the past year under the leadership of the new chancellor, Michelle Rhee.

If you didn't read the article by JLee, check it out here.  It's a hopeful account of how hard talent leadership in the public school systems may bring about real change. 

Unfortunately, school systems in America have a mix of elements that make them almost impossible to turnaround - 1) a lack of experience with pay-for-performance or even true merit pay, 2) a base of workers (teachers) who aren't exactly risk takers, and 3) unions.

Not a match made in heaven.  For every hopeful article like JLee's, there's an account of a turnaround gone bad.  Such is the case in Denver, as reported by the the Wall Street Journal:

"The Denver Public Schools' pay-for-performance plan to motivate teachers was hailed as a model for the rest of the country when it took effect three years ago. It now stands on the verge of collapse after months of contract negotiations have stalemated.

Some teachers have staged sick-outs; others plan to welcome families back to school this week by handing out fliers denouncing the district's contract offer. There is even talk of a strike.

The district is offering large increases in incentive pay. But the biggest rewards will go to early- and midcareer teachers -- and to those willing to take risks by working in impoverished schools or taking jobs few others want, such as teaching middle-school math. Yearly bonuses for such work would nearly triple, to about $3,000.

The union is all for boosting bonuses but also wants an across-the-board pay increase. Most crucially, union leadership objects to proposed changes that would hold down the salaries of veteran teachers to free more money for novices."

Full disclosure - I haven't read more than the Wall Street Journal article, and readers of this spot and the HR Capitalist know where I'm at regarding unions. 

Still, all I have to do is look at the chart displayed below that outlines the pay-for-performance  opportunities in the Denver school system, and it's clear that they don't have enough skin in the game to make a conservative group of teachers embrace merit and pay-for-performance.

Here's why.  After earning a graduate degree, the remaining award amounts represent between 2-3% of the teacher's salary.  Not enough for teachers to give up the across the board increase that's long been the domain of the union.  Additionally, there's little to be had for teachers who don't want to change schools, or don't have a focus in math or science.

With that in mind, of course, the teacher's group as a whole doesn't see value in the change.  If you're going to call a new era of pay-for-performance, you have to provide true opportunity for everyone to bring their "A game" and get the rewards.  This plan doesn't do that.  As a result of the poor design, the union remains strong because there's no real value to cause change. 

Contrast that plan with the DC plan, where a two-tiered system would allow confident teachers to "opt in", and potentially earn bonuses of reportedly up to 20K per year (over 50% of the base if you use the Denver numbers above), with raises based on student test scores and other evaluation measures, regardless of degrees. Tier two would require teachers to give up their seniority rights and tenure, however, and enter into an initial probation period.

Contrasting the DC plan with Denver's provides a nice case study on change and pay for performance.  Which one do you think has a better chance of improving the schools?  The answer is obvious... 

Executives Need to "Eat the Dog Food" When It Comes to Company Culture...

Many companies ask that I help them design and develop programs to reinforce and, in some instances, create a company culture.  Through a reward and recognition strategy, you can highlight and popularize the behaviors that define your company’s culture.  However, don’ think a “program” can create the result you want, if you’re not part of the program.

“A fish stinks from the head down.”

I was reminded of that old saying the other day during a discussion with a consultant at a large firm who was transferring information from one tool into another.  She probably spent a good hour or so taking information from their corporate CRM tool and putting it into another format, because her Manager liked the second format better.  (Pssst… a little secret here…the CRM tool had reporting built into it for managers to see summary data… but you didn’t hear it from me – wink, wink, nudge, nudge.)

When I asked why she did that, she told me that her management didn’t really use the enterprise tool because they weren’t up to speed on the system to the level that would allow them to pull reports.  The result is that she spends at least 50 – 100 hours a year transferring data from one system into another so her managers can see the information that already exists.  Do the quick math – at a couple hundred dollars an hour – each person who has to do this is spending up to $20,000 a year to ensure management doesn’t have to use the tools that they require the consultants to use.  $20,000 here, $20,000 there – soon you’re talking real money.

This is the perfect example of how corporate cultures get sidetracked and damaged.  When the behavior Senior Managers want isn’t modeled by the Senior Managers in a company, the company is on the fast-track to chaos.

Think about the two levels of “culture” in many companies.  To give you a head start, here are a few:

-Working from home – VPs do it, CEOs do it, even educated Directors do it – but don’t let that Marketing Manager do it – he may take a nap.

-Dinner on the expense account – How often does the VP of “X” get with the VP of “Y” for dinner to discuss organizational stuff and the meal is expensed?  Quite a bit.  But let's see how fast the expense report for a programmer and an operations person meeting over pizza and beer to work out a glitch in the system gets kicked back.

-Cubes vs Offices with Doors – hey – all you people without doors on your office – you’re our most important asset – but knock first when you come to my office – I've got a door (neener, neener, neener.)

-Assigned parking spaces – I’m guessing this started because top dogs rarely come in early and they didn’t want to walk too far to the front door.  Want a good space – get there early.

Now, don’t take this as a rant on Senior Managers – hey – I’ve been one.  My only point is that as a Senior Manager in a company, you have responsibility to model the behaviors that define your company.  Don’t think little transgressions go unnoticed by employees. 

If you are a Senior Manager, and you are unhappy with the culture in your organization, look for the mahogany – in other words – look at your peers.  Are you and your ilk creating a divide in the company between what you want and what you want your company to be.

When Senior Management requires employees to do something that increases their work load without adding value to the business - you’re subtracting value from your customers and communicating that there is more than one company culture.

No recognition program or incentive program can compete with smelly fish.

Editor's Note - Paul Hebert is the brain behind Incentive Intelligence and a recognized authority on incentives and performance motivation... 

Talent Management Rocks In the DC Public Schools... Well, Sorta...

Washington D.C.'s public schools are a hot mess. Here in your nation's capitol where you have a hub of amazing intellect and oodles of movers and shakers, the school system has been failing for years. You might ask why, as an HR pro, I would blog about this. First, I'm a proud DC resident. But second and more relevant to you, what's been happening in DC’s schools is an extremely interesting case study from a talent management standpoint.

The buzz surrounding DC schools has become louder and louder in the past year under the leadership of the new chancellor Michelle Rhee. A recent history of what’s led up to this point, including a mayoral takeover and dissolution of the DC Board of Education, can be found here, or watch a recent Charlie Rose interview with Rhee here.

With an end goal of improving the delivery of education of DC’s kids, many of the steps Rhee is taking to turn the schools around have had to do with getting the right talent in place to teach kids, lead teachers and manage schools.  Beyond that, she’s been out to create high performance standards for her educators and put in place systems to reward great performance.

Sound like basic stuff? For you and me, yup - we live and breathe talent management everyday, all day… yet all of these new fangled concepts have been creating waves of controversy within DC. In her arsenal of weapons:

-Infusing a New Culture Via Executive Placements, Rhee brought in some fresh blood at the top by handpicking 45 new principals who are said to share her vision and culture of operating in a data-driven mode and using differentiated instruction.

-Chasing At Will Status. Putting aside educators, Rhee has also moved to make nonunion staff at-will, giving her the ability to make swifter decisions on poor performers. Will you quickly see people ineffective at their jobs move out? Yes, said Rhee. And so far, 98 have been let go.   

-Pay for Performance. Here’s the big kicker. DC’s teachers + TAs are unionized with contracts that mean tenure/seniority rules. Rhee is proposing/in negotiations with unions for a new comp structure where teachers would choose to be part of one of two pay tiers. Tier one would mean traditional raises based on tenure and degrees, not much different from what's in place now; tier two would allow for teachers to receive bonuses (reportedly of up to 20K per year) and raises based on student test scores and other evaluation measures, regardless of degrees. Tier two would require teachers to give up their seniority rights and tenure however, and enter into an initial probation period.

-Imagine! Job Requirements + Performance Expectations. Further reflecting the culture of accountability, 250 teachers and 500 TA’s were terminated for failing to meet deadlines for obtaining certifications that would meet the federal No Child Left Behind law. Enough was enough, and Rhee showed that she meant business when it comes to meeting expectations.

But it doesn't end there. Rhee has also terminated 34 principals and offered buyouts to 700 more teachers. Having put in my time doing HR for the public sector, I know the difficulties Rhee is facing in the talent management realm. It isn’t easy to create a culture of innovation, high performance and accountability when you are guaranteed raises and have seemingly endless job protections. But for all of her changes? She's being called a dictator with comparisons to Hitler. Yet for every step Rhee makes, I’ve got to say, I think she’s doing it right. With the education of DC's kids at stake, how could she not take such "drastic" measure to make things right.

Editor's Note - Jessica Lee is an Employment Manager for APCO Worldwide, a global PR firm in D.C. Like most upscale HR pros, she spends half of her time on recruiting, the other half on ER, Training and OD.  When she's not hammering a candidate to determine Motivational Fit, she's thinking about the future of HR, and wondering how she can avoid using the job boards to fill the next spot in her organization...