SOUTH AFRICA'S most widely distributed & read INDEPENDENT HUMAN RESOURCE PUBLICATION
|
|
| Equity-Skills
News & Views SOUTH AFRICA'S most widely distributed & read INDEPENDENT HUMAN RESOURCE PUBLICATION
|
|
|
| Equity Skills News & Views Volume 4, Issue 1, January 10, 2005 Registered as an electronic newspaper: ISSN 1684-5722 ------------------------------------ In This edition 1. The Keys to Building Trust: Which Comes First, Truth Or
Transparency? Jeff Sacht: Publisher-editor| 'A MUST TO PRINT & READ' 30,000+ AND STILL GROWING! ------------------------------------ LATEST PRODUCT RELEASES: WORKINFO.COM JOB DESCRIPTION COMPILER ------------------------------------ As demands on your time increase, you and your team need to make the most of every moment. The Workinfo.com Job Description Compiler helps you compile comprehensive company and job specific job descriptions in a matter of minutes. # Legally compliant; # Non-discriminatory; # Task specific; #Competency based Workinfo.com Job Description Compiler is cost effective, efficient, and represents an effective method of defining job requirements for current and new employees. For more information, please visit Workinfo.com Job Description Writer ------------------------------------ PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT ------------------------------------ The e-Toolkit takes the 'theory' and 'jargon' out of Performance Management. The kit contains all you need - a comprehensive set of line manager friendly policies, procedures, and paperwork. The e- manual has been developed in South Africa by South African Legal and HR professionals for companies to meet the requirements of the key labour Acts that stress the importance of fair & developmental people management practices. For a preview click on: http://signup4.c.topica.com/maacYiYabcxzZaaaaaab/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The Keys to Building Trust: Which Comes First, Truth Or Transparency? * By Stever Robbins who can be contacted at http://hbswk.hbs.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Q: Which Comes First: Truth Or Transparency? A: Uh, oh. Is that politics in the air? I'm guessing you either want to trust someone else or you want them to trust you. Either way, transparency plays a powerful role. It's just part of the Trust Equation, though. So let's really dig into the nature of trust. At its heart, being trustworthy means being consistent in motives and accountable for actions. If you trust me to listen attentively and hear your side of an issue, it means you'll expect me to value your opinion when I act. Q: How is trust lost? Losing trust is outrageously easy. Just let someone down once and kaboom, years of trust go down the drain. The CEO of a newly public company asked employees not to sell stock to keep the price stable. Then he turned around and sold more stock than all his employees owned put together. He lost trust, lost it big, and lost it permanently. He tried to recover, claiming (truthfully) he'd only sold a small fraction of his shares. But percentage ownership wasn't the issue; he'd set up the expectation "we'll all act together to keep the price strong" and then shattered that promise. Q: How is trust gained? Trust isn't subject to the whims of logic. Many people trust others from day one, with no real basis for that trust. (This is a good thing, by the way. It's the basis of community!) We trust a new project manager to know how to balance resources, map out a plan, and monitor execution. When an employer hires us, we trust they'll provide the salary, benefits, and job opportunity they offered. Trust starts out free. Others need to see behavior before starting to form trust. Norton is JoAnne's new boss. JoAnne has been the victim of management incompetence too many times. She has to see Norton champion his team's ideas two or three times before trusting that he cares as much about his team's success as his own. Some people need consistent proof for weeks, months, or years, and still others are never convinced-they demand proof every time they work with someone. Businesses lose trust left and right Remember, we build trust when behavior matches expectations. As humans, we might expect our organizations to take care of us. We might expect managers to be stewards of companies, and companies to be stewards of employees, customers, and communities. In reality, most companies and managers don't behave that way. What do most businesses do consistently? Act for the shareholders. It's the law. Sometimes they act for "productivity," "growth," "profit," "the bottom line," "share price," "efficiency," and lots of other measures that might not directly promote the well being of employees, customers, communities, and suppliers. Then when paychecks are cut to bolster the quarterly financials, a move that helps the financial interests of shareholders, employees might be excused for losing a little trust in their employer's stated position that "Our employees are our greatest assets!" Trust can also take a hit when the CEO pulls into the corporate parking lot driving a car that costs more than most employees make in a decade, even as the company calls for cost controls and outsources jobs. Other trust-destroying business tactics: Layoffs, especially when preceded by promises that "we'll never have layoffs." The nail in the coffin is when the executives receive bonuses that year. Ignoring problems. When things are going wrong, it's tempting not to tell people. After all, managers are supposed to support morale. It's true, to some extent. But when everyone knows things are troubled, saying otherwise makes management seem either clueless or false. Both break trust. Keeping people in the dark during uncertainty. "We'll tell people when we know what's happening" is the usual excuse. That's nice. And while waiting for certainty, everyone around us is losing faith. The trustworthy approach is to admit and discuss the uncertainty. At least the words will match the actions. Winning trust with honesty Fortunately, you can win trust. And you put your finger on the best way: transparency. Transparency just means you tell the truth in a way that people can verify. Say what's true and honest, then let people check it out for themselves. Did you make a mistake? Admit it and people will still trust you. Cover it up, especially when everyone knows you did it, and you'll destroy any chance that people will believe your word is good. Losing trust is outrageously easy. A multimillion-dollar acquisition was minutes from closing when the lead negotiator upped his asking price by $10,000-a pittance-because he thought he had the other party over a barrel and wanted to prove his power. Surprise! The other side had an alternative offer he hadn't known about, and the deal fell through. The negotiator steadfastly insisted it wasn't his fault. He didn't just destroy the deal; he destroyed his internal credibility by denying his part. This works in the other direction, as well. Starbucks is pricey, and they claim the money filters all the way back to supporting the farmers who grow their coffee. By hiring independent auditors to follow the money through the supply chain, they open up to great scandal if their claims aren't true. But if the money is going where they claim, the transparency builds that much more confidence. So which comes first, trust or transparency? Even though some people trust by default, ultimately, transparency is needed for trust to endure. So why not start now? By telling the truth and giving people the means to know for themselves, you can build the foundation for a strong relationship when times get stormy. If you wait to be transparent until the trust is in place, you may wait a very long time. * Reprinted under license agreement with the regents of Working Knowledge and the Regents of Harvard Business School ------------------------------------ MOVING HR INTO LINE TOOLKIT ------------------------------------ Stop talking about becoming a Line Partner. Start today, and master the practices required to reposition and transform your HR function with this tried and tested toolkit developed for the highly acclaimed workshop "Moving HR Into Line For The New Economy". TheToolkit is now available as an electronic download. The kit consists of a detailed 125-page manual, a project workbook, & 8 PowerPoint slide shows. Contact Jeff Sacht on jeffs@worldonline.co.za or call Jeff Sacht on 082 4561049 for a preview pack and pricing details. Don't delay start today with your HR top team for the price of one download. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. The "State of Performance Management" Study * By Jim Kochanski, Colette Alderson and Aaron Sorensen who can be contacted at www.imakenews.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Introduction Performance Management as a process has a long way to go in fulfilling its potential in most organizations. Yet many organizations still see value in trying to overcome the barriers that get in the way of effective Performance Management. Sibson Consulting, in cooperation with WorldatWork and Synygy, recently conducted a study to determine the current state of Performance Management (PM) practices and outcomes. The survey was distributed by WorldatWork to its individual members and completed by individuals in more than 400 organizations. The bottom line from the State of Performance Management study is that for most organizations, Performance Management remains a poorly executed and less-than-effective process. In order to understand the potential of PM and the critical success factors, the study team compared the responses of the top performing companies to the lowest performing companies. The results confirm an often-stated hypothesis: Impact from Performance Management is less about the technique used and more about leadership support, execution and overall performance culture. 2. General Findings Overall, close to 60% of the participants rate their organization a "C" or worse on the effectiveness of PM (see figure 1). Performance Management is defined as the business process that includes goal and expectation setting, performance tracking and feedback, performance evaluation, development planning and performance improvement, and consequences based on performance. While most leaders consider these activities important, they believe that they are generally poorly executed. 3. Other Key Findings on the state of Performance Management: The most frequently listed reason for the use of PM is to make pay decisions, yet only 29% of participants rate individual reviews as providing a clear explanation of compensation decisions. Clearly there is room to improve employee understanding of the link between pay and performance. >> Many companies view PM as an HR process rather than a process for improving business results, yet most also acknowledge that poor execution of PM can impact a company's ability to achieve its strategic objectives. This suggests that PM is critical and ownership must be shared by HR with other leaders and managers. >> Seventy-nine percent of all participants state that their employees' goals are aligned with organizational goals, yet 44% of participants say that employees set their goals based on their own views rather than based on direction from leadership. The study identified another gap in goal setting: 81% rate Senior Management as understanding "the value drivers of the business strategy," but only 46% say middle management understands these drivers and 13% say non-management employees understand them. >> Differentiation of employees by performance level remains a hot topic in Performance Management, although only 21% of companies use a forced ranking distribution. A more frequent practice is to compare or calibrate ratings across managers in assessment review meetings; 42% of organizations indicate that they use this approach. 3. Top Performing versus Lowest Performing Companies To compare how PM varies by company performance, the study team categorized the participant companies that are publicly traded according to their three-year Total Return to Shareholders (TRS). The companies were put into five buckets, or quintiles, according to their performance on TRS. Results were then compared for the top two quintiles (top performing companies) and the bottom two quintiles (lowest performing companies). The mid-quintile companies were excluded from the comparison. These analyses indicate that the top and lowest performing companies use similar Performance Management techniques (see figure 2). What differs is that the top performing companies describe themselves as having a stronger performance culture and greater leadership support for Performance Management. We describe this phenomenon as "intent trumps technique." These findings are similar to those Sibson found when conducting the War For Talent Study with McKinsey and Company in the late 1990s. In that study, the highest performing companies used similar, or even more basic, talent management techniques than other companies, but their intention to upgrade talent was much higher. With regard to Performance Management, this phenomenon indicates that most companies would be better off focusing on the execution of PM fundamentals rather than adopting the latest technique or tool. In some cases this means actually simplifying the current approach rather than adopting new more sophisticated approaches. Ultimately, leadership support is what differentiates the top performing companies from the rest of the pack in the impact of Performance Management. A. The objective of Performance Management is generally the same for the top and lowest performing companies. However, when examining the top three priorities for PM, top performing companies are more likely to indicate that PM will result in talent development (51%) compared to lowest performing companies (37%). B. Top performing companies indicate that performance goals are more likely to be directed by top leadership, while the lowest performing companies indicate that performance goals are more likely based on individuals' own perspectives. Interestingly, 82% of the lowest performing companies think that individual goals are aligned with organizational goals, while only 31% of the top performing companies believe the same. This suggests that companies need to strike a balance between top-down and bottom-up goal setting to achieve employee buy-in and alignment to the goals set forth by top leadership. C. When listing the main barriers to effective PM, the lowest performing companies rate a lack of executive ownership, lack of buy-in from managers and employees, and lack of a performance culture, as barriers much more frequently than the top performing companies (see figure 3). This suggests that buy-in and executive ownership are less of a problem in top performing companies than in the lowest performing companies. D. When listing barriers to PM effectiveness, the top performing companies cite poor linkages between organization and individual performance, programs that are unequally applied or poorly aligned, and too many time-consuming processes more frequently than the lowest performing companies. This finding suggests that top performing companies are continually striving to improve PM effectiveness but are dealing more with execution than lack of leader support. E. Sixty percent of the top performing companies indicate that their middle management are aligned on critical business priorities, while only 43% of the lowest performing companies see it this way. The top and lowest performing companies rate the alignment of the senior management as equally high. F. When listing the value the organization gets from PM, the top performing companies tend to rate improving performance and productivity greater than the lowest performing companies. Interestingly, companies rate their use of PM in setting clear performance expectations and providing feedback as a basis for compensation decisions nearly identical regardless of company performance. G. Sixty percent of the top performing companies rate themselves high, compared to 48% of the lowest performing companies, when it came to their ability to make "good talent deployment and development decisions." 4. Critical Success Factors Sibson's experience with clients is consistent with these findings. Several different PM approaches and systems can work, or fail. What really matters is how well PM is executed and how it is supported by leaders. Here are five ways that we have found to improve the execution and impact of Performance Management in organizations: A. CREATE A PERFORMANCE CULTURE: In organizations that have a "performance culture" in which stretch goals are the norm, PM becomes a critical part of how they operate. Companies with goals that are easy to achieve have less need for strong Performance Management. Rather than adjusting the PM form, many companies would be better off ensuring that performance goals are set and have an appropriate level of difficulty.. Establishing a performance culture through stretch goals requires tremendous leadership resolve, since these goals are difficult to achieve. Leaders will need to deal with the consequences, which may include a reduction in their own rewards. To jump-start the transformation of cultural performance norms, an assessment of culture, including the level of stretch in goal setting, can be very revealing. B. USE THE RIGHT MEASURES: It only makes sense to put effort into PM if it reinforces the measures that matter most to business success. A recent academic study showed "clearly defined performance criteria" to be the number one driver of effective performance appraisal. To improve performance measures, some companies are using "value tree" analysis to determine how each role in the company can best contribute to business success. The value tree breaks down corporate goals into the discrete actions that contribute value, and identifies measures for each job or role that really drive value for the organization. The combination of the right measures and stretch goals raises the importance of PM and its impact by getting everyone focused on the most important things and stretching to achieve more. C. CALIBRATE ACROSS MANAGERS: The practical reality is that most organizations need some kind of rating of employee performance to make reward and career decisions. While any rating technique can succeed or fail, effective PM systems often use talent calibration meetings to compare and calibrate employee performance ratings of different managers. From our experience, organizations that use a consistent methodology and criteria for assessing performance (on the front end) and invest time in calibrating assessments and consequences in manager meetings (on the back end) raise the level of understanding of performance expectations,, increase the likelihood that performance messages will be delivered and improve the overall quality of the assessment. In addition to improving employee performance, differentiation calibration can also increase employee confidence in the process and is a great opportunity for leaders to inculcate a performance culture. D. IMPROVE DELIVERY OF MESSAGES: Despite the best intentions and most sophisticated design, PM is useless if employees don't get the performance messages. In another Sibson study, only 42% of employees report getting regular performance feedback. Yet most managers we talk to really want to tell employees how they are doing. Giving performance messages can be uncomfortable for managers, and employees sometimes make it difficult. Training in how to deliver and receive performance messages can be helpful for managers and employees. Managers who learn to give objective performance information as opposed to value-laden assessment find the task less difficult and sometimes find the "guts" they did not have before they learned how to do the job. E. DIFFERENTIATE REWARDS: PM is frequently used to distribute base pay increases and bonuses, but when the range of money is small it may seem pointless to put effort into Performance Management. Rather than trying to figure out how to make micro distinctions, some companies are creating fewer levels with greater distinction, e.g., 0, 3, or 6% base pay increases depending on performance, rather than 3% vs. 3.5%. This makes it more likely that the most significant differences in performance will be recognized in Performance Management and it reduces the time it takes to determine differences in rewards that are not really meaningful. It requires strong leadership resolve to be willing to give some employees nothing, and others as much as twice the average. With the use of one or more of these five tactics, most organizations could dramatically increase the impact of PM programs. * Reprinted by permission of the authors ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Succession Planning Made Easy: Five steps to identifying the talent that can lead your company into the future * By Hewitt Associates who can be contacted at www.hewitt.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The recent spate of corporate governance scandals in the United States revealed a surprising fact of corporate life. Most companies fail to think about succession planning until disaster strikes-suddenly there's a void at the top, and no one has been preselected or prepared to fill it. While recent events have caused more companies to take a serious look at succession planning, demographic trends also drive the need to master this basic HR process. As the baby boomers continue to depart the workforce in increasing numbers, there simply aren't as many workers in subsequent generations to take their place. In response, today more companies are making an effort to establish succession plans. Top 20 Companies for Leaders, a 2002 Hewitt Associates study of 240 major U.S. companies, revealed that 73% of responding organizations had a defined succession-planning process in place. However, only 13% said that their organizations always use the succession plan well when making selection decisions. "This statistic really highlights the implementation challenge," remarks Marc Effron, Hewitt's Leadership Consulting Practice Leader. "Organizations need to focus on what will enable their plans to actually work-lean design, simple administration, involved line managers. You win by execution, not by having artful design." The five steps outlined in this article provide a framework for successfully designing and implementing a succession-planning program. These steps ensure that the critical pieces of succession planning-CEO involvement, calibration of talent, regular updating of talent lists-actually happen, so that your organization is ready to fill a void at any time. When designing a succession-planning process, you need to define underlying objectives as well as your target audience. There are three types of programs: >> Role-based programs focus on key positions that are difficult to fill or critical to business success. >> Individual-based programs focus on particular people with potential for advancement. >> Pool-based programs focus on a number of high-potential people who could move into any of several different leadership positions within the organization. Once you've determined the objectives and target population, the next step is establishing a set of leadership competencies that are considered desirable in a high-potential employee, and then creating the process and tools needed to implement a succession program throughout the organization. "Correctly identifying these competencies is critical," says Effron, "since they define the type of leader you're trying to build. The competencies should flow directly from the strategy of your business." With the design complete, it's time to begin implementation. This five-step process provides a path to formalizing a succession-planning program that can be implemented successfully. 1. Preplanning Preplanning serves as the transition from design to implementation during which HR prepares those who will play key roles in the leadership development. Preplanning includes explaining the underlying goals of the process to business leaders, conveying accountability to business leaders, and training participants on the company's succession-management process. "HR also should focus on creating a culture in which managers feel comfortable identifying high potentials, rather than being threatened by them," says Lori Grubs, a talent & organization consultant at Hewitt. "Top-performing organizations recognize and reward managers for building great leaders and seeding the company with this talent. Managers in those companies understand that their own success is based on their ability to do this effectively." 2. Assessment. "Keeping in mind the leadership competencies established during the design phase, managers must ask themselves who has exhibited the performance and potential to become the future leaders of the organization," Grubs says. Managers should then create a profile of each employee, documenting the person's career history, accomplishments, strengths, and developmental needs, and rate him or her on both performance and potential. Since potential can be a subjective determination, a rating system should be developed to ensure consistent application across the organization. See "Rating the Candidates" for sample ratings and definitions. Using the individual profiles and ratings, managers create a performance and potential grid, and place their people in the appropriate quadrants. At that point, management begins to consider what kind of development may be best to maximize each individual's potential. 3 One-on-One and Group Meetings To minimize subjectivity, it's important to elicit input from a variety of people on the organization's high potentials and how each should be developed. These discussions can take place between HR and the business leaders, or between direct reports. Together, the participants should review the high-potential profile, as well as performance and potential grids on each future leader. These discussions will enable the creation of replacement charts reflecting each key position, potential successors, and their current state of preparedness. For further confirmation that the identified high potentials are the right future leaders of the organization, business leaders may hold group sessions in which they review and debate the findings with superiors and colleagues. "The goal of such sessions is to bring business and people issues together and determine whether there are any gaps, issues, or concerns," Grubs says. 4. CEO Discussions It's now time to make the case and obtain input from the CEO. A series of discussions should be facilitated between individual business leaders and the chief executive during which he or she reviews the designated high potentials and their developmental opportunities within the company. According to the Hewitt study, at all of the companies on the Top 20 Companies for Leaders list, the CEO personally reviews top talent, and the Board of Directors takes an active role in evaluating talent in nearly all of these companies. "The more a CEO provides the necessary resources, such as time and/or money, to leadership development, the more effective the company is in developing leaders," Grubs says. 5 Ongoing Reviews Even when a pool of successors has been chosen and is being developed, the succession-planning process is far from over. "The process remains fluid as leaders move into top positions and new talent joins the ranks, while others leave the organization for other opportunities," Grubs says. It's critical to conduct regularly scheduled reviews on a quarterly, semiannual, or annual basis, although replacement charts and development plans may need to be updated more often. The rapidly changing marketplace means organizations need to keep their talent lists fresh. They must always understand their depth of talent, who is available to fill key roles, and what the next steps are for their highest-potential leaders. "Without this intense focus, organizations face the risk of not having the right talent available to fill key roles or, worse, of losing a high-potential leader because he or she sees better opportunities elsewhere," Effron cautions. "Most companies are in the beginning stages when it comes to identifying and developing high-potential leaders," says Effron. "It's critical that companies take the next step: tracking the development of the high potentials." A recent Hewitt survey of 125 U.S. companies indicates that while almost 70% had a formal approach to identifying high potentials, only 45% actually tracked their performance. By tracking high potentials' performance, companies can better understand how they should be further developed or whether they still deserve the high-potential classification. "What's more, only 50% of companies differentiate pay for high performers. Those that do provide compensation that's only 10% higher than that provided to others on average," Effron says. "These are your best people, as identified by you. You want to keep them motivated and keep them with your company-their compensation is critical in achieving this." * Reprinted by permission ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. The Employer Brand - Why Your Reputation As An Employer Really Matters By Alan Wild, MCE Faculty Member who can be contacted at www.mce.be ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Any self-respecting HR manager will tell you that his or her company's reputation as an employer has an effect on the business bottom line. Typically he or she will go on to explain the importance of 'the employer brand' in attracting, retaining and motivating quality staff. This is of course true, but it reflects the unfortunate tendency for some HR people to focus on their own professional discipline at the expense of the broader business picture. Companies that own major brands spend countless millions of Dollars, Pounds, Euros and increasingly Yuan to build, maintain or improve their own brand image at the expense of that of their competitors. Today, sound brand management involves much more than great advertising campaigns and sponsoring the right events. The general public increasingly judge brand image on whether or not a company is perceived to be a 'good employer'. Being seen as a great employer almost certainly has a positive impact on brand image. Next time you watch TV take a look at just how many retailers and service companies use positive employee images in their advertisements. The published data on this is somewhat sketchy, but millions of advertising dollars are unlikely to be wrong. Where the data and 'on the ground experience' is clear is that being perceived as a lousy employer has an enormous negative effect on corporate or brand image. Indeed, trade union, NGO and increasingly government shorthand for poor employment conditions and opportunities is 'McJobs'. But don't trust the activist rhetoric, listen what CEOs have to say and look at the consumer data. In a Washington Post article Nike stated that deterioration in financial performance had been due to "resistance by consumers because of persistent allegations that their company mistreated factory workers". Bob Haas, CEO of Levi Strauss, confirmed the importance of employment when he said ".......... in today's world a TV expose on working conditions can undo years of effort to build brand loyalty". Most recently, a Financial Times article dated 9 September this year is titled "Wal-Mart in offensive to boost image". Their Chief Executive, Lee Scott said "We have got to eliminate this constant barrage of negatives [perceptions of poor pay and benefits] that cause people to wonder whether Wal-Mart was going to be allowed to grow". According to MORI, between 1998 and 2001, the number of customers saying that their purchasing decisions were influenced by company approaches to corporate social responsibility increased from 28% to 46%. When asked what the key issues were when making purchasing decisions "treatment of employees" came fourth behind quality, value for money and customer service ... and ahead of convenience of outlets and impact on the environment. All very well, but what exactly are the issues that separate great employers from the good and the downright poor from the average ...... in short, what makes the best and worst of people management. I recently spent some time looking at the results of 'best company surveys' throughout the world. An analysis of 20 of the most highly respected 'best company listings' identified a total of 29 characteristics of excellent organisations. Seven of these characteristics were listed repeatedly. They were in order; Leadership; Training and development; Making employees feel connected; Working in a successful company; Recognition of performance; Teamwork; and Making employees feel valued. Poor employers are not judged by the same criteria as excellent ones. They are not those that fail to deliver the very special working environment provided by 'the best of the best'. Poor employers work at the opposite end of the spectrum. They are companies that fail to meet the most basic of standards in the eyes of their employees and the general public. The research lists the following key issues, again in order. Safety and health standards; ensuring that the company and their international suppliers and distributors assure basic workplace human rights on issues like child labour, forced labour and discrimination; job security; and fair treatment of staff. There are a number of issues here that should provide food for thought for HR managers. >> You can't buy success - paying super salaries and bonuses will not of itself make you a great employer. Conversely paying wages perceived to be unfair will mark you out as a lousy employer. >> The stock market might see announcements of mass layoffs as a cause for stock price improvement, but customers see them as a signs of irresponsible management. >> Finally, if you outsource, offshore or otherwise buy in products, services and components you don't offload the responsibility for the way the companies you do business with treat their employees. Both the Nike and Levi CEO quotes above referred not to the way these companies treat their own staff, but to the way contractors and subcontractors, often in distant parts of the world, handled their employment practices. * Reprinted by permission the editor of MCE Online ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. What is Talent Management? By David Creelman who can be contacted at creelmanresearch@canada.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Consultants, academics and vendors are always trying to carve out their own niche in the business world. Often the easiest way to do that is to invent a new term. At the same time there genuinely are new approaches, technologies and mindsets that call for new terminology. The frustration for HR professionals is having to keep up with continually changing terminology and distinguish the generally new from old ideas wrapped in new words. A term that has flourished for the past few years is "talent management." There are books on the topics, consultants offering "talent management services" and vendors selling "talent management software". But what does talent management really mean? Most of the time talent management is just a trendy word for what could be better described as recruitment, training or succession planning. This is a usage HR managers may have to tolerate, but do not need to encourage. What is called "Talent Management Software" is more often than not the re-branding of Applicant Tracking Systems or Hiring Management Systems. However, this is not just toying with words. Most vendors of applicant tracking systems genuinely believe in the "talent management lifecycle"-which is the idea that a firm's relationship with someone begins when they are a potential candidate and continues through the lifecycle of a person being hired, on-boarded, developed, promoted, and ultimately leaving the firm as an "alumni". The vendors believe it does not make sense for their software to just handle people in the "candidate phase", they want the systems to handle people all through their lifecycle. It's an intriguing idea, and while it is still more a vision than a reality, software vendors are busying adding new functions to their talent management software. While there may never be one gigantic piece of software that handles all aspects of the employee's lifecycle the emphasis on nurturing talent is for many managers a new way of thinking, Indeed saying, "we are managing talent" has different connotations from saying, "we are managing employees." Perhaps talent management can best be seen as a mindset. Furthermore it is a managerial mindset, not an HR one. Managers with a talent mindset think about the talent implications of all decisions. When opening operations in a new country they will not just think about finding real estate, buying equipment and building a dealer network. Rather, they will ask "What talent do we need to make this work?" However, Helen Handfield-Jones, one of the authors of the McKinsey's famous War for Talent book has a more specific view of what talent management is. To Handfield-Jones talent management is about programs aimed at the people who fill, or have the potential to fill, key positions. These programs include talent reviews, succession planning and leadership development. She sees this as a set of activities that is quite separate from the usual HR programs aimed at the wider employee population. The idea that firms should focus effort on the top 10 percent of the employees has attracted intense criticism from the New Yorker's Malcolm Gladwell and Stanford professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. At the heart of the critique is the idea that a focus on the top 10 percent may lead to poor management of the other 90 percent. Handfield-Jones points out that this is not what her book was advocating, however, Pfeffer's and Gladwell's attack on talent management is a serious one. It is natural for a top team to want to think of themselves as an elite and be treated that way. The idea of talent management could become a destructive force in an organization if it makes the bulk of employees feel like second-class citizens. The term talent management is not going to go away. Managers need to be aware that the term can have different meanings. They also need to be aware that a focus on "top talent" has the potential to harm the firm. However, the core idea that talent matters, and it is up to managers, not just HR, to manage talent, are one of the foundational ideas of good management. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Book Reviews ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # A Bias For Action: How Effective Managers Harness Their Willpower to Achieve Results By Heike Bruch, Sumantra Ghoshal, Harvard Business School Press, 2004 To purchase this book click on: http://www.kalahari.net/e-trader/referral.asp?toolbar=mweb&linkid=5&partnerid=293&sku=27570769 Why do most managers work so hard but accomplish so little? We have blamed everything from a lack of motivation, time, and money to the overwhelming amount of work and corporate bureaucracy that managers face. But a new study suggests a different cause: how much willpower managers bring to their jobs. In A Bias for Action, Sumantra Ghoshal and Heike Bruch show that managers often confuse action with accomplishment and motivation with leading. Their research reveals that 90% of managers spin their wheels by procrastinating, detaching emotionally, and distracting themselves with busywork--whereas only 10% act purposefully to get truly important work done. Based on exclusive research across several industries, and illustrated through stirring personal stories, A Bias for Action shows that great managers produce results not by motivating others, but by engaging their own willpower through a powerful combination of energy and focus. Bruch and Ghoshal provide simple strategies for bolstering your own willpower and action-taking abilities and explore ways to marshal the willpower of others to encourage collective action. # Top Down: Why Hierarchies Are Here to Stay and How to Manage Them More Effectively By Harold J. Leavitt, Harvard Business School Press, 2004 To purchase this book click on: http://www.kalahari.net/e-trader/referral.asp?toolbar=mweb&linkid=5&partnerid=293&sku=27787188 Pundits have been forecasting the demise of the hierarchical corporation for decades. We denigrate those authoritarian structures as controlling, territorial, bureaucratic, and slow--and we celebrate "alternatives" that are flatter, more democratic, and networked. But renowned organizational behavior expert Harold J. Leavitt argues that such alternative structures have not proven viable--or even desirable--and that despite its human failings, hierarchy remains the foundational shape of every large human organization. Why? Because it works. Top Down neither defends nor attacks the much-maligned hierarchy. Rather, this counterintuitive book convincingly shows that even the "flattest" of today's organizations are really just hierarchies in disguise--and to improve the ways hierarchies function, we must first acknowledge their inevitability. Exploring both the benefits and shortcomings of top-down structures, Leavitt shows how leaders can reshape hierarchies to incorporate the human values and motivations that enable employees to thrive. He then offers middle managers suggestions about how best to negotiate the way through those authoritarian mazes, while maintaining their personal integrity and even finding satisfaction in their work. Top Down is a refreshing, "get real" examination of the true state of today's workplace--and an important step toward creating organizations that are efficient and productive, but also egalitarian and humane. ------------------------------------ DOES YOUR EE COMMITTEE HELP YOU WIN BEE SCORECARD POINTS? ------------------------------------ It simply makes good business sense to position the work your companys Employment Equity & Skill Development Committee/forum to contribute to your companys BEE standing. The draft Codes Of Good Practice issued by DTI now gives teeth to the work of these forums. Train an entire committee for the price of 1 electronic manual with full reproduction rights. http://signup4.c.topica.com/maacYiYabcxz1aaaaaab/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Case Law & Legislation Review: Procedural Fairness in Dismissal, The right to a disciplinary enquiry By Gary Watkins who can be contacted at www.caselaw.co.za ; www.workinfo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # SUBJECT: Procedural Fairness in Dismissal, The right to a disciplinary enquiry ISSUE: right to a disciplinary enquiry - employee claimed that he did not know why he had been dismissed, and that his dismissal was unfair - there was no disciplinary hearing - employer failed to comply with the procedure and consequently the dismissal of the employee was procedurally unfair - however, there was no justification to award any compensation SUMMARY OF FACTS: The employee was employed to pick up stock, install units and repair units from existing clients. On 17 February 2004, the employee did not report for duty neither did he telephone his manager to advise that he would not be reporting for duty. His supervisor then contacted him telephonically and informed him that he should always notify the employer when he was unable to report for duty. On 23 February 2004, he once again failed to report for duty, and did not report this to anyone. He was then issued with a verbal warning. The employee further failed to do work as required on more than one occasion and was dishonest to his employer as to the completion of his assigned work. On 27 February 2004 the applicant had asked to leave earlier but his manager refused. He however permitted him to go to the bank. It was around 11am, and he disappeared until the next day. On 27 February and on 3 March 2004 he telephoned and advised that he would be reporting 2 hours late but never reported at all. As a result he was issued with a written warning. On 22 April and on 26 April 2004 he was dishonest about his absence from work. SUMMARY OF JUDGEMENT: As there was no disciplinary inquiry or formal charges brought against the employee before he was dismissed, the commissioner found the dismissal procedurally unfair. The commissioner held that his conduct was so dishonest that the dismissal was substantively fair and no award was made to the employee at all. ------------------------------------ MANAGING FOR DIVERSITY WORKSHOP ------------------------------------ New and improved version of this workshop for supervisors & managers now available! Comprehensive facilitator's guide and participant workbook is now available as a download. Train as many groups as you like for the price of 1 download! http://signup4.c.topica.com/maacYiYabcxz2aaaaaab/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Unsubscribe & Moving Soon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UNSUBSCRIBE: Scroll to the end of the newsletter where you will find a code directly linked to your name. Click on the unsubscribe link. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS NEWSLETTER TO UNSUBSCRIBE. MOVING SOON: If you are changing your email address soon and would still like to continue receiving this newsletter, please email us your new or temporary email address to ensure that you do not miss out on the next edition. ------------------------------------ About the e-Journal/e-Newspaper ------------------------------------ Equity-Skills News & Views is a free bi-monthly newsletter for business owners, Line Managers, and Human Resource Practitioners (who support Line Managers) with the implementation of fair and developmental people management systems and practices. The style of this e-Newspaper fits between the traditional email newsletters and printed professional trade journals & magazines. Subscribers will be kept up to date with the latest developments in the world of people management, receive handy people management tips, and feedback about labour court rulings that relate to the implementation of the key Labour Acts. Please add equity skills news & views to your list of approved senders if your Internet provider, or server administrator filters incoming e-mail, to make sure you receive periodic e-mail alerts and this newsletter to which you are subscribed. ------------------------------------ Opinions expressed by contributors DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT the standpoint of the publisher-editor of Equity-Skills News & Views. Information published here is for general information, and is not intended as legal advice. The authors, editors, and publishers do not accept responsibility for any act, omission, loss, or damage occasioned by any reliance upon the contents hereof. This message is sent in compliance with the ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONS ACT. 2002, Act No. 25, 2002 [South Africa] passed on 20 May 2003. Sender: Jeff Sacht URL: www.equityskillsweb.com E-mail: jeffs@worldonline.co.za Telephone: +27 011 485 4943 Facsimile +27 011 485 4943 Publisher-Editor: Equity-Skills News & Views 'A MUST TO PRINT & READ' ------------------------------------ Copyright (c) 2004 Registered electronic newspaper: 1SSN 1684-5714 |
| © 2002 Equity Skills New & Views. All Rights Reserved. ISSN 1684-5714 |