Fistful of Talent

Temp Execs Mean Temp Employees...

A recent article on the Workforce Management website focused on the use of temporary executives during these tough economic times.  The article provided the opinion of three temporary executives from the LA-based Business Talent Group (BTG).  Surprise - they all thought it was good idea.  An interim CEO, HR VP and Chief Marketing Officer all discussed that having temporary executives was a good idea and being temporary provided the hiring company with better information, more truthful analysis and someone willing to do the hard work without a worry about corporate politics.

While I don't doubt that that those statements are true I don't think a company benefits from hiring mercenary executives in the long run.  Sure, in the short run their laser focus and lack of emotional connection allow them to see opportunities that employed executives might not, and be able to act on them.  But the long-term damage to the entire employee base isn't worth it.

In a time when most HR consultants are telling companies that employee engagement is key to future success - and most surveys show that engagement is at best holding it's own - hiring temporary executives seems like the most backward play I can imagine.

The Medium is the Message

Marshall McLuhan is credited with saying that the medium is the message - meaning that the way in which a message is delivered becomes part of the message, creating a connection to the message - influencing how the message is perceived by the audience.  So how does the medium of "temporary executive" connect to the message they ultimate may send to the employees?  I have some opinions...

• My senior managers have no stones.
• My senior managers don't know what they are doing.
• My senior managers don't want to work hard.
• My senior managers don't care about me.
• All employees are temporary.

While we may think that hiring temporary executives is like a footprint in wet sand, washed away with the waves of better times - it will leave a lasting impression on your employees.

What Engages your Employees

A couple of things are required in order to have engaged workers.

1. Transparent and honest communications
2. A feeling of control over their job, their function and their place in making the company a success.

Both of these key engagement drivers go out the window the day the temp executive comes in the door.  In tough times employees look to their management to help them make sense of the situation, to provide guidance and help and to reassure them that their faith in the company and those that run it is the right thing.  Hiring temporary executives breaks the relationship between the employee and the executives in charge.

A Distinction WITH a Difference

Some may argue that temporary executives are nothing more than consultants.  But there is a big difference between a "consultant" and a temporary executive.  That difference is that a consultant offers advice - nothing more.  It is still up to the existing "permanent" management to decide and act on that advice.  The decision is theirs and they have to live with the outcome.  Using temporary executives shifts the burden of decision making from the permanent leaders to the temporary execs.  Who wants to work for someone who shifts blame?

Look for Another Path

My advice to any company looking for a temporary executive is to remember, within your employee base you already have smart and experienced individuals who are more than happy to help you out.  Leverage the collective wisdom of your employee base.  Why not bring together a committee of your existing employees and make them a "temporary" executive group - give them the same challenges you'd give your temp exec and see what they come up with.  I'm confident your engagement scores will go up! 

Think about it - you've just communicated you need their help and you've given them some control over their future - two things needed in this tough business climate.

Don't use temporary executives unless you want to communicate that all employees are really "temporary."

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... 

Performance Precognition - The Talent Management Minority Report

In the 2002 movie Minority Report, a trio of "precogs" predicted crimes before they occurred and the "pre-perpetrator" was arrested and convicted based on the premonitions from the "precogs."  Wouldn't it be nice if we could do the same with talent in our organizations?  Not the arrest and conviction part but the predict future performance part?

Unfortunately, we don't have a way to predict performance.  We do the opposite of what "precogs" do.  We manage talent by watching, measuring and documenting past behaviors and performance and then devise interventions to "fix" any problems we uncover.  No problems - no intervention.  But this process has a major flaw. When you focus on the lower performing personnel (and let's face it - we all do) the top performers notice.  When top performers see you spend all your time with the non-performers, the message is - "if I want time with management - I better screw something up."  Management attention is a form of reward.  Unconsciously, you are rewarding poor performance.

What to do?

Bring in The PreCogs

There is a site called The Situationist that is associated with Harvard Law School.  Their mission is... "provide a forum for scholars, students, lawyers, policymakers, and interested citizens to examine, discuss, and debate the effect of situational forces – that is, non-salient factors around and within us – on law, policy, politics, policy theory, and our social, political, and economic institutions."

Quite the mouthful.  The bottom line is they study how we behave in different situations. 

Recently, they highlighted a study that was designed to reduce the achievement gap in schools.  They showed a significant improvement in student performance when one group of students took part in a series of 15-minute writing assignments.  The assignments asked the students to choose from a list of values and write about the value most important to them.

The results were pretty impressive:

• The exercise reduced the achievement gap between black and white students by 40 percent over one term

• The benefits for low-achieving black students continued for the entire two years — students who completed the self-affirmation exercise raised their GPA by four-tenths of a point compared to the control group. They were also less likely to need remedial work or to repeat a grade — 5 percent as compared to 18 percent of the control group

They concluded that when people are reminded of negative stereotypes, the stress of worrying about confirming those stereotypes can negatively affect their performance. The self-affirmation exercise reminded students about what is really important to them and may have helped reduce that stress and therefore, helped increase overall performance.

Why This Matters in Business

Here's where I think this can have an impact.  Typically, new hires feel a bit disconnected and a bit overwhelmed with the new position.  They have the impression they are "behind the curve."  But what if when new talent is brought on board at your company you had them write an essay about how what they do best will improve, enhance,and drive success for themselves and your business.  This will "pre-affirm" their contribution and set the stage for greater performance - if the research holds.

This also ties into a principle of influence called "commitment and consistency."  This principle states that we want to remain consistent with past actions, and when we publicly put something out there, we are committing to it - and that has a huge impact on our desire to achieve those goals.

Worst case - you have a document that shows how well new talent understands the mission of the company and their role in it.  Best case - you have improved performance in the future.  Not a bad way to start the day, eh?

Editor's Note - Paul Hebert is the brain behind Incentive Intelligence and a recognized authority on incentives and performance motivation...He's having pizza for dinner and watching baseball tonight - I pre-cogged that.

People Don't Hate Change - They Hate You Trying to Change Them

There is a post on the Manage Smarter website this week that states that 1/3rd of all employees cannot adapt to change at work.  That caught my attention.  33% can't change.  But dig deeper.  Read further into the description of the study.  The study took findings from a survey of 100 senior human resource professionals across North America. The survey asked: Is your workforce able to adapt to change and increase their effectiveness on the job? The results were:

• 31 percent—No, employee engagement and productivity are a major risk
• 43 percent—Somewhat, our workforce gets the job done, but morale suffers
• 26 percent—Yes, our workforce is very agile and responds to new challenges

Do you see the flaw in the findings and the reality of it?  The Senior managers SAY their workforce can't adapt to change.  The survey didn't ask those that would have to change - it asked the HR manager if they THOUGHT their employees could change. 

Let Them Own The Change

Here's the reality of it.  People don't mind change - they just hate being forced to change.  If positioned correctly - and the employee is involved in the change - it is much less difficult to drive change.  But normally what happens is decisions are made in mahogany-paneled boardrooms and passed down to the masses.  "Do this and things will get better."  Too often the employees already know what change is required.  They do the job every day.  They know the flaws in the system.  They know all about the pointless and inefficient processes they are forced to live with each day.  Just ask them.

Seriously, just ask them.  Please ask them.  Don't make the mistake of thinking you know more than them.  You don't.  You may have a bit more information on the direction the company needs to head, since you sit in the meetings where these things are discussed.  Why not tell your employees - "We need to get from here - to here."  Then ask them - "What's the best way to do that?"  You may just be surprised that they can come up with 100's of different ideas.  All of which they will jump to implement.

A huge driver of employee engagement is a psychological principle called "locus of control" - the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them.  Increasing your employees' belief (and reality) that they have control over the outcomes will increase their desire to make changes and increase their engagement with the change.

Don't take HR's word for it... Your people aren't afraid of change - they're afraid of you trying to change them!

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

FOTv Show #3 - Is a One-Page Resume the Secret to Job Search Success?

FOTv IS BACK.  And we're pissed off, and we're not going to take it anymore.

OK, I jest.  A little.  But we are eating our own today.  The target of our dining experience?  Jason Seiden, who had the audacity to say that in order to have a successful resume, you need to keep it to one page.  Here's what the human lighting rod had to say on his own blog on the topic:

"Looking for a job? Submitting your resume to recruiters, hiring managers, and HR departments?

Let’s get clarity around something: your resume needs to be one page. ONE. See for yourself why:

(Note: I assume that we’re talking about a hard copy resume in this video because my experience is that many people still print these things out and read them over lunch or on the train or other places where they are not plugged in. If you think your resume is going to be read online only, then this advice applies double: make all relevant information fit on ONE SCREEN, without shrinking the font to anything below 10 points.)".

Jason's, the camera's on, so defend yourself.  All the rest of you, click through to see what the FOT team thinks of Jason's latest deep thought, and hit us in the comments on who you agree with:

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...

Fixing the Annual Performance Review - I Recommend More Work for HR Folks

While HR may not be the one doing all the work each year, traditionally they are the "cops" that track and manage it.  The "it" I'm referring to is the annual performance appraisal.  While the individual manager is typically responsible for their team's individual reviews, the HR folks are the ones checking their list twice to make sure every employee gets their appraisal and their salary review on their anniversary date or, in some companies, at the same time each year for all employees within a group.  But, if you want to be seen as a strategic partner - I think you need to redefine the performance review and be the policy "decider" not the policy "defender."  And here's one thought on where you can start.

Use Multiple Time Lines

Charles Green at the Trust Matters blog had a discussion a while back on the process universities go through to determine tenure for its professors and teachers.  The question Mr. Green discussed was ...is tenure an outmoded concept?  From the post ...

"Is academic tenure an outdated haven for non-performing professors stuck in narrow, irrelevant silos, crying out for the clear air of market discipline?

Or does the onslaught of 'pay for performance' in academia just encourage 'teach to test' and degrade intellectual curiosity?

Not much of a choice, is it? And have you stopped beating your wife?"

The post was discussing the fact that annual reviews of professors (the antithesis of tenure) would...in Mr. Green's words...

  "suborn short-term politicking, brown-nosing, teaching-to-test, and self-promoting schemes for 'customer' satisfaction ('customers' here meaning students and administration). Integration and holistic views take a back seat to self-preservation.

Wow.  Let's turn that thought onto our employees... we don't want self-promoting schemes and we do want them thinking about the enterprise as a whole and what they can do to move the whole forward. 

When I read it, I immediately thought of the process most companies go through with their annual employee reviews.  Does the annual review suborn more "me" thinking and less "we" thinking?  Add to that the ongoing concophany of voices saying today's Generation Y workforce needs more, faster performance information.  Does that just exacerbate the "me" thinking?  Will constant performance reviews create an even bigger challenge for employers wanting to retain top performers?

Hello rock - meet hard place.

It's not about today - and it's not about last year

I think we need to redefine performance reviews and create a two-tier performance metric - one that is short-term, and one that is long-term.  We can debate the length of short and long - but the concept is... 

If our audience wants more feedback, more often - then let's institutionalize it, and make it part of the plan.  But, if the real goal is to develop longer-term relationships with our top performers, we also need a longer-term metric that adequately presents the individual's total performance.  We need both short and long-term measures.

So, from an HR perspective we should lobby for quick, up-to-date, performance "check-ins' that can be juxtaposed with long-term (annual and bi-annual?) metrics in order to create a more rounded view of the employee.

I don't know about you, but I'd hate to think that my 20+ year relationship with my wife was based on last week's inability to remember to pick up milk - nor would I expect that all the years of doing the right thing should overshadow a huge recent indiscretion on either of our parts (purely hypothetical folks!)

As a close for this post, I leave you with another excerpt from Mr. Green's discussion:

"As to motivation, the annual threat of unemployment is like hammering a nail with a sledgehammer. It works so well it smashes the nail.

The great thing about tenure is it permits a team-based, integrated view of things because it lasts more than a year. There's a limit to how short you can make a meaningful relationship and still call it a relationship. It’s ironic that “modern” business insists on applying a single ancient pagan harvest-based unit of time to all things temporal. Why not change tenure to 6.43 years?"

If we want long-term, quality individuals who perform at their best each day, we should be looking at both measures.  I know it might seem like more work - but hey - that's why they pay us.

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...

I LOVE Forced Rankings!

Yep... I said it.  I love the idea of forced rankings.  Made famous by Jack Welch at GE - forced rankings became all the rage a few years back.  Everyone wanted to emulate GE - heck they were a powerhouse, and they were making money, taking names and kicking butt.  Forced rankings seemed to be the answer.  But, I know not everyone agrees with forced rankings.  Many managers didn't like the idea of taking their staff and submitting them to a "rule" rather than the keen insight of a highly trained manager.  Not to mention that forced rankings institutionalizes turnover.  If you have to get rid of 10% of your staff every year, you're guaranteed to increase costs right?  We all know that replacing an employee can cost upwards of 1.5 times their annual salary. 

Every manager thinks they do a great job of hiring.  You're the manager - you don't make those kinds of mistakes.  Forced rankings assume the manager made a mistake and made a poor hire.  There's a lot of bad in forced rankings.  But, I love forced rankings.

Forced Rankings Help

Now, before the rotten tomatoes fly - I'm only talking about the process of forced ranking - not the ultimate outcome, such as letting the bottom 10% go.  I'm also not suggesting that any outcome, from a forced ranking scenario, be shared with your employees.  I'm simply saying that following the process, of identifying your top performers, your middle performers and your lower performers, helps crystallize your decision making for the future.  Forced rankings inject a constraint in the decision process - and constraints make you think different.

We all have constraints in business.  Budgets are a constraint.  The economy is a constraint.  Competition is a constraint.  All of these constraints make you think differently and change how you make decisions.  Going through the process of ranking your employees makes you think about your staff differently and will allow you to look for ways to improve and change.  It may very well result in someone leaving the team or the company.  But, it may also result in a different training program, a transfer to another department or even highlight someone whom you didn't realize had a huge impact on your business.  You all know there is one person who quietly, behind the scenes, really does all the work but doesn't get any credit or even seek the limelight.

I realize that forced rankings have their negatives - but I also think that forced rankings are a way to eliminate the biases we have when you have the "good ole" boy/gal that is always fun to be around, but really never get's anything done.

To me, forced rankings are like going into battle - who do you want next to you, behind you, and who do you want on the enemy's side?  If you have someone you wish was fighting for the enemy - you've got real problems.

From a talent management effort, adding constraints to your decision process is a great way to turn the image and get another perspective of your staff.  Don't throw out the idea of forced ranking - or any other way to get you to think differently. 

Constraints are good for your brain.

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

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...