Strategy TrendWatchers

How to Keep Strategic Workforce Planning 'In the Room'

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:00:00 GMT

Only 21% of professionals say their leaders use workforce planning in business decision-making. Really? For a function that has the potential to deliver powerful insights that directly speak to organizational capability to execute the strategies that leaders so carefully craft, that's a pretty dismal statistic. Only 21%.

It isn't that workforce planners aren't trying, or that they aren't getting information to organizational decision makers. In fact, a new study from the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) confirms that workforce planning initiatives - like those at i4cp member company Luminant - are underway in more than three-quarters of surveyed business leaders' organizations. That's up from 70% in a 2009 i4cp survey. Further, i4cp's 2011 Strategic Workforce Planning Survey reveals that workforce planning teams are succeeding in getting top-level attention for the insights they uncover. A third of respondents in 2011 say that their CEOs review workforce planning results, while eighteen percent of boards see the output.

But ... the thing about getting leaders' attention is that it's only half of the success equation. Years ago, the PR firm I led handled promotions for a multi-published author and, one year, her chief goal was upping her presence with her two publishers. "Your job is to get me in the room," she told her agent and me. "My job is to keep us there." In other words, "get me the attention of the publishing power brokers, and I'll deliver books (results) that engage readers and make money (positively affect business objectives)." Ideal illustration of a pathway to higher performance.

The i4cp survey results demonstrate that workforce planning is getting into the room. Problem is, in many organizations the function doesn't yet have the chops to sit down and stay in the room. And the survey reveals at least one likely reason: despite the greater proportion of companies engaged in workforce planning, most of that planning is still operational or tactical; that is, fairly short-term and largely focused on transactional measures such as headcount, scheduling, staffing plans and training schedules.

Strategic workforce planning - which looks out three-to-five years and encompasses business planning, needs assessment, and creation of competitive advantage - lags far behind. Just 22% of respondents characterize their workforce planning as strategic. That low percentage is a big part of what's keeping workforce planning from staying in the room.

But how can leaders use planning's output to affect strategic matters when they aren't receiving strategic information?

Right audience, wrong message

In essence, workforce planning results are getting to the right audience, but may well be conveying the wrong message. As long as workforce planning initiatives remain focused on short-term concerns that reflect transactional information, then workforce planning leaders will (figuratively) languish on rickety folding chairs at battered card tables next to frustrated HR leaders who are, themselves, still wrestling with the transactional demon. And you can bet that card table won't be anywhere near the room where senior executives join forces around a big, wood-grained, highly polished strategy development table.

So a major challenge for workforce planners is refining and maturing their initiatives. Capturing, analyzing, and reporting the kind of information needed to make solid contributions to strategic decision-making is a key for staying in the room. And the time to take action is now, while workforce planning outputs are getting the attention of organizations' strategic decision-makers. In fact, it's urgent now because if those top executives don't get the information they need to shape strategies and achieve better execution, they'll soon stop paying attention to what workforce planning is doing and reporting. And in the long term, the business will pay the price.

One solution: Improvement

The good news is that the survey and subsequent interviews with planning leaders in i4cp member companies reveal an especially encouraging aspect of workforce planning: To meet some of the challenges (such as right audience, wrong message) that impede their progress, savvy planners are applying time-honored principles traditionally associated with manufacturing - continuous improvement. They're working to make each step of the planning process better, and they're doing it on the fly.

An HR director in the energy industry describes ongoing improvement this way: "Strategic workforce planning is very new at our organization (in place for approximately one year)," she says. "Each future iteration will increase understanding throughout the organization that strategic workforce planning is an embedded part of the annual and multi-year business planning process, and not just an HR initiative."

A most impressive example of dedication to continuous improvement is provided by Texas-based energy company Luminant. HR programs manager Shannon Vallina, who is spearheading workforce planning activities, says that past efforts at workforce planning weren't achieving hoped-for success. "As is the case in many energy-industry companies, there was concern about impending retirements and filling succession pipelines, but we couldn't get traction with our planning efforts. People felt frustrated about dedicating resources to an initiative that wasn't producing results." Large portions of the existing programming were scrapped, she explains. "We started fresh. We're trying to be more organized with this new era of workforce planning and we're working to make sure that we're approaching it in a thoughtful way. Now our people seem to be happy with the progress."

Sounds like just the sort of strategy that will help get workforce planning in the room ... and keep it there.

New strategic workforce planning resources now available

Read about other challenges affecting workforce planning and the strategies planning professionals are using to address them in i4cp's latest research report: Strategic Workforce Planning: Practitioner Insights.

i4cp's Strategic Workforce Planning Exchange - a research working group of more than a dozen companies - including FedEx Ground, Aerojet, GE and Luminant - brings together organizations that are establishing and building workforce planning initiatives. In 2012, the group will explore challenges in executing strategic workforce planning and integrating it into the business units outside of HR. New Exchange members are now being accepted. Learn more now or contact us to get started.

Carol Morrison is a senior i4cp research analyst and the author of this Playbook. She has authored white papers, playbooks, reports, analyses and other publications on a variety of topics related to human capital, leadership and talent management. Feature articles by Carol can be found in Talent Management Magazine, Chief Learning Officer, HR Executive and in other leading print and online media.

New Year’s Evolutions

Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:37:00 GMT

So here we are at the start of a new year, slogging through the inevitable (and often tedious) year-in-review retrospectives and forecasts for 2012. But, let's be honest - how much do those forecasts really affect your life?

We get it - looking ahead requires perspective in terms of where we've been and what we've learned so far, and too often forecasters merely jump on the most recent bandwagon. We know from experience that sustained high performance is synonymous with, among other things, being ready for change - but having a degree of insight into what's around the corner doesn't hurt.

It's easy to predict that new challenges await all of us - but research and experience clearly shows that organizations best positioned to seize upon and leverage the strategic advantage of the next best practice, and that continue to foster a culture of innovation, are the successful organizations. So what does all that really mean - what should we in HR be thinking about and how can we support innovation and growth that will help kick our organizations into high gear in 2012?

Start by making a commitment to embracing the sometimes complex, but high-value strategic work recent human capital research has demonstrated is critical for success. Here's a rundown based on i4cp's 2011 research of just a few of the issues we think are important for organizational success in 2012 and beyond:

EBHR

One of our favorite quotes of 2011 came from the SVP of HR at one of our member companies. To paraphrase, he said "Historically, HR has done a horrible job of leveraging data to its advantage, certainly when compared with sales, marketing or other strategic functions." This sentiment sums up why the subject of Evidenced Based Human Resources (EBHR) has risen so dramatically in popularity.

John Gibbons, i4cp's VP of Research, defines EBHR as "Simply, the use of human capital analytics and scientific standards of causation to build a case for how people management practices drive operational and financial performance of the business." Many seasoned HR professionals are embracing evidenced-based decision-making and resisting the urge to avoid it because it's perceived to be too complicated, too costly, too critical or just another fad. More organizations are using evidenced-based approaches to measure and manage talent, and this practice is serving as a competitive advantage - not only in terms of how they compete for, engage and retain talent, but as a competitive lever for the organization as a whole. Employees are the most important asset in most organizations, and EBHR increases the financial contributions HR makes to business by effectively leveraging that asset.

Gibbons recommends two initial and simple steps for implementing EBHR: ensure the HR team understands the most important measures used in the enterprise and keep the first project(s) small. Bottom line, you don't need to tackle everything at once, but ignoring EBHR could be a fatal management mistake. If you missed it, check out John's webinar on EBHR for more information.

Performance management

It became somewhat popular in 2011 to suggest that eradicating the performance appraisal process is what should happen in order to improve the culture. Our research suggests something far different - top organizations more often perfect and leverage the PM process to gain a strategic advantage.

If that's the case, why does the term performance management evoke so much criticism? Why do so many of us, even the owners of PM, dread it as something to be tolerated at best? If your organization's approach to PM needs to be re-tooled, familiarize yourself with i4cp's Performance Management Playbook: Tools and Techniques for Managing Performance. This playbook addresses the fundamental programs and philosophies used by top companies, and expounds on the ideas organizations should consider in building a best-in-class PM program that is strategic, well-understood and expertly executed. It also examines some of the key findings from two i4cp surveys on the topic, and features real world strategies and approaches currently in practice in leading organizations worldwide.

For example, forced ranking and forced distribution has seen a significant decline in high-performing organizations. Why? Mainly because these systems are often "gamed" by managers rather than being applied properly and producing real results. That doesn't mean it isn't appropriate for some corporate cultures, but understanding what types of culture are right for these practices is critical to ensuring performance management success.

Contingent workers

The four-year, stomach churning roller coaster that has been the global economy has brought about a great deal of change in approaches to staffing and as a result, the demand for contingent workers has increased. Our research on the use of contingent workers found that now more than ever, there is a demand for agility as well as acumen on several fronts - workers and executives must be equipped with core competencies such as critical thinking, effective communication, creativity and innovation.

Organizations must be able to expand and contract the workforce as needed and knowing how to do that without losing efficiency and effectiveness is critical. This means striking that critical balance of deploying and managing contingent workers strategically while also keeping permanent employees engaged. This is much easier said than done, but our report, The State of the Contingent Workforce, which was featured in the Wall Street Journal, offers insights into road-tested strategies being employed by some of our members.

Embracing technology (when it makes sense)

Like the fallacy that humans use just a small percentage of our brain capacity (so not true!) leaving our full potential untapped, we seem to easily fall into the same line of erroneous thinking regarding new, innovative technology. Take the ubiquitous smartphone for example. In i4cp 's research in partnership with ASTD we found that just-in-time, always-in-context learning can save a company a tremendous amount of money while improving productivity.

But questions arose too - do content owners need to develop a mobile application for every piece of content they create? If so, does there need to be versions that run on iPhones®, Android®, BlackBerrys® and Windows® phones (among others)? What about tablets? Are there authoring or content creation tools that make this easy? How do we manage all of this - through our existing Learning Management System (LMS)? These and other issues are tackled in our research, and as is often the case, high-performing organizations take a different path than their low-performing counterparts.

Speaking up, even when the news isn't great

The very basic foundation of an effective HR strategy is a culture that supports all levels of employees in an organization. This is often achieved through effective, coherent internal communication. i4cp's research on communication, highlighted in our Effective Internal Communications Report, found that high-performing organizations know that internal communications must be strategic in addition to being tactical - they use internal communications to deliver higher level information, including policy changes, company successes, company financials and even pay-for-performance information, while lower performers view it as a vehicle for delivering emergency, crisis and safety information.

There are, of course, myriad issues and concerns beyond these that keep all of us up at night. While the uncertainty of what lies ahead is the one thing we all have in common, the ability to deal with our constantly evolving roles with confidence based on evidence, facts and research will help us sleep a little more soundly.

To all of our i4cp member organizations, thanks for a productive and profitable 2011 - we're looking forward to even higher performance in 2012.

Lorrie Lykins is i4cp's Managing Editor and Director of Research Services. She has been engaged in the study of human capital management since 2002 and has published widely to include authoring a chapter in the ASTD Leadership Handbook (2010) and publishing feature articles and editorials in various journals and magazines. Her work at i4cp has been featured in both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. She is an adjunct professor at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, FL.

The Name of the Integrated Talent Management Game

Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:23:00 GMT

You may have missed this when it happened - that's okay, I'm sure most people reading this did. There's now a human capital software company called "Lumesse." I have no idea how to pronounce it (and I searched hard on their website), but I think it rhymes with "new mess." The point is, it's not a new company. Lumesse, formerly known as StepStone Solutions, said in their press release that "...the new brand is the first step in making Lumesse an increasingly high-profile, global player in the fast-growth talent management sector."

I can't wait to hear what the second step will be.

This one may have also slipped by you last month: "PeopleFluent" emerged on the talent management software scene. This company isn't new either; it was formerly called PeopleClickAuthoria (if you're thinking that they must have been going for the world record for most syllables in a single company name, you're not alone). PeopleFluent's message is that the new brand "sets out to establish a new identity that better reflects the customer-inspired vision it conceived and began to build more than a year ago." I'd have to agree. But then again I think I'd have agreed that "Charlie" would have been a better identity, too.

All of this renaming, of course, is in the name of being the biggest name in the game of the most overused HR category name: Integrated Talent Management.

Any way you name it, most practitioners find this confusing. And I'm not just talking about vendor name changes; I mean the whole category of Integrated Talent Management.

While so many companies know that talent is critical to competitiveness, managing it as a comprehensive strategy is still rare. It's not like this idea is new - remember the "war for talent" concept that was introduced nearly 15 years ago? - but it's seemingly taking FOREVER for companies to integrate the various silos that typically exist in HR departments around the world.

Surprisingly, with all of this renaming going on, in many companies the name "talent management" is often misused, or at least misunderstood. Several think of it as just another term for succession planning and executive development. While almost every research study i4cp has done on this subject clearly shows that truly integrated talent management is linked to high-performance organizations, and functions such as performance management are most often integrated with learning and development, it's frustrating that we don't have lots of examples of companies doing this in the market.

So what do you do when a subject frustrates you? Put a book together about it, of course. With long-time friend and co-editor Pat Galagan, I recently finished The Executive Guide to Integrated Talent Management, a book designed to provide clarity to a muddy subject. And while success stories aren't abundant, we were fortunate to find several, and have top executives from those companies lend their expertise and their stories to this book.

These organizations are clearly using integrated talent management to improve upon their strengths. For example, at 3M - where innovation is the lifeblood of the organization - there's a strong focus on engaging people and encouraging them to stretch in the context of holistic people management. At Edwards Lifesciences, where CEO Michael Mussallem drives a culture of execution and accountability, SVP of HR Rob Reindl showcases how talent management focuses strongly on succession planning to put at least two candidates in line for every key job. And at GE, the mecca of leadership development in our time, the emphasis on "judgment capacity" is arrived at through industry-leading practices such as leaders teaching leaders and action learning as part of a comprehensive talent system. From Hertz's focus on rewarding knowledge transfer, to Cisco's linkage of performance plans to the CEO's vision, and Agilent's embrace of evidence-based HR, we can see the variety and complexity of talent management practices in today's corporations.

But Pat and I didn't stop at just a few good corporate examples. We also picked the brains of several industry gurus, such as Tom Rath, Peter Cappelli, Dave Ulrich, Marshall Goldsmith, Noel Tichy, Bev Kaye, John Sullivan, Jon Ingham and Ed Lawler. Each of these luminaries wrote chapters, sharing their own views, which were developed over years of working with many organizations. To a person, they describe truly integrated talent management as a critical future component of high-performing organizations. As Dave Ulrich succinctly points out, "Talent differentiates, drives productivity, determines customer service, and increases intangible shareholder value. Talent matters. Talent is too important to be left to uncoordinated events."

Hopefully the book sheds some light on coordination of disparate HR silos, which is the first thing companies should do before even thinking about technology vendors. While I believe technology ultimately plays a big part in successful integration in order for critical data to be shared across functions, if you aren't organized before putting a system in place you will simply have expensive non-coordination. Even among the companies that have achieved a good level of integration, there are many examples of over-promising and under-delivering from well known suppliers.

The bottom line? Few companies are truly there when it comes to integrating talent management. Some are close, but most have yet to realize the true potential of a fully integrated TM system. Those that have are typically higher-performing organizations overall. True integrated talent management is a comprehensive approach that leads to and sustains higher organizational performance and workforce productivity.

No matter what you name it.

Kevin is the CEO and founder of the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp). Kevin has been a leader in the human capital field for the last two decades, and was previously the founder and president of SumTotal Systems. Kevin is currently on the board of directors for KnowledgeAdvisors, a human capital analytics firm, and serves on the advisory board for Intrepid, a Seattle-based provider of outsourced workplace productivity solutions, and Longworth Ventures, a Boston-area venture capital firm. Kevin is a frequent author and international keynote speaker on talent management and using human capital strategically in organizations and recently released a new book, titled The Executive Guide to Integrated Talent Management, published by ASTD Press.

Shedding the Standard Grey Wool Dress for Real Business Insights

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:58:00 GMT

You may remember the classic Wendy's restaurant commercial from the 1980s that featured a comical spoof of a Soviet-era fashion show. An emcee with a heavy Russian accent announced a new category, such as "swimwear" or "evening wear," as a glum model trudged down the runway wearing the same shapeless grey wool dress. The message, of course, was that most people want to have choices in what they wear, and in the case of the commercial, what they eat.

In the information age, this "one-size-fits-all" world view has virtually disappeared. I have a customized screen saver and collection of apps on my iPhone (although I am beginning to believe that Angry Birds is pre-installed on all of them). Ralph Lauren lets me select the color of the pony insignia on my new shirts. Heck, I can even order M&M's with customized swear words printed on them - in Yiddish!

Customization is a basic requirement for business in the information age. Unfortunately, many organizations still make decisions based on "one-size-fits-all" information by looking at surface-level internal metrics - not to mention external research intended for the masses - rather than similarly sized companies in their industry.

In reality, this form of data analysis is rapidly becoming the business intelligence equivalent of the grey wool dress.

Even the notion of what constitutes knowledge has changed. In i4cp's 2011 Knowledge Retention Playbook: Tools and Techniques for Preserving Knowledge study we noted that high-performing companies are increasingly abandoning the notion that the scope of a person's knowledge is the collection of facts and experiences stored in his or her head. Instead, they are coming to realize that an employee's knowledge is more about how well they can network to gather information, the reliability of that network, the speed with which they can access information they didn't have before, and their ability to synthesize that information into insight. In other words, a person's knowledge is less about the particular library of stuff in their heads - which inherently has limitations - and more about how well they can adapt, customize, and find solutions to new problems and scenarios.

Today's Wall Street Journal couldn't have said it better, quoting Google employee Brad Horowitz on the company's new social networking initiative: "There's almost nothing I can say to an audience that spans my sister-in-law, my rabbi, and a person I met a conference yesterday."

Customization and the emerging new understanding of knowledge are the primary reasons that i4cp publishes most of our research in two formats: 1) a short narrative of insights supported by data and 2) an Interactive Data workbook that allows our members to sort and filter the data in countless combinations so that they can find the insights that are most valuable to them. They can find out what other high-performing companies are doing from within their industry, company size, global scale, revenue, etc., - or any combination of these - as opposed to reading through pages of neatly crafted prose intended to meet everyone's needs.

That may sound like I'm just trying to promote i4cp's interactive capabilities - and I am, to a degree - but my intention is to show that while examining high-level findings is important, it's the data below the surface that can reveal breakthrough opportunities for organizations.

Here's another, more in-depth example: about a month ago, I casually clicked through the Interactive Data workbook for i4cp's annual study, The 2011 Five Domains of High-Performance. As you might expect, high-performing companies scored higher on literally every question in the study with the exception of one:

In order to get things done in my company, I need to work outside of the organizational structures of my company.

Intuitively, it would make sense that companies that have poorly defined strategies, roles, structures, etc. (the characteristics of low-performing companies) would have employees that indicate that they need to work outside of the formal structures to get things accomplished. So, at first blush, I wasn't surprised by the bar chart in front of me. Then I began to click around to explore different points of view on the issue, manipulating the data by industry, geography etc. The findings were remarkably consistent until I hit upon the dimension of "size of workforce." With all companies included, of course, the low-performing companies far exceeded high-performing companies on the need to work outside of formal structures. However, as I eliminated the categories of small, then medium-sized companies, I discovered that the bar chart began to converge until, once I hit "10,000 employees or more," there was virtually no difference whatsoever between the responses from employees from high-performing companies and low-performing companies on this question.

And then it struck me. In high-performing smaller or even mid-sized organizations in which roles and structures are well-defined and colleagues interact with one another every day (or at least know where to find each other), there is little need to work outside of the formal structures in order to get things accomplished. However, in large companies, where a single department may have as many employees as many mid-sized organizations, and where innovation and collaboration depend on cross-functional networking, large high-performing companies actually perform better when people operate outside of their formal roles and organizational structures - and encourage them to do so.

This was an incredibly powerful insight, and has deeply informed the work I do with our member companies when we talk about organizational structures. And I realize that I would never have discovered that insight had it not been for a tool that enabled me to look at the data in a way that allowed customization of the parameters. In fact, I'm confident that most other research organizations - and subsequently the companies using their research - would not have discovered that insight because they would have simply run their data analysis on the aggregated sample, written the report on the superficial findings, and produced ... well ... a grey wool dress.

Diet Coke was introduced to the marketplace in 1982. Since then, the Coca-Cola Company has introduced more than 20 versions of its iconic soft drink. Why? Because the Coca-Cola Company understands that consumers have different tastes and different needs. The same should be said about business research, insights, and intelligence; organizations have choices beyond the standard grey wool dress.

John Gibbons is the Vice President and General Manager of Research and Development at i4cp. He has been a human resources practitioner, researcher and thought leader in human capital strategy for more than 20 years. His work has been featured in hundreds of publications and news outlets around the world including the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, CEO Magazine, CNBC, CNN and National Public Radio (NPR).

The Ironies of High Performance

Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:13:00 GMT

For much of the past month, my workdays have focused on assessing the results of i4cp's 2011 High-Performance Organizations Survey. I think about performance while I'm jogging, cooking and watering flowerbeds. I even dream about it at night. I've had input from several of my colleagues about the survey and what they find interesting or compelling about it. Everyone has their own ideas. Here's mine: we're good at identifying what we do well and what we aspire to do well but we don't necessarily have the mechanisms in place to connect the two.

Most of our discussions revolve around the top findings across what i4cp has identified as the five domains of organizational performance: strategy, leadership, talent, culture and market focus. Our analysis of survey responses revealed the practices within each of those domains that tie directly to performance improvement. I think what is equally interesting are the things in each of those areas that companies aren't doing well - or at least not as well as they could ... even the high-performing organizations ... and how those practices contrast with the best efforts.

Look at the strategy domain, for instance. High performers expressed strongest agreement with the statement, "Our organization's publicly stated philosophy is consistent with its strategy." That belief on the part of respondents that their organizations are walking their talk also proved to be the strongest driver of improvement in performance within the strategy domain. But at the other end of the scale, high performers agreed leastthat behavior of their non-managerial employees is consistent with actions needed to successfully execute the strategic plan. In other words, the rank-and-file aren't doing what they should be doing to achieve the desired business results. Hmm.

What about leadership? In that domain, high performers agreed most strongly that their management encourages employees to become more productive. That's great. But at the same time, they agreed least with the notion that their leaders are good at coaching and mentoring. So if management is good at encouraging productivity, why aren't they good at following that with hands-on ways to encourage better performance? But maybe it's not that simple, and as John Gibbons, i4cp's VP of Research & Development points out: "Willingness to apply discretionary effort does not equate to greater productivity ... especially only expressions of intent to apply discretionary effort."

The talent domain indicated greatest agreement that workers are willing to contribute extra effort beyond their job parameters. But lowest marks went to organizations' measuring the return on investment of talent management programs. Wouldn't the above-and-beyond behavior of employees be a major indicator that talent programs are doing something right?

When it comes to culture, both high and low performers agreed most emphatically that they have an ethical code that helps to guide their actions. Both groups also agreed least with the statement that "bureaucracy does not impede performance in our organization ..." meaning that it does. In market focus, high performers say they try to exceed customers' expectations. However, they agreed least that they use highly-developed strategies to find out what those expectations are.

Doesn't it seem that there are some ironies in those contrasts, or at least some valuable lessons? Our philosophies and our strategies are consistent. But our employees aren't performing in ways that accomplish those strategies. Why wouldn't they? Short of outright mutiny, the only viable explanation is our failure to make workers understand what the strategies are and what needs to be done to execute them. What we should get consistent about is providing clearer communication and guidance. Those aims might also apply in designing leadership development programming that does a better job of helping leaders refine their coaching and mentoring skills so they can effectively model and participate in these practices that encourage performance.

Finally, if everyone at i4cp had a dollar for each time senior VP of research Jay Jamrog declared, "What gets measured gets done," then I'd be writing this from a lounge chair on an island beach. But he's right. We need to find the antidote to metrics phobia and get better at measurement - all kinds of measurement. In the talent domain, we say our people are doing great work, but do we look on their discretionary effort as a valid indicator? And in our zeal to exceed customer expectations, why don't we use the best and brightest means to find out what those expectations are? Maybe the trick is indeed, as John Gibbons says, to "find reasonable measures for squishy things, like employees' willingness to work hard."

The 2011 High-Performance Organizations Survey has many valuable insights (and a few ironies) to offer, and maybe each of us takes away something a little different when it comes to lessons learned. Among the many takeaways for me were these ideas about improving communication, leadership development, recognizing and removing internal obstacles to performance, and learning how to pursue more effective measurement strategies. You may find completely different points that ring true for your organization. In fact, you probably should. We don't do business in a cookie-cutter world. High-performance organizations know that. That's why they opt to learn from the full range of research, but then use it to pick and choose the solutions that will best serve their unique needs and further help to differentiate them. That capability to customize insights is among the most powerful and enduring values good research offers. Vive la différence!

Senior Research Analyst Carol Morrison has authored white papers, playbooks, reports, analyses and other publications on a variety of topics related to human capital, leadership, and talent management. Feature articles by Carol can be found in Talent Management Magazine, Chief Learning Officer, HR Executive and in other leading print and online media.

Mobile Learning: Anywhere, Anytime

Fri, 06 May 2011 08:33:00 GMT

While we humans have a fascinating history of innovation, we sometimes seem to be at a loss when it comes to immediately realizing the potential of any given technological breakthrough. Instead, we use new technology to mimic whatever was done before. Case in point, when television was invented, we filmed plays with a single stationary camera. It took some time before the ideas of multiple cameras, different angles and the concept of editing came into play.

The learning function is not immune to this self-limiting mindset. When e-learning first came around, we tried to figure out how to present a classroom experience on a computer. Early virtual learning experiments simply recreated physical classrooms with virtual desks, virtual chairs and a virtual podium. A similar pattern has emerged with mobile learning, which to date has held back the obvious opportunities this important medium holds for corporate learners.

As a concept, mobile learning has been around for several years; some companies began delivering information in text format to employees on mobile devices nearly a decade ago. Today, the confluence of device technology, operating systems, content platforms, GPS and Web access - among other factors - has reengaged the minds of the learning community. Morning subway commutes can become mini-classrooms; waiting for appointments can be turned into instant tutoring sessions.

Truth be told, many users would probably admit that they don't use their smartphones for much more than texting, Web surfing, checking e-mail and the occasional actual phone call. More sophisticated users, however, know it is now possible to deliver media rich, interactive learning content to almost any smartphone. This represents an entirely new delivery channel for corporate learning professionals.

But that potential will be missed if we go the route of original TV programming and spend our time trying to cram an entire leadership development course onto a phone. Professional learning developers understand that the design is the biggest differentiator between mobile learning success and failure. More importantly, they understand that mobile learning is a strategic key to connecting multiple learning modalities. It is the link between learning and performance support; the tie between formal and informal learning.

Perhaps the most significant potential of mobile learning is the ability to achieve what many performance support advocates believe has long been the learning profession's Mount Everest; as MIT professor and artificial intelligence pioneer Seymour Papert said, "You can't teach people everything they need to know. The best you can do is position them where they can find what they need to know when they need to know it."

Imagine a technician in the field trying to diagnose an equipment problem. A quick scan of the part's barcode with the phone's camera, and a troubleshooting guide is displayed. Just-in-time, always-in-context learning can save a company a tremendous amount of money while improving productivity.

Another often-cited scenario: a salesperson is in the field trying to close a difficult sale. Just prior to the meeting, a tutorial walks the salesperson through the consultative sales steps necessary to seal the deal. Taking advantage of the salesperson's physical location, his GPS-enabled device gives him key up-to-date information on the company as he's entering the office building. While in the meeting, instead of having to memorize all of the pricing and inventory information, a quick tap on the touch screen brings up the latest information, updated to the second. It's easy to imagine many other useful applications, but today imagining isn't necessary - many of these applications are in use by organizations already.

Mobile learning is not without issues, though, most of which boil down to very tactical, practical application and the ever-present challenge of garnering the support of senior leaders.

Do content owners now need to develop a mobile application for every piece of content they create? If so, does there need to be versions that can run on iPhones, an Android device, BlackBerrys and Windows phones? What about tablets? Are there authoring or content creation tools that make this easy? How do we manage all of this - through our existing Learning Management System (LMS)?

As part of a study i4cp conducted with the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), we found that these tactical issues have delayed mobile learning from truly taking off. But the lack of support of senior leaders and the lack of available budget are two of the most often cited obstacles to mobile learning implementation, according to study participants.

This is unfortunate, because the study also highlights a very important correlation: high-performing companies are much more likely to have adopted mobile learning than low-performing companies. This correlation is something that all learning professionals should take note of. But like many new technologies, the tipping point for widespread adoption will likely come only when "a killer app" emerges for mobile learning.

Whatever that killer app is, it will undoubtedly be all about adapting the approach to delivering contextualized chunks of immediate learning to people when and where they need it most. For busy workers everywhere, this will open an entire new world for devices that were originally only designed for us to talk to each other.

i4cp's 4-Part Recommendation:

Try to remain agnostic. At this stage of the game, unless your organization is willing to provide employees with one device and platform, it may be best to approach mobile learning from a Web-based delivery perspective.
Pilot programs. It is not necessary to develop a complete and polished mobile learning initiative right away. Start with small experiments. It is the only way to figure out what works without wasting time and resources.
It has to make sense. Ask "Do we need to deliver this on a mobile device?" If there is no obvious benefit to delivering a piece of learning this way, it's not worth the effort.
No fear. Mobile computing is not a flash-in-the-pan fad. It has become an acceptable and preferred method of accessing information for high-performing companies. Organizations need to embrace this and find ways to leverage the technology. Address internal barriers such as security and network concerns.

David Wentworth has been a senior research analyst for the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) since 2005. He has published several reports and articles on various human capital subjects with an emphasis on workforce technology. He has contributed to several reports published by ASTD, including authoring The Value of Evaluation: Making Training Evaluations More Effective, The Rise of Social Media: Enhancing Collaboration and Productivity Across Generations, and Instructional Systems Design Today and in the Future. Wentworth's work has also appeared in Compensation & Benefits Review and T+D Magazine.

Thank You for Being Irritating

Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:01:00 GMT

I just returned to the office from the i4cp 2011 Annual Conference and my head - and heart - are full. You would think that the combination of hanging out for three intense days in a stunning setting in the Arizona desert with fantastic HR colleagues and some of the best conference speakers I've seen in my career would, in themselves, be reason enough why I'm still sorting through all of my thoughts about the experience.

Mind you, how could a conference featuring the likes of Kevin Wilde, CLO of General Mills; Paul Humphries, CHRO of Flextronics; or Grammy-winning country artist Billy Dean be anything but a terrific experience?

But something else happened for me that transcended the great people, great food and great weather.

Let me put it this way...

I'm self-aware enough to know that I can be irritating and now I can feel good about it. I have Paul Fama from General Electric to thank for that.

Paul led a discussion on the final day of the conference about his experience at GE in developing a more business-focused and impactful role for HR. He concluded with advice for HR practitioners and one particular piece of that counsel clearly struck a nerve among the audience members. He suggested that HR practitioners consider that they serve their organizations best by functioning as a "positive irritant."

Paul clarified that, in his experience, HR leaders who are completely "positive" - those who work entirely in lock step with their business partners - run the risk of becoming too embedded in the current thinking of the management team and consequently, jeopardize their ability to effectively stand back and challenge that thinking. Conversely, HR leaders who function exclusively as organizational "irritants" - those who are always holding up critical red flags - also fall prey to losing perspective and may ultimately fail to effectively collaborate with their colleagues to drive the business.

Paul's recommendation is to combine healthy portions of both. Being a "positive irritant" essentially means that, at our best, HR practitioners can be focused on driving the business and helping our colleagues outside of HR to achieve their business goals while also challenging conventional wisdom and practices regarding the company's use of talent.

Clearly the concept hit home for a lot of people in the room and becoming a "positive irritant" became somewhat of a recurring theme throughout the final day of the conference. And I have a sense that there are some CEOs out there who may, in a small way, regret that they sent their HR leaders to this conference (at least, I secretly hope so).

To continue with a brief snapshot of the innumerable things that affected both my head and heart at the conference, Marshall Goldsmith's presentation on the second day of the conference was, in a word, incredible. If you haven't heard him speak, I strongly encourage you to find him and listen to him. Although he is best known for being one of the world's best executive coaches, I'd also describe Marshall in terms of being akin to a Buddhist business evangelist and I venture to suggest that he'd probably like that description.

At one point in his presentation, Marshall asked everyone in the room to stop and take a deep, long, cleansing breath. He said to imagine that, with that breath, each of us let go of our old self and become a new, rejuvenated self. Up to that point I was thinking, "Okay, I've taken enough yoga classes that I can handle this." Then he added that we should think of all of the breaths we've taken throughout our lives, and all of the countless selves that they represent. He then said to think about how incredibly hard each of those selves has worked for so long to help bring each of us to where we are today and to be as successful as we have been. Then came the kicker. He said, "Don't you think that they deserve a simple thank you?"

At that moment I looked around the room and saw some of the brightest and most successful leaders in the HR community visibly moved, some even with tears in their eyes.

While I've elaborated on what I experienced listening to Paul and Marshall, they are just two examples of the extraordinary array of bright, talented and inspirational presenters who were kind enough to share their insights and stories with us. And, just as Paul and Marshall were profoundly different from one another yet equally impactful, there were others who represented as broad a spectrum of perspectives as one might imagine in HR - from Morgan Stanley's resident quant wonk Jeremy Shapiro to trust-building expert Stephen M. R. Covey.

I have no doubt that each person who participated in this year's conference has his or her own memorable moments on which to reflect and will be taking with them unique stories and great new concepts and ideas to share with their respective teams. If you didn't attend, I suggest you find someone who did and ask them about the personal impact it had on them. And finally, to all of our colleagues in HR, I simply want to say thank you for being irritating.

John Gibbons is the Vice President and General Manager of Research and Development at i4cp. He has been a human resources practitioner, researcher and thought leader in human capital strategy for more than 20 years. His work has been featured in hundreds of publications and news outlets around the world including the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, CEO Magazine, CNBC, CNN and National Public Radio (NPR).

The Contingent Worker Debate

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 13:46:00 GMT

This edition of i4cp's Trendwatcher is a departure from our traditional format. Rather than presenting the perspective of an individual, we're having some fun and taking two diametrically opposed viewpoints on the same important topic - contingent workers. As you read, keep in mind that our intent for both sides of the argument is to be provocative, with the goal of sparking conversation and new thinking on the topic. We hope you enjoy this experiment.

John: "Contingency Plans are Plan A, not Plan B"

Let's face it, the reality of the greater use of contingent workers is not only here to stay, but, in fact, has been growing steadily for decades. Business leaders understand that they need to keep costs low, remain nimble to changes in the marketplace and keep up on the hottest skills without having to invest literally millions of dollars each year in developing their employees.

Our State of the Contingent Workforce Report - which you yourself wrote, Lorrie - shows that high-performing companies not only use contingent workers more often, they also use them more strategically than low performers. Specifically, by using contingent workers, they can immediately infuse their businesses with the key high-level skill sets that are vital now, not a year or more from now using traditional learning and recruiting routes. It's kind of like buying the latest Smartphone with the idea that, by the time it becomes obsolete, you'll already be upgrading to the new model.

And, if you think that high-performing companies use employees simply as disposable commodities, you'd be wrong. High-performing leaders actually keep contingent employees in their jobs longer than low performers. Why? It's because they don't use contingent workers as simply a short-term way of saving some cash. Smart managers know that building a workforce composed of a critical mass of contingent workers is not just a short-term fix to financial tight spots or budget cuts. Instead, contingent workers represent a way of building a smart, up-to-date, yet nimble base of vital talent.

And contingency is not just great for businesses - it's terrific for employees too. Nearly a decade ago Daniel Pink espoused the advantage of contingency for the so-called Free Agent Nation. Contingent work arrangements allow skilled employees to not only choose who they work for, but also give them the latitude to actually negotiate their specific work assignments, their work settings ... and even their bosses. This is especially great news for Generation Y, the most technologically savvy - yet dissatisfied - segment of the U.S. workforce. What better way to get to do the work that you love, get paid what your skills are worth in the free market, and - most importantly - have the flexibility to move somewhere else when you become bored or the boss becomes a pain in the ass?

No, Lorrie, contingency is not a bad thing. Not only is it here to stay, it's a great idea for everyone involved.

Lorrie: "Get Your Contingent Act Together Already!"

John, your points are well taken, but the truth is that far too many organizations don't have a handle on contingent workers. They don't know how many contingent workers they are using at any given time, how many staffing firms they're sourcing from or what their spend is.

Add to that the fact that there is too much turf-warring and internal power struggling over the whole issue of who ultimately owns the process and is accountable for outcomes and you have the perfect recipe for a big fat mess rather than a strategic approach to meeting changing needs. Sure, contingent workers are the right choice for some organizations and circumstances, but not always.

You say that contingent workers are not viewed by companies as disposable commodities, but in using temporary workers or contractors to come in and perform certain functions aren't we making some fulltime employees feel disposable? Some firms I interviewed during the course of this study admitted that the morale of their employees has been affected by the presence of contractors who are brought in to work on challenging or creative projects while the FTEs keep the engine of the organization chugging along. So while your super-creative contractors may come in and produce something really cool, does it balance the sometimes detrimental impact on your core workforce?

Your argument that the increased use of contingent workers is "great news for Generation Y, the most technologically savvy - yet dissatisfied - segment of the U.S. workforce," does not hold water for me. It sounds like yet another bit of HR posturing to pacify Gen Y who, as you say, welcome having the flexibility to move somewhere else "when they become bored or the boss becomes a pain in the ass." I say: Grow up, kids. Welcome to the real world. Everyone gets bored with their jobs from time-to-time and sometimes that boredom leads to making a change but it can also lead to an opportunity to be innovative or entrepreneurial. Quit whining and get busy.

What's next, John? Organizations fully staffed by employees who are completely unengaged with anything but their own career trajectory and the next assignment in the next company? And what are the implications in terms of the loss of institutional knowledge, the strain on the culture and engagement?

Sure, contingent workers may cost less, but what's the cost in the long run? The reality is that many organizations will have better outcomes in certain areas by hiring and investing in the development of fulltime employees rather than repeatedly falling back on using contingent workers and, in a way, staying on a carousel that goes around and around but never really makes progress or arrives anywhere.

The current market allows us an opportunity to recruit high-potential talent like never before, but I think some organizations are loathe to break out of the complacency the recession sunk us in to. Sure, calling a staffing firm to fill openings is easy. Finding new employees who are the right fit for your organization takes work and developing an internal pipeline takes time and money. But it's worth it.

John Gibbons is the Vice President and General Manager of Research and Development at i4cp. He has been a human resources practitioner, researcher and thought leader in human capital strategy for more than 20 years. His work has been featured in hundreds of publications and news outlets around the world including the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, CEO Magazine, CNBC, CNN and National Public Radio (NPR).

Lorrie Lykins, i4cp's Managing Editor and Director of Research Services, has been involved in human capital research for a decade and has authored numerous white papers and articles on subjects ranging from corporate volunteerism to, yes, the contingent workforce. She is an adjunct professor at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, FL, a contributing author to the ASTD Leadership Handbook (2010) and has been published in numerous journals, magazines and newspapers.

Do People Drive Business? You Bet Your Assets.

Mon, 07 Feb 2011 10:10:00 GMT

Is it just me?

I can't tell you the number of times I've sat in a presentation delivered by a senior executive who invariably uses a phrase that really gets under my skin. As the speaker begins to extol the importance of innovation and talent I can feel it coming. As they continue on to talk about the importance of having engaged and dedicated employees I look around the room and see faces beginning to light up - in particular those of my colleagues in Human Resources. Finally, as the speaker reaches the crescendo of praise for the workforce, I have actually found myself gripping the edge of my conference room chair as those inevitable words are uttered:

"People are this company's most valuable asset."

Don't get me wrong. I agree with them. In fact, I have dedicated my career to pursuing the notion that people add value to their companies. I also believe that a large part of my responsibility as an HR professional - and as a business leader in general - is to demonstrate just how important they really are. My problem with the phrase lies in the fact that we HR professionals collectively have not done an especially good job at demonstrating that value in a meaningful way.

Let's be honest: Can we - let alone our CEO or CFO - confidently demonstrate the true financial value that exceptionally talented and motivated people provide to our company as opposed to employees of average talent or motivation?

Most of us can't, and in fact, many of us don't know how to begin.

Fortunately, Evidence-Based Human Resources, a movement that has been little more than a whisper in intellectual circles and among geeky HR analytics types (I include myself in this category) for the past few years, has begun to mature and become engrained in how high-performing companies are managing themselves. And evidence-based approaches are extending beyond simply the use of HR metrics and human capital analytics to inform how these companies are approaching their overall human capital strategies in general.

So what is Evidence-Based Human Resources? EBHR simply is the use of human capital analytics and scientific standards of causation to build a case for how people management practices drive operational and financial performance of the business.

While it sounds sophisticated - and admittedly, there are some very smart practitioners who are applying EBHR in very sophisticated ways - the concepts are fairly simple. There are two things that you should know to really understand what EBHR is all about: First, measure what matters. Many organizations approach HR metrics the same way the classic befuddled drunk looks for his lost keys under a street light (even though he's pretty sure he lost them a few blocks away) - simply because the light is better. We measure what's easy. In an effort to demonstrate that our functions add value to the company, we spend a lot of time measuring things like time to fill positions, turnover rates or evaluation scores from participants in training programs. While these measures are a nice start, they don't capture whether or not the new hires are actually performing well, if turnover rates in certain positions are more closely related to profitability of the company than turnover in other positions, or if training programs are actually changing the long-term success of business units whose managers participated in them.

The second concept is a little more complicated, but nothing we weren't all taught in high school chemistry class ... then promptly forgot because we all went into HR. If you reach deep into your dusty memory of science you will remember that there is a clear and simple three-part test for demonstrating that one thing actually causes a second thing to happen. And, isn't that what we are trying to do in our efforts to demonstrate the value of talent and managing talent well? As a refresher, those three parts are:

Correlation - simply put, when one thing happens, the other does too. (This also works in reverse - when one thing doesn't happen, neither does the other.)
Temporal Relationship - this is just a scientific term meaning that the first thing happened before the other thing happened.
Control for Other Variables - this means that you've made an effort to control for other explanations for why you came up with the outcome you got.

Finally, it's important to understand that, while the application of evidence-based approaches may involve data and analytics, number crunching isn't what's at the core of EBHR itself. Evidence-Based HR is about knowing your business and what measures are used by stakeholders to determine its operational and financial success. It's also about learning (or re-learning) a disciplined way of demonstrating facts and applying critical thinking to make the case for HR. HR has always had an important message to communicate regarding the value of people. EBHR simply allows HR practitioners to tell that story in a manner that is just as compelling to the people sitting in a boardroom as those being told by our peers in marketing or finance.

I firmly believe that people are valuable and that their efforts and contributions drive business performance. I also think that if you are reading this, chances are you believe that too. With evidence-based approaches to building talent strategies and testing our assumptions about what works and what doesn't work, I believe that we collectively can come closer to demonstrating that value.

In other words ... it isn't just me.

John Gibbons is the Vice President and General Manager of Research and Development at i4cp. He has been a human resources practitioner, researcher, and thought leader in human capital strategy for more than 20 years. His work has been featured in hundreds of publications and news outlets around the world including the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, CEO Magazine, CNBC, CNN, and National Public Radio (NPR).

Playing Not to Lose

Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:08:00 GMT

This is my first turn at authoring a TrendWatcher since joining i4cp in September, so I thought I'd give you a small insight into my background. I grew up in eastern Ohio, and just like most self-respecting people from the Ohio Valley, I am a dedicated Pittsburgh Pirates fan. In recent times (sadly, we're talking a couple of decades) this has been a lonely, unfulfilling undertaking. I approach the end of each winter with optimism about the coming baseball season, which typically lasts only until about Memorial Day weekend, when I have to face the inevitability that the Pirates are simply not going to be in the World Series. Again. I have to admit that I do, however, take solace in my dedication to noble, yet futile team loyalty.

In their 2008 book Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior, co-authors Ori and Ron Brafman discuss the term "swamp of commitment." They explain that it is perfectly natural for human beings to doggedly continue to follow a course of action that, while it made sense when it was initially plotted, is not supported by changes in the environment or empirical reasons for changing course. In layman's terms, this may be why so many of us held on to our tech stocks long after the tech bubble burst. Or, in my case, it's why I hold tight to the notion that the Pirates always have a chance to win the World Series. It's human - hope springs eternal.

While there are quite a few compelling headlines emerging from i4cp's soon to be published Critical Human Capital Issues of 2011 study, one theme in particular has emerged that clearly distinguishes high-performing companies from their lower-performing rivals. And, not surprisingly, it has to do with their ability to avoid the "swamp of commitment." Specifically, high-performers recognize that the darkest days of the recession are likely behind us and that the most pivotal game-changing scenario of the recovery is that talent will once again be a hotly contested commodity.

So what are these high-performing companies' executives focusing on in 2011 that will set them apart from their low-performing counterparts? We found that they are already planning for the inevitable heated competition for talent and a spike in voluntary turnover. Granted, voluntary turnover is a lagging economic indicator, but these sharp-minded executives are not waiting to "lag" behind any trends that will keep them from succeeding in the new economic climate. Instead, they are already developing integrated talent strategies that focus squarely on knowledge retention and succession planning.

Their reasoning? They understand that after several years of flat salary increases and bonuses, cutbacks in career development resources and opportunities, deflated 401(k) savings accounts, and all-time low levels of overall job satisfaction, they will be hard pressed to keep their best and brightest from signing on with another team. They are particularly focusing on a combination of knowledge retention to avoid the loss of talent in the first place and on succession planning to minimize the impact of some inevitable losses.

By contrast, the critical human capital issue that characterizes low-performing companies in 2011 is execution against strategy. Strategy execution is among the top five human capital priorities of low-performing companies, regardless of their size. What's more, strategy execution does not appear at all among the top priorities of high-performers.

Mind you, while focusing on execution is not, in itself, a bad approach to running a successful business, it begs the question of whether, in fact, the strategy that brought you through the recession is also the best strategy to position your company well for the competitive realities of the post-recession world.

In other words, by focusing their energies on executing their old strategies without proactively developing new approaches to competing for top talent as the economy improves, lower-performing companies are running the risk of becoming caught in their own "swamps of commitment." They are, in essence, playing not to lose.

Peter Drucker once noted, "The best way to predict the future is to create it." High-performing companies are predicting and creating their own futures and, to return to baseball terminology, controlling their own destinies.

We Pirates fans are a loyal breed. But I have come to the realization that when I celebrate their victories these days I find myself finding less enjoyment in their victories (when they happen) and, instead, am relieved that they simply didn't lose. While I continue to wallow in my own personal baseball equivalent of a "swamp of commitment," I'd like to offer up some recommendations for examining your own human capital priorities for 2011 to help you focus on playing to win…

i4cp's 4-Part Recommendation:

Get in the game. If you didn't plan for your post-recession game, it's not too late to get on it. In order to ramp up or regain the ability to function faster and with more agility, organizations need to get out of crisis mode, which should include an acute eye to your talent needs. While your business may not have changed, it's a new game with new rules in 2011. Organizations must be poised for growth and change and those that are able to refocus on functionality now will have a better crack at being well ahead of the pack down the road.
Redefine and rebuild, but do it quickly. Organizations that view the post-recession playing-field as an unprecedented opportunity to position themselves aggressively will no doubt be rewarded for their boldness. Organizations that are stuck in recovery-mode will be less likely to take risks and consequently may lose out on what may be a last shot at seizing a competitive edge - one that may ultimately spell out the difference between winning and losing.
Know your bench. You know who your key players are but you need to take it a step further and determine - down to each individual - who is at risk to jump ship and why. Your organization may not yet be in a position to make major changes in terms of compensation and rewards, but determining what your key players need and want from their jobs beyond these elements is critical to retaining them.
Get Going on Your Draft. Once all the post-recession dust has settled, it will be clear which organizations suffered serious losses in their key talent. A mobilization of star players has already begun and organizations that act most quickly will be the winners going into 2012. If you are at risk to lose key talent, know how your organization will respond to those losses so that if they cannot be prevented, measures are in place to recruit the talent you need now and in the future, with an eye toward effective (and realistic) succession planning.

John Gibbons is the Vice President and General Manager of Research and Development at i4cp. He has been a human resources practitioner, researcher, and thought leader in human capital strategy for more than 20 years. His work has been featured in hundreds of publications and news outlets around the world including the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, CEO Magazine, CNBC, CNN, and National Public Radio (NPR). He's also a unrepentant Pittsburgh Pirates fan.

The Top 10 Talent Trends of 2010

Wed, 22 Dec 2010 10:48:00 GMT

It's been a long but very good year for i4cp - an enormous amount of research on corporate performance was done and many terrific corporate members joined our network. It's impossible to sum it all up in one TrendWatcher but I'm going to hit on a few of the research highlights and lessons learned as we prepare to embark on a new year:

Get performance management right. We know some performance-management skeptics hate to hear it, but the research shows that PM is the cornerstone of integrated talent management. That is, it is more highly integrated with the other components of integrated talent management than any other components. Moreover, high-market performers are 20% more likely to integrate PM into their talent management systems than are low performers. So, build your business case and deal with any weaknesses in your PM system.
Don't assume your managers know what they're doing. When it comes to performance management, they often don't. In fact, less than a fifth of organizations have leaders who, as a whole, are either highly or very highly skilled at conducting performance reviews. High-performing organizations know this and are much more likely to train their managers in this area.
Stop stalling on social media. A lot of organizations are burying their heads in the sand when it comes to social media because it's so seemingly complex, chaotic and insecure. But social media, especially in the area of learning, can pay dividends and, perhaps even more to the point, the massive demographic cohort known as the Millennials is generally much more likely than other generations to use these technologies, both at home and at work. So, prepare to use these technologies to make them - and other employees - more productive.
Build your diversity business case the right way. There are a lot of good reasons to create a more diverse workforce, but high-performing organizations are more likely than other organizations to base the business case for diversity on the need to reflect their customer base and community demographics. Whereas 26% of high performers identify this as the primary business case for diversity, just 10% of low performers do. High performers are also twice as likely to say they pursue diversity to attract top talent.
Don't throw emotional dimwits into your high-potential pipeline. Higher-performing, larger organizations are more likely than other companies to focus emotional intelligence (EI) initiatives on leadership and high-potential development than on areas such as communication. What's more, about two-thirds of high-performing organizations apply the EI concept to their executive-level leaders, yet fewer than half of low-performing organizations do so.
End the long era of lackluster leadership. The single greatest human capital failure of the last 20 years is the inability of organizations to excel at leadership development. In 2010, three-quarters of respondents to an i4cp study said developing leaders is a highly important issue, but less than a quarter said their company is highly effective in this area. This wildly disproportionate ratio makes leadership development the most critical human-capital issue of the year. And yet, i4cp has been tracking major issues for over two decades and has found that leadership is consistently at or near the top of any such rankings. In other words, it's never adequately addressed. Time to fix it. Look for a major i4cp analysis on leadership competencies in 2011.
Move HR far beyond efficiency. "Efficiency is a given in today's world," says Jay Jamrog, i4cp's Senior VP of Research. HR needs to be able to boost the performance of the whole organization. For example, study respondents from high-market performing organizations were about 30% more likely than their counterparts from low-performing companies to report that HR "drives change management" to a great or very great extent.
Just measure it. Companies that excel at talent management are nearly twice as likely to use workforce metrics strategies to a high or very high extent. Yet, the vast majority of firms are still mediocre or worse at workforce measurement. In fact, a paltry one-fifth of all study participants said that their organizations have such a strategy to a high or very high extent. (Please take a moment to envision the late, great Peter Drucker sadly shaking his head at the state of talent management circa 2010.)
Think global, act global. In 2010, we were all about global talent issues. Everybody repeats, "Think global, act local." There's some wisdom there, but companies also need to act globally, putting into place initiatives that make sense from the perspective of today's worldwide marketplace. For example, when respondents were asked about the degree to which their global leadership development programs change from region to region, about half of larger, high-performing global organization said this occurs to only a slight degree or not at all. None said their programs change from region to region to a very high degree, and 42% said they vary to a moderate degree. Bottom line: when it comes to localizing leadership development, less is more.
Don't just retain knowledge, retain networks. Yes, knowledge retention is critical and will become even more so in 2011 if the economy improves and voluntary turnover rises. It's hard enough to lose the unique knowledge of talented employees, but it can be even harder to lose their internal and external networks of colleagues, clients, experts and innovators. Our new Knowledge Retention Playbook notes, "The value of a single employee's network of internal and external relationships should not be underestimated. Unfortunately, the likelihood of preserving and transferring even a part of the dynamics of those relationships and collaborations often is slim at best." Yet, in today's networked economy - where relationships often equal money and performance - companies should be thinking about ways of capturing and preserving valuable networks.

I wish we had more space here - there are so many more research trends to discuss. But these are a good capstone for 2010 and a nice foundation for 2011. Our excellent i4cp research team is looking forward to more great discoveries in the new year.

Schmooze Your Way to Knowledge Retention

Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:06:00 GMT

Anyone who's ever attended a professional conference knows that the happy hour/networking/schmooozathon session can be an opportunity to hear enthralling business folklore you ordinarily would not hear anywhere else. This corporate version of cowboys trading stories around the campfire offers listeners a chance to pick up valuable insight, ideas and education, not to mention new material to add to our own repertoires. It comes to us in the forms of witty anecdotes and quips, and tales from the trenches that we can customize and repeat as if they are our own at the next conference, or toss into a presentation, client call or team meeting.

The beautiful thing about traditional conference networking sessions is that they are relaxed and usually take place in a fairly confined area, perfect for absorbing tidbits of knowledge and experience without even being directly involved in the conversation. All you have to do is sidle up to the hors d'oeuvre table and linger over the chicken satay in order to pick up some juicy nuggets of wisdom from seasoned professionals. This sort of informal (tacit) learning and knowledge transfer is a favorite of mine - I sometimes even take notes (unobtrusively, of course), by feigning interest in something on my BlackBerry.

Incorporating a little bit of that happy hour/networking mojo into your organization's culture might be an excellent element to add to your knowledge preservation and transfer efforts. And if your organization has not done much in terms of thinking about how to mitigate or prevent knowledge loss at all, don't panic because you're not alone.

Lack of time, accountability, resources, and support from management are commonly cited factors that preclude many organizations from embarking on a knowledge retention and transfer plan according to a 2009 study of 426 organizations conducted by i4cp in partnership with the Center for Effective Organizations (CEO) and HR People & Strategy (HRPS). The idea of initiating some sort of knowledge transfer and retention program may seem daunting and even intimidating, but it really doesn't have to be. And beginning to foster a culture that conveys knowledge as a practical matter of going about the day-to-day operations of the business doesn't need to be complicated. If it's designed and approached in a way that fits with your organization's existing culture, it can be fairly simple and even fun. In fact, starting simply and inexpensively is probably a smarter way to go for many organizations - one example of this is beginning informal knowledge transfer through storytelling.

The practice of passing along your organization's knowledge, history and folklore in an informal or formalized way (or a combination of the two) can achieve much more beyond preserving a track record of why and how you accomplished what you did; it can build bridges for better communication, fuel innovation and boost productivity. It can also prevent needless squandering of resources, which brings to mind a business-lore tale that's a favorite of mine. The story has been making the rounds for several years and I've heard various versions of the same basic premise: a group of engineers/mechanics/scientists (or fill in the profession of your choice here) could not figure out how to resolve a serious equipment failure/safety problem/design flaw (or fill in the problem of your choice here). They wrestled around with the conundrum for quite some time but made no real progress and then one day one of the team members went bowling/fishing/out for beers (or fill in the activity of your choice here) with a recently retired colleague and mentioned the pickle. The recently retired colleague casually replied that the same issue had come up a few years before and that it had been easily resolved by doing X,Y,Z. The moral of the story, of course, is that if your organization is not invested in knowledge transfer and retention, the odds are pretty good that someone somewhere in your organization is at this very moment needlessly reinventing the wheel.

i4cp 's new Knowledge Retention Playbook: Tools and Techniques for Preserving Knowledge offers suggestions for knowledge retention beginners that include establishing recurring storytelling roundtables to pass along organizational memory and the history of "how things get done." These informal discussions can describe decision-making processes and lessons that have been learned.

Organizations can create communities of practice that foster the exchange of information among co-workers from the top down, and vice versa. If individuals seem hesitant to function as storytellers, invite the team to present in a panel discussion forum. Communities of practice can be virtual or face-to-face, and they can allow workers who perform the same tasks to "meet" and share experiences and best practices or questions about processes and procedures. Communities may meet on a regular basis, or they may get together spontaneously as the need arises. The group typically has a leader or facilitator who is a more experienced employee. These communities are particularly useful when similar tasks are performed at different locations.

Whatever stage your organization may be in in terms of actively preserving and conveying knowledge, now's a good time to revisit what you have been doing and consider broadening your efforts with informal activities that foster knowledge transfer. If your organization has no KR initiatives in place, there's no time like the present to get started.

i4cp's 4-Part Recommendation:

Champion the cause. Support for KR should begin with senior-level support and evangelizing, allocation of resources, and clear ownership, along with concise and consistent messaging that KR is important and worthy of a formal management strategy.
Designate a leader. Organizations that are farther along in the KR process should consider establishing a knowledge management office responsible for overseeing the execution of KR and ensuring that it is fully integrated into day-to-day functions companywide. A chief knowledge officer (CKO) should be tasked with developing standards and practices, supported by an internal or external advisory council, that will foster consistent knowledge sharing and practices and build a knowledge-sharing culture.
Figure out what you have (or don't). Organizations need to identify what is critical knowledge, where it resides, and how to capture, preserve and communicate it. This begins with identification of key positions and functions in the organization and the skills associated with them. Determinations should be made about the time required to develop talent in those key functions and positions. Do not assume key positions and competencies have already been identified during previous reductions in force, or that these efforts minimized the impact of knowledge loss. Some may assert that knowledge resides within one area or another and that business unit leaders possess the most critical information; while others may insist that key knowledge resides in the C-suite, IT, or HR. In fact, key knowledge resides in every area and at every level of the organization, and not necessarily in what may have been previously identified as "key roles."
Start small - but start. There is no one right way to approach formalizing KR. With few exceptions, most organizations will need to create a multi-faceted approach to building institutional memory that consists of something more than one-way communication with newer/junior employees acting as empty vessels to be filled with knowledge by colleagues/teachers. KR initiatives must be dynamic and flexible if they are to achieve efficacy over the long run. This can be accomplished with the creative application of tools and approaches such as cross-training, leveraging technology and establishing communities of practice. Organizations should begin with small pilots with a few teams. The key is to get started.

High Performers Purge the Unproductive

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 12:19:00 GMT

Sometimes patience is not a virtue, and high-market performing firms know it. They get their employees ready quickly, they avoid employee stagnation and they weed out those who don't come up the productivity curve.

i4cp's new member-requested study on Time to Optimal Productivity shows that over half (55%) of respondents from low-performing organizations report that employees often remain in positions after their productivity has begun to wane. That's true for only about a fifth of those from high-performing firms.

This kind of stagnation might contribute to crippling the U.S. economy as a whole. U.S. productivity took a nose dive in the second quarter of 2010 for the first time since 2008. Corporate profits are up but, being cautious about the future, companies remain reluctant to make new hires. Some observers think U.S. employees are too stretched to keep making productivity gains. And since lean operations mean relatively few promotions or even lateral transfers, many have been at the same jobs for far too long. "Well over a third of respondents to our new study say employees often stay in their jobs after productivity is on the decline," notes Jay Jamrog, i4cp's Senior VP of Research. "Add that problem up across the whole economy and it could have disastrous effects."

High-performing organizations, by contrast, tend to move faster - even in a slow economy. When participants were asked about the time to full productivity in their companies, 45% of those from high-performing firms said this occurs in 12 months or less, compared with just 32% of those from low-performing firms.

"There are plenty of ways to shorten time to full productivity," notes Jamrog. "Better employee orientation and onboarding, job shadowing, better access to informal learning tools, improved peer coaching and, generally speaking, higher-quality learning and development programs. It all adds up and results in a faster track to full individual productivity."

In spite of the potential productivity gains, the study also found that many companies don't even bother to track time to full productivity. In fact, only about six out of ten organizations use this metric, and high performers are no more likely to use it than the average company.

The important differentiator is that, when they use this metric, high performers use it more effectively. Specifically, they're much more likely to make both termination and recruitment decisions using time to productivity as a factor. "With high-performing firms, it's all about making sure you have the right talent," says Jamrog. "They're more likely to use that metric to get rid of less productive people, and they're likely to use it to gain insights into who to recruit. In other words, they're more structured about who to bring in the door and, if necessary, who to release."

The i4cp study also asked companies about "maximum time in position," which we defined as the maximum amount of time that employees can stay in the same position before their productivity falls off from the optimal level. We found that this is not a common metric in today's organizations, with over half of participants saying they don't estimate or calculate it for any positions. Although typically more rigorous in collecting workforce metrics, higher performers are actually less likely to measure this than lower performers.

Part of the problem with this metric is that, as the study shows, maximum time in position varies among different occupations, job levels, and even individuals. We can all hope, for example, that our physicians' productivity doesn't fall off substantially over the course of a long career, though we may understand when it occurs in more menial jobs where there are fewer challenges and opportunities for growth and development.

But, to the degree this metric is used, high performers will again employ it differently from their lower performing counterparts. They're more likely to use it for the purposes of planning succession, identifying employee experience levels and making quality-of-hire decisions.

"It makes sense to use it for succession planning," notes Jamrog. "You don't want to keep an up-and-coming manager in a job so long they become unproductive there. You want them to have some success and then move them along to the next level."

i4cp's 4-Part Recommendation:

Don't measure it unless you need to and know why you're measuring. Too often, companies collect data for its own sake, but weak metrics are worse than none at all. In the case of time to full productivity and maximum time in position, high performers are less likely to use these metrics than are low performers. But, when high performers use them, they tend to have solid talent-management reasons, such as shortening the time it takes for new employees to get up to speed or for high potentials to hit their stride in new leadership jobs. This is directly related to improved business performance.
Be rigorous. To calculate maximum time in position, high performing organizations are much more likely to use productivity metrics and work-related time studies. These tend to be more rigorous and objective than the notoriously subjective performance appraisal data many companies collect. High performers use solid data to create managerial expectations and goals.
Mine your data. Companies may already have access to solid data that they collect - or could collect - but don't use. Determine what you need and then see if data mining techniques can locate it in existing systems. But take heed: Don't use data just because it's easy to find or calculate. Data that's not highly useful and accurate will only lead to poor decision making. That seems like common sense, but too often companies go with easy-to-find efficiency data rather than harder-to-find effectiveness data.
Act on the data. Sometimes this means making tough decisions. High performers are, for example, much more likely to use time to full productivity data to make termination decisions. If an employee is taking far too long to get up to speed in a certain job, he or she may be a poor fit for the organization. But acting on the data also means being proactive. High performers do what it takes - onboarding, job shadowing, teaching business acumen, etc. - to get new employees up-to-speed quickly. They also are more diligent about hiring the right people for the job in the first place and using metrics to make solid quality-of-hire decisions.

For many more i4cp insights on workforce metrics, look to our Measuring Human Capital and Recruitment and Selection Knowledge Centers.For a broader view of issues in productivity, see the Productivity Knowledge Center.

Social Media Goes to Work

Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:07:00 GMT

With Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media technologies virtually omnipresent lately, it's not surprising that many managers are wondering how to leverage these tools. Sales and marketing were the first to exploit these technologies, which present new ways of reaching customers. But the real trick is finding ways to improve productivity, collaboration, communication and learning within organizations using tools that increasingly look like mainstays rather than fads.

It turns out that not many companies have figured out this trick yet. According to The Rise of Social Media, a report that the American Society for Training & Development commissioned from i4cp, less than 20% of employees are using social networks, wikis, blogs, podcasts or shared media for work-related learning often or all the time. Fewer than 10% are using micro-blogs (Twitter, Yammer, etc.), virtual worlds or augmented realities to the same extent.

Okay, so most people aren't using social media for learning often or all the time. So what? Why should an organization be interested in any of this in the first place? A big reason is the influx of the Millennial generation (those born after 1981) into the workforce. This is a generation that would rather send a text to someone down the hall rather than speak in person, or even by phone for that matter. They cut their teeth on MySpace and soon graduated to Facebook, and if there isn't video of something available one YouTube, they're not convinced it actually happened.

The technology-aided social interactions these workers have grown up with represent a type of informal learning - one they are going to expect to find at their place of work. More than 80% of the Millenials in the study have used Facebook in their personal lives, and close to 60% have used YouTube. About 45% of Millenials said they interact with social media for learning at work for anywhere from 30 minutes to more than an hour per day. Only about a third of Baby Boomers said the same thing. Employees of all generations know these tools are going to become more important, as 83% percent of respondents say social media use for learning will increase over the next three years.

Another reason organizations should consider adopting these tools more widely is that it appears they work. The study showed that higher performing organizations are more likely to encourage the use of these tools than lower performers. Workers who use these tools for work use them for specific reasons, and many of these uses are correlated with higher market performance, including:

Finding resources more easily
Improving knowledge sharing
Fostering learning
Improving communications
Increasing participation in learning

While employers may not yet see the value in these tools for learning, employees do. More than three-quarters of employees said they found podcasts at least somewhat valuable for work-related learning and slightly fewer said the same about wikis. Blogs, shared media and social networks were considered valuable by around two-thirds of employees.

Understandably, though, many organizations don't wish to jump in to the social media fray without serious consideration. Besides not wanting to get caught up in a fad that may become obsolete, there are security concerns as well. More than two-thirds of study participants said they believe social media tools have the potential to create security or privacy issues at work. There are also concerns that user-generated content will not be accurate and may actually impair the learning process.

According to Elliott Masie, CEO of the Masie Center, "Companies still have some fear around social media, but employees know better. They know the ‘wisdom of the crowd' will quickly correct any misinformation. The company-employee disconnect on adoption happens with every new technology, and social media is following this same predictable pattern."

Others agree that the time has come to more fully exploit these new technologies. According to Tony Bingham, CEO of ASTD and co-author of the book The New Social Learning: A Guide to Transforming Organizations Through Social Media, "Historically, the learning community has stayed away from informal learning and social learning, and that is where the majority of learning is taking place. We now have the tools, and the catalyst, to engage them with that kind of learning."

i4cp's 4-Part Recommendation:

Implement a formal policy governing social media use. A well developed and executed social media policy can go a long way to mitigating many of the risks associated with social media technologies. Only 44% of Study participants have a formal policy in place. The policy should define the goals and purposes of using social media in the organization's day-to-day business.
Market the concepts to employees to boost adoption. According to Justin Mass, senior learning technologist for Adobe Systems, an i4cp member company, "finding early adopters who can showcase the benefits of these tools to other in the organization helps immensely with adoption." However, adoption cannot be achieved from the bottom up alone. There needs to be buy-in from senior leadership, as well as role modeling. Many executives are currently having success communicating with employees via blogs and podcasts.
Start from the beginning. Expose employees to social media tools from the get-go. Some companies use social networks as part of the on-boarding process. This way they are able to provide information about the company and give new employees a feel for the culture even before they set foot in the door on their first day. It also sets the expectation for the use of these tools throughout the employee life cycle.
Run pilot projects. Arguably the best way to foster use of social media technologies is to simply start using them. Find small targeted projects that can benefit from these tools, and use these experiences as success stories to gain both buy-in from leadership and adoption from employees.

For many more i4cp insights on implementing and managing social media in the workplace, look to our Internal Communication, Workforce Technology and Training and Development Knowledge Centers.

Beyond Efficiency: The Keys to Future HR Success

Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:27:00 GMT

Maybe you're proud of the sheer productivity of your HR department. Your ratio of HR pros to employees is lower than the industry average, most transactional HR activities are delivered via self-service, and you have a finely tuned shared-services center. Generally speaking, your HR function is a lean, mean efficiency machine.

Good for you. There's just one problem. By itself, it's not nearly enough.

This is one of the findings from the Future of HR study conducted by i4cp in partnership with the Center for Effective Organizations (CEO) at USC's Marshall School of Business. We found, for example, that having a low HR-to-employee ratio is not in itself a great predictor of market performance, though that story changes for very large, commercial entities. So, while it's smart to benchmark such ratios to gauge efficiency, they seem a lot less critical than some other HR characteristics, at least for organizations with 1,000 or more employees.

"Efficiency is a given in today's world," says Jay Jamrog, i4cp's Senior VP of Research. "Maybe it gets you a seat at the table, like table stakes in a poker game. But your HR department had better have some other qualities in addition to that if you want to become a real player at that table."

Like what? Think about what your organization needs most from its leaders. One of those critical competencies, as another recent i4cp study shows, is the ability to manage change well. Our new study suggests HR should be able to support leadership in this area.

Here's one piece of evidence: Respondents from high-market performing organizations were about 30% more likely than their counterparts from lower-performing companies to report that HR "drives change management" to a great or very great extent. We also found a significant positive correlation between corporate market performance and HR's role in this area.

But the ability to drive change is just part of the equation. HR must also provide the kind of HR data required to support change management.

"There's often a lot of attention to measurement in HR that's about getting the data, running the right analysis and producing the right reports. But if you want to effect strategic change, you also need to have the right logic and the right processes. Not only do we want to tell a well-analyzed and well-measured story, but it needs to be a story that matters and it needs to be logically connected to the mission of the organization. No matter how good you are at this measurement stuff, if there isn't a connection to moving the organization, you run the risk of nothing happening," said CEO's Prof. John Boudreau, who co-presented an i4cp webinar on the subject.

A third characteristic of HR functions in high-performance organizations is that they tend to formulate a human capital strategy that's well integrated with the larger business strategy. This may seem like a no-brainer but the study shows that only a quarter of all respondents said this is true to a great or very great extent in their organizations.

"You want to perform better in HR?" asks Jamrog. "You need to get integrated and aligned. When we look at respondents who say HR is full partner in strategy development and implement, over half say such integration is strong in their companies. They bring a lot to the table."

Actually setting up the table rather than merely being present should be the ultimate goal for HR, says CEO's Prof. Ed Lawler. He describes this as coming in with ideas and input that shape strategy rather than being the reactive implementer. This is particularly true of organizations with a management style that relies on human capital for competitive advantage, Lawler says.

HR metrics are another key to success. Jamrog notes that there aren't significant differences between high and low-market performers in terms of the financial efficiency of HR operations, but high performers are considerably more likely to measure the business impact of HR programs and processes.

"Maybe you're never going to have perfect information on the business impact," says Jamrog. "It's impossible to be certain of cause and effect in a dynamic business system. But I think just making a serious effort to make these connections is a best practice."

i4cp's 4-Part Recommendation:

Collect the kind of data needed to manage change well. Much of this data should be regularly collected as a normal part of workforce planning. Another recent i4cp analysis found that - for strategic workforce planning - companies need more than just data on headcount, budgets, hires, terminations, retirements, etc. They should conduct SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analyses, determine key roles, and make headcount growth assumptions. They should also create a profile of the agility and resilience of their employees, their teams and their organization as a whole. This means having gauges of characteristics such as openness to change, persistence, ability to function under pressure, optimism, and technological skills.
Then help manage change. Where the data shows deficits, help build strengths. Johnson & Johnson, for example, has a change-management framework that includes creating a compelling vision, building stakeholder and leadership alignment, delivering communication, establishing measures of success, aligning systems to reinforce change, and enabling employees to learning new skills that they can apply at work.
Integrate HR strategies with larger business strategies. HR needs to have a firm grasp of the organization's principle business strategies and ensure that HR strategies complement them. If, for example, a major business strategy is to move into more global markets, then HR should have a strategic initiative for helping leaders develop a set of competencies to operate successfully at a global level. Likewise, they have a clear understanding of best practices in the areas of global staffing, global training, and global information systems.
Measure the business impact of HR programs and processes. It's fine to track data such as the efficiency of your recruitment function, gaining an idea of how many interviews it takes to make a hire, etc. But, ultimately, this type of metric isn't establishing a strong linkage to business success. It's more important to measure factors such as the ability to retain the key personnel who add to the bottom line or the degree of alignment between key business strategies and key HR strategies.