This Oakwood trainer is currently involved in four separate culture change programmes:
• In three different high tech, light engineering manufacturers with very stable workforces, helping supervisors, junior leaders and middle managers take on a more strategic viewpoint and leadership behaviours.
• In a new start-up heavy engineering organisation, helping the team in one function to ‘toughen up’ and gain more general business awareness to better equip them to negotiate with their colleagues in other departments.
Three observations:
• Firstly, in each programme, one of the symptoms of each of the organisations’ underlying cultural problems is a wide disregard for the process and benefits of performance management: non-SMART or absent personal objectives; what objectives there were being kept secret by managers and staff; no monitoring or recording of the evidence of performance, an unwillingness to meet regularly to discuss performance. Once managers take performance management seriously they start to manage well.
• Secondly, culture change programmes that are not thoroughly and aggressively supported and promoted (championed) by the highest levels of management seem to fail quickly and badly.
• Thirdly, one Training Manager had a good view on culture change. He said ‘When we tried to introduce a ‘nil defects’ culture into a new aircraft maintenance unit, we got the policies, structures and procedures right, did all the training, and it STILL took fifteen years until the culture was completely embedded. I’ve got a plan for at least the next five years to get the culture right here. I can wait.’
So… performance management, support and patience: three routes to culture change.
Monday, 18 July 2011
Friday, 8 July 2011
Why ‘Oakwood’?
Students regularly ask Oakwood International trainers why the company is called ‘Oakwood’. So here’s why.
Oak trees grow in many countries but are particularly associated with England. They live many hundreds of years and are among the oldest trees in the UK: many live on after fires, lightning strikes and other disasters. They are not the tallest trees in the British countryside but are the most robust, handsome and impressive. They are excellent trees to climb and in summer their foliage is thick enough to provide excellent shade from the sun or shelter from the rain.
Oaks have long been associated the best in British culture. English sailors were described as having ‘hearts of oak’. King Charles II hid in an oak tree during the English civil war, and in fiction both Robin Hood and Winnie the Pooh lived in oak trees. In the British rock band Queen, Brian May plays a ‘Red Special’ guitar that he and his father made from an old oak fireplace. A famous English proverb, illustrating how great ideas and businesses develop, is ‘from little acorns mighty oaks do grow’.
The wood of the oak tree is not just good for guitars. It is also one of the UK’s strongest and most useful building materials. Long before ships were made from iron, the Royal Navy and merchant navy sailed ships made of oak. Original oak beams still support the UK’s oldest inhabited houses, churches, barns and public buildings, 500 to 1000 years after they were built. They were often built with ‘green’, recently cut, oak, which then shrank and hardened as it aged, making the buildings more rigid. Oak has the unusual quality of becoming stronger and stiffer as it ages, so that in very old buildings the oak beams have taken on the characteristics of concrete. And although oak can burn, it burns slowly and does not lose strength quickly, so that oak-built houses are fire-safe.
But oak is not just a material from the past. It’s a green renewable resource – easy to shape and sculpt – that has been used in some of the most exciting new architectural projects and interior designs of recent years. As well as having superb structural qualities, it also looks good.
So Oakwood is here for the long term. It will help you climb and keep you safe. It comes from a strong and robust culture. It will you help you build your business and your career. And it will go on being useful and relevant in the future.
That’s why we chose to call our business ‘Oakwood’.
Oak trees grow in many countries but are particularly associated with England. They live many hundreds of years and are among the oldest trees in the UK: many live on after fires, lightning strikes and other disasters. They are not the tallest trees in the British countryside but are the most robust, handsome and impressive. They are excellent trees to climb and in summer their foliage is thick enough to provide excellent shade from the sun or shelter from the rain.
Oaks have long been associated the best in British culture. English sailors were described as having ‘hearts of oak’. King Charles II hid in an oak tree during the English civil war, and in fiction both Robin Hood and Winnie the Pooh lived in oak trees. In the British rock band Queen, Brian May plays a ‘Red Special’ guitar that he and his father made from an old oak fireplace. A famous English proverb, illustrating how great ideas and businesses develop, is ‘from little acorns mighty oaks do grow’.
The wood of the oak tree is not just good for guitars. It is also one of the UK’s strongest and most useful building materials. Long before ships were made from iron, the Royal Navy and merchant navy sailed ships made of oak. Original oak beams still support the UK’s oldest inhabited houses, churches, barns and public buildings, 500 to 1000 years after they were built. They were often built with ‘green’, recently cut, oak, which then shrank and hardened as it aged, making the buildings more rigid. Oak has the unusual quality of becoming stronger and stiffer as it ages, so that in very old buildings the oak beams have taken on the characteristics of concrete. And although oak can burn, it burns slowly and does not lose strength quickly, so that oak-built houses are fire-safe.
But oak is not just a material from the past. It’s a green renewable resource – easy to shape and sculpt – that has been used in some of the most exciting new architectural projects and interior designs of recent years. As well as having superb structural qualities, it also looks good.
So Oakwood is here for the long term. It will help you climb and keep you safe. It comes from a strong and robust culture. It will you help you build your business and your career. And it will go on being useful and relevant in the future.
That’s why we chose to call our business ‘Oakwood’.
Thursday, 30 June 2011
Flat profiles: the trouble with 360° assessment
360° assessment is a somewhat silly name for a very sensible process. A person’s work, competencies, knowledge, attitudes, behaviour etc. is appraised and reviewed not just by their boss but by a number of their colleagues (line manager, direct reports, peers and other stakeholders). These various individual appraisals are then combined to give a summary, which although not completely objective, SHOULD be more balanced and fair than a single person’s view.
The trouble with this is that by averaging the responses of a group, the summary report tends to be rather bland and ‘flat’, evening out the more extreme strengths and development needs identified by individual respondents. And this means that the subjects of the 360° assessment get feedback that is itself often bland and non-specific: that they have no particular strengths or areas they can improve.
So what’s the answer? Firstly, ensure that the respondents to 360° questionnaires are briefed and trained so that they clearly identify how the subjects differ from the norm, both positively and negatively. Secondly, make sure that the process is as anonymous as possible, so that respondents feel able to respond honestly without the chance of being identified by the subject. (Clearly this is difficult if there is only small number of respondents.) Thirdly, check that the 360° output reports give all the individual responses as as well as the summary responses. (This is made more difficult, given the need for anonymity above.) Lastly, make sure that the person giving feedback to the subject, and possibly the subject themselves, have some training in how to interpret the reports and tease out the strengths and development needs from the bland numbers.
If none of that helps, some new research reported in Assessment & Development Matters (The Official Publication of The Psychological Testing Centre, part of the British Psychological Society Vol. 3 No. 2 Summer 2011) may help. Rob Feltham, Nik Kinley and Kate Young tell of an attempt to create a different kind of 360° assessment – ‘ipsative’ rather than ‘normative’ – that does not generate flat summary reports. It’s not a perfect alternative but could be a useful addition to an organisation’s HR and performance management armoury. See http://www.bpsshop.org.uk/Assessment-Development-Matters-Vol-3-No-2-Summer-2011-P1472.aspx
The trouble with this is that by averaging the responses of a group, the summary report tends to be rather bland and ‘flat’, evening out the more extreme strengths and development needs identified by individual respondents. And this means that the subjects of the 360° assessment get feedback that is itself often bland and non-specific: that they have no particular strengths or areas they can improve.
So what’s the answer? Firstly, ensure that the respondents to 360° questionnaires are briefed and trained so that they clearly identify how the subjects differ from the norm, both positively and negatively. Secondly, make sure that the process is as anonymous as possible, so that respondents feel able to respond honestly without the chance of being identified by the subject. (Clearly this is difficult if there is only small number of respondents.) Thirdly, check that the 360° output reports give all the individual responses as as well as the summary responses. (This is made more difficult, given the need for anonymity above.) Lastly, make sure that the person giving feedback to the subject, and possibly the subject themselves, have some training in how to interpret the reports and tease out the strengths and development needs from the bland numbers.
If none of that helps, some new research reported in Assessment & Development Matters (The Official Publication of The Psychological Testing Centre, part of the British Psychological Society Vol. 3 No. 2 Summer 2011) may help. Rob Feltham, Nik Kinley and Kate Young tell of an attempt to create a different kind of 360° assessment – ‘ipsative’ rather than ‘normative’ – that does not generate flat summary reports. It’s not a perfect alternative but could be a useful addition to an organisation’s HR and performance management armoury. See http://www.bpsshop.org.uk/Assessment-Development-Matters-Vol-3-No-2-Summer-2011-P1472.aspx
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Are you a good judge of other people?
Many of us think we are good judges of others and that we can ‘know’ people within the first few minutes (or even seconds) of first meeting them. Most of us are wrong.
A recent book by Ian Leslie called Born Liars: why we can’t live without deceit (Quercus Publishing plc) summarises lots of the psychological research conducted in this area. It makes sobering reading. For example, one experiment showed that people were able to accurately spot liars only 47% of the time: in other words they would have done better by basing their decisions on the flip of a coin.
Part of the reason for this seems to be that, all over the world, there is a common idea of how liars behave: liars seem uncertain, they make less eye contact, they blink more, they move their hands and feet and make extravagant gestures, they say they can’t remember, they can seem surly or uncooperative, they digress, they recount events out of order.
Unfortunately, the research seems to indicate that good liars – and most of us can be good liars when the need arises – do not exhibit any of these behaviours more than people telling the truth. Indeed, good liars often seem less nervous and more coherent, empathetic, helpful and charming.
So in vital HR situations, such as recruitment, back-to-work or exit interviews, or in performance management meetings, for example, how can we judge the people we are talking to?
Some research seems to show that people’s facial ‘micro expressions’ are directly linked to what they are thinking and feeling; that these expressions are hard to fake and impossible to completely hide even if they do not last long. But most of us need training and practise to be able to read the faces of others completely.
Other research seems to show that when a person creates and maintains a lie they have to hold onto a lot of information, and that if we increase the load (by asking detailed and specific questions) and then closely attend to the person’s words, we can spot where the information starts to break down.
So there’s the solid psychological and scientific reason why competence-based questions are so important in recruitment interviews, and why similar specific situation-based questions are so useful elsewhere too.
One final piece of good news though about making snap decisions about people we meet: we may be able to judge how conscientious they are from the way they shake hands. Look at http://www.bps.org.uk/news/handshakes
A recent book by Ian Leslie called Born Liars: why we can’t live without deceit (Quercus Publishing plc) summarises lots of the psychological research conducted in this area. It makes sobering reading. For example, one experiment showed that people were able to accurately spot liars only 47% of the time: in other words they would have done better by basing their decisions on the flip of a coin.
Part of the reason for this seems to be that, all over the world, there is a common idea of how liars behave: liars seem uncertain, they make less eye contact, they blink more, they move their hands and feet and make extravagant gestures, they say they can’t remember, they can seem surly or uncooperative, they digress, they recount events out of order.
Unfortunately, the research seems to indicate that good liars – and most of us can be good liars when the need arises – do not exhibit any of these behaviours more than people telling the truth. Indeed, good liars often seem less nervous and more coherent, empathetic, helpful and charming.
So in vital HR situations, such as recruitment, back-to-work or exit interviews, or in performance management meetings, for example, how can we judge the people we are talking to?
Some research seems to show that people’s facial ‘micro expressions’ are directly linked to what they are thinking and feeling; that these expressions are hard to fake and impossible to completely hide even if they do not last long. But most of us need training and practise to be able to read the faces of others completely.
Other research seems to show that when a person creates and maintains a lie they have to hold onto a lot of information, and that if we increase the load (by asking detailed and specific questions) and then closely attend to the person’s words, we can spot where the information starts to break down.
So there’s the solid psychological and scientific reason why competence-based questions are so important in recruitment interviews, and why similar specific situation-based questions are so useful elsewhere too.
One final piece of good news though about making snap decisions about people we meet: we may be able to judge how conscientious they are from the way they shake hands. Look at http://www.bps.org.uk/news/handshakes
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
Intern induction: a best practice route to high-potential graduate employees
Oakwood International trainers have won the opportunity to design and deliver part of the induction process for a large cohort of interns for a UK-based multinational organisation. It’s interesting work.
Some background. Internships are fixed-term unpaid or low paid ‘office’ jobs done by students in their holidays or following graduation. The students involved are often high performers and their living and travelling costs often provided by their families. They often get the internships through family or business connections and their recruitment and induction is often unsystematic and unregulated, no more than an informal agreement between their ‘managers’ and their parents.
In the USA, internships are a way of life in politics, the media, the creative industries and many large companies: a means for young people to get work experience and make connections in high status organisations; and a means for organisations to get high-volume, high-quality work at very low cost.
But internships have come in for some mixed press in the UK recently. Nick Clegg, deputy Prime Minister, announced some weeks ago that he wanted to regulate the practice, so that internships are available to any able students who want them, and not just to those with wealthy families and connections to top people. Clegg’s boss, UK Prime Minister David Cameron, disagreed, saying he saw no problem with the current state-of-affairs. He argued that adding layers of complexity to something not important enough, or not broke enough, to need fixing seemed a waste of energy in these cost-aware times.
But the work Oakwood is involved with is nothing like this. The hundreds of students involved have all gone through a rigorous recruitment process designed and managed by the organisation’s HR team. They are high performers but their family connections and private wealth have not been a factor in their recruitment. They will be paid a living wage during their ten-week internship. They will each receive one week concentrated off-site induction, involving intensive training in the organisation and divisional mission, vision, strategy, structure, culture and practice, as well a wider introduction to effective business behaviour (provided by the Oakwood trainers). Once in role they will have regular one-to-ones with their managers and they will also be required to arrange and run separate meetings with other senior managers in the business.
Past experience within the business has shown that:
• the majority of these interns go on to become the organisation’s high-potential graduate recruits
• the majority of the organisation’s high-potential graduate intake come from this intern programme
In other words, the money and time invested on this intern programme is more than paid back by the work of the graduates eventually recruited as permanent staff.
Watch this space for further reports about this programme and Oakwood’s involvement.
Some background. Internships are fixed-term unpaid or low paid ‘office’ jobs done by students in their holidays or following graduation. The students involved are often high performers and their living and travelling costs often provided by their families. They often get the internships through family or business connections and their recruitment and induction is often unsystematic and unregulated, no more than an informal agreement between their ‘managers’ and their parents.
In the USA, internships are a way of life in politics, the media, the creative industries and many large companies: a means for young people to get work experience and make connections in high status organisations; and a means for organisations to get high-volume, high-quality work at very low cost.
But internships have come in for some mixed press in the UK recently. Nick Clegg, deputy Prime Minister, announced some weeks ago that he wanted to regulate the practice, so that internships are available to any able students who want them, and not just to those with wealthy families and connections to top people. Clegg’s boss, UK Prime Minister David Cameron, disagreed, saying he saw no problem with the current state-of-affairs. He argued that adding layers of complexity to something not important enough, or not broke enough, to need fixing seemed a waste of energy in these cost-aware times.
But the work Oakwood is involved with is nothing like this. The hundreds of students involved have all gone through a rigorous recruitment process designed and managed by the organisation’s HR team. They are high performers but their family connections and private wealth have not been a factor in their recruitment. They will be paid a living wage during their ten-week internship. They will each receive one week concentrated off-site induction, involving intensive training in the organisation and divisional mission, vision, strategy, structure, culture and practice, as well a wider introduction to effective business behaviour (provided by the Oakwood trainers). Once in role they will have regular one-to-ones with their managers and they will also be required to arrange and run separate meetings with other senior managers in the business.
Past experience within the business has shown that:
• the majority of these interns go on to become the organisation’s high-potential graduate recruits
• the majority of the organisation’s high-potential graduate intake come from this intern programme
In other words, the money and time invested on this intern programme is more than paid back by the work of the graduates eventually recruited as permanent staff.
Watch this space for further reports about this programme and Oakwood’s involvement.
Monday, 6 June 2011
HR on TV
Do you want to add references to your assignments that are easy and fun to digest? Do you want some straightforward routes to best practice? Do you like television?
If your answer to all these questions is ‘Yes’ then here’s what you can do: watch your favourite workplace-set TV shows, not for the plot, characterisation, stunts or set dressing, but rather for the human resources issues on display. Reality shows such as The Apprentice are the obvious place to start. But there are also documentaries and many fictional dramas and comedies set in organisations.
In The West Wing and Yes Minister we see the inner workings of government. In 30 Rock, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip and Frazier we see inside broadcast media companies. Boston Legal and Ally McBeal showed us legal practices. And there are more police procedural and hospital dramas than anyone can ever watch. All regularly feature HR issues underlying the foreground stories.
Best of all is probably The Office: an American Workplace, where the regular character Toby is a busy HR Business Partner in a small business unit of a larger organisation. And of course, this programme is the US spin-off of the UK comedy The Office.
None of these programmes show us best practice. Often the organisations will not be depicted realistically and the issues will be handled quickly and at low levels of detail. But that’s a good thing: they can certainly show us what NOT to do, which can lead us toward best practice.
And working out HR issues in these fictional worlds can be involving and challenging, with none of the risks of doing it for real in our own organisations.
I know what I’m doing tonight. Why don’t you join in: put your feet up, get your notebook out, put your ‘HR goggles’ on and watch your favourite workplace-set TV show.
If your answer to all these questions is ‘Yes’ then here’s what you can do: watch your favourite workplace-set TV shows, not for the plot, characterisation, stunts or set dressing, but rather for the human resources issues on display. Reality shows such as The Apprentice are the obvious place to start. But there are also documentaries and many fictional dramas and comedies set in organisations.
In The West Wing and Yes Minister we see the inner workings of government. In 30 Rock, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip and Frazier we see inside broadcast media companies. Boston Legal and Ally McBeal showed us legal practices. And there are more police procedural and hospital dramas than anyone can ever watch. All regularly feature HR issues underlying the foreground stories.
Best of all is probably The Office: an American Workplace, where the regular character Toby is a busy HR Business Partner in a small business unit of a larger organisation. And of course, this programme is the US spin-off of the UK comedy The Office.
None of these programmes show us best practice. Often the organisations will not be depicted realistically and the issues will be handled quickly and at low levels of detail. But that’s a good thing: they can certainly show us what NOT to do, which can lead us toward best practice.
And working out HR issues in these fictional worlds can be involving and challenging, with none of the risks of doing it for real in our own organisations.
I know what I’m doing tonight. Why don’t you join in: put your feet up, get your notebook out, put your ‘HR goggles’ on and watch your favourite workplace-set TV show.
Friday, 27 May 2011
Avoid presenteeism and increase productivity with alternative working methods
Everybody has unproductive days at work sometimes – management focus, natural peaks and troughs in work rate and work flow, health, outside commitments and many other factors contribute – but it is in every organisations’ interest to maximise productivity. Absenteeism can be managed effectively by ensuring that all staff get a back-to-work interview when they return to the business. So how do we manage and reduce presenteeism: employees attending work when they are sick, or even just staying around beyond the time needed for effective performance?
There’s some good evidence that the ideal model in terms of productivity is for employees to work as hard as possible for an average or shorter working week, rather than to work longer hours at a lower intensity. This also looks like a good route to a fair and health-enhancing Work/Life Balance. But the UK for example has some of the longest working hours in Western Europe, with some of the lowest productivity results: good neither for organisational finances nor for employees’ lives.
The HR approach to increasing work intensity and productivity is obvious. Recruit the right people based on competence and potential, invest in their development, and ensure that their managers use all the proven tools to maximise their effectiveness and empowerment: especially coaching and performance management.
It’s also worth considering alternative ways of working too, all of which can increase productivity while reducing unnecessary attendance.
• Flexitime (flextime in the USA): core hours are, for example, 10.00am to 3.00pm in the working week, with earlier start and finish times, between 7.00am and 7.00pm say, flexibly decided by the worker and/or agreed with their manager or team, so that the total number of hours per week, month or year meets the organisation’s policy. (Pros: more employee choice, better match of availability to workload, environmental benefits as workers are not all commuting at the same time. Cons: needs attentive management and systems, continuous dialogue between staff and managers, and promotion of the system to full-time workers and other stakeholders.)
• Staggered shifts: pre-agreed start and finishing times varying between team members, with a core hour overlap similar to flexitime. (Pros and Cons also similar to flexitime.)
• Compressed working week: say, four 10-hour days rather than five eight-hour days per week. (Pros: can suit people able to concentrate for longer, gives employees bigger blocks of time off. Cons: can leave teams short staffed at times, can impact negatively on productivity for some workers.)
• Part-time: 16 hours per week or less in the UK. Experience shows that part-time workers are often more motivated than full-time workers to keep their productivity up and their hours down to the contracted amount. (Pros: can attract and retain high quality employees who cannot or do not want to undertake full-time work. Cons: full-time workers need monitoring and encouragement to treat part-timers as equals.)
• Job-share: two or more part-time workers sharing a single role. (Pros and cons similar to part-time.)
• Hot-desking: rather than set individual work stations or desks, employees can work anywhere in a shared work space, with their materials, equipment and belongings cleared away and kept in lockers when they are not working. (Pros: forces employees to plan and organise better, works especially well with staff not based in one workplace all the time, reduces the physical space necessary for a team to work. Cons: hated by many workers for being too unsettling, can be seen as a way to cut costs rather than increase productivity.)
• Home-based working, telecommuting or ‘homeshoring’: employees are based in their own home office, communicating via the web and telephone to colleagues and stakeholders. (Pros: physical space and cost is saved at the main workplace, employees reduce ‘dead’ commuting to almost nothing, staff get to wear and eat what they like. Cons: not available to all roles, managers need to trust, brief and monitor their employees, reduces face-to-face communication, employment contracts need to be more complex and more explicit.)
So… ways to help your people get more done while spending less time working.
There’s some good evidence that the ideal model in terms of productivity is for employees to work as hard as possible for an average or shorter working week, rather than to work longer hours at a lower intensity. This also looks like a good route to a fair and health-enhancing Work/Life Balance. But the UK for example has some of the longest working hours in Western Europe, with some of the lowest productivity results: good neither for organisational finances nor for employees’ lives.
The HR approach to increasing work intensity and productivity is obvious. Recruit the right people based on competence and potential, invest in their development, and ensure that their managers use all the proven tools to maximise their effectiveness and empowerment: especially coaching and performance management.
It’s also worth considering alternative ways of working too, all of which can increase productivity while reducing unnecessary attendance.
• Flexitime (flextime in the USA): core hours are, for example, 10.00am to 3.00pm in the working week, with earlier start and finish times, between 7.00am and 7.00pm say, flexibly decided by the worker and/or agreed with their manager or team, so that the total number of hours per week, month or year meets the organisation’s policy. (Pros: more employee choice, better match of availability to workload, environmental benefits as workers are not all commuting at the same time. Cons: needs attentive management and systems, continuous dialogue between staff and managers, and promotion of the system to full-time workers and other stakeholders.)
• Staggered shifts: pre-agreed start and finishing times varying between team members, with a core hour overlap similar to flexitime. (Pros and Cons also similar to flexitime.)
• Compressed working week: say, four 10-hour days rather than five eight-hour days per week. (Pros: can suit people able to concentrate for longer, gives employees bigger blocks of time off. Cons: can leave teams short staffed at times, can impact negatively on productivity for some workers.)
• Part-time: 16 hours per week or less in the UK. Experience shows that part-time workers are often more motivated than full-time workers to keep their productivity up and their hours down to the contracted amount. (Pros: can attract and retain high quality employees who cannot or do not want to undertake full-time work. Cons: full-time workers need monitoring and encouragement to treat part-timers as equals.)
• Job-share: two or more part-time workers sharing a single role. (Pros and cons similar to part-time.)
• Hot-desking: rather than set individual work stations or desks, employees can work anywhere in a shared work space, with their materials, equipment and belongings cleared away and kept in lockers when they are not working. (Pros: forces employees to plan and organise better, works especially well with staff not based in one workplace all the time, reduces the physical space necessary for a team to work. Cons: hated by many workers for being too unsettling, can be seen as a way to cut costs rather than increase productivity.)
• Home-based working, telecommuting or ‘homeshoring’: employees are based in their own home office, communicating via the web and telephone to colleagues and stakeholders. (Pros: physical space and cost is saved at the main workplace, employees reduce ‘dead’ commuting to almost nothing, staff get to wear and eat what they like. Cons: not available to all roles, managers need to trust, brief and monitor their employees, reduces face-to-face communication, employment contracts need to be more complex and more explicit.)
So… ways to help your people get more done while spending less time working.
Friday, 20 May 2011
Be better informed and use more recent references in your assignments
The CIPD has just sent out its first issue of In a nutshell..., its monthly email summary of new and interesting thinking and research from across HR literature. (It's being emailed to all CIPD members, so if you haven't got yours, check your spam filter, and failing that, contact the CIPD directly.) This is so useful because, when talking about HR to managers and directors who question its relevance, it helps to be able to cite new and well-written articles, rather than the old stuff everybody learns in college. And of course you can use the research as references in your CIPD Certificate assignments!
If you like that, then there are other free regular emails you can subscribe to.
The BPS Occupational Digest email is a short and easy-to-read summary of occupational, work and business psychology research and theory, put together by the British Psychology Society. You can visit its website and subscribe to the email at http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/occupational-digest/occupational-digest
And if that gets you interested in more general psychology theory and research - much of which is just as relevant to HR and business - then look at the BPS Research Digest, at http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/research-digest/research-digest
Happy reading!
If you like that, then there are other free regular emails you can subscribe to.
The BPS Occupational Digest email is a short and easy-to-read summary of occupational, work and business psychology research and theory, put together by the British Psychology Society. You can visit its website and subscribe to the email at http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/occupational-digest/occupational-digest
And if that gets you interested in more general psychology theory and research - much of which is just as relevant to HR and business - then look at the BPS Research Digest, at http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/research-digest/research-digest
Happy reading!
Sunday, 8 May 2011
Commuting and corporate social responsibility
A quick thought. The average one-way commute to work in the UK in 2006 was 27 minutes (The National Traffic Survey 2006 pub. DfT 2007) and in the USA it was 26 minutes (ABC news survey 2005). Elsewhere in the world, journey times look similar. But these are the averages, and commuters report wide variance in actual times travelled day by day. Moreover, the phenomenon of the long-distance commuter – one to two hours each way, each day – is becoming ever more common.
Sitting in an air-conditioned bus or train, reading a good book, listening to music, watching a movie or TV show on a laptop, or playing a game... Well that doesn’t sound too bad, so long as the vehicle keeps moving and the price is acceptable. Even reading reports or handling email on a smart phone is ok, if it saves time in the workplace. Walking and cycling are ideal, although not realistic in many situations. But crawling in a car in near-stationary traffic is bad for the person doing it, bad for the environment and bad for the employer too, when their employees turn up tired and stressed.
Trouble is, when the infrastructure is in place and employees can afford to travel further... they do.
But we all know the benefits of a shorter commute:
• People spend their time more usefully: at work, at home, asleep but not in a vehicle.
• Employees can spend their money on something other than transport.
• Employing organisations become better grounded in their local communities.
• Employees’ wages are spent in the community so local businesses, services and their workers all benefit.
• Etc.
So how come more organisations don’t make it policy to improve their Corporate Social Responsibility by acting to shorten the commuting distance and time of their employees? In other words, why not make it a policy to prefer employees and applicants who live closer to the workplace? There may be some diversity and equal opportunities issues to resolve, but wouldn’t the work be worth it?
Sitting in an air-conditioned bus or train, reading a good book, listening to music, watching a movie or TV show on a laptop, or playing a game... Well that doesn’t sound too bad, so long as the vehicle keeps moving and the price is acceptable. Even reading reports or handling email on a smart phone is ok, if it saves time in the workplace. Walking and cycling are ideal, although not realistic in many situations. But crawling in a car in near-stationary traffic is bad for the person doing it, bad for the environment and bad for the employer too, when their employees turn up tired and stressed.
Trouble is, when the infrastructure is in place and employees can afford to travel further... they do.
But we all know the benefits of a shorter commute:
• People spend their time more usefully: at work, at home, asleep but not in a vehicle.
• Employees can spend their money on something other than transport.
• Employing organisations become better grounded in their local communities.
• Employees’ wages are spent in the community so local businesses, services and their workers all benefit.
• Etc.
So how come more organisations don’t make it policy to improve their Corporate Social Responsibility by acting to shorten the commuting distance and time of their employees? In other words, why not make it a policy to prefer employees and applicants who live closer to the workplace? There may be some diversity and equal opportunities issues to resolve, but wouldn’t the work be worth it?
Friday, 6 May 2011
Staff turnover: what’s the right percentage?
Often, when organisations talk about their staff turnover being a problem, it’s because it is seen to be too high. In call centres in the UK for example, current rates of staff turnover are about 23-24% – meaning that centres lose and need to replace about a quarter of their workforce every year, or that on average staff stay about four years. This is an improvement on far higher rates in the past.
In major UK urban centres, young adults often say that they want to move jobs every two to five years, a rate that seems too fast for them to learn how to do a job well before moving on. The employment prospects of young adults in the UK are the worst they’ve been for fifty years or more, mainly due to the worldwide economic crisis, but maybe also partly due to employers not seeing young people as a ‘good investment’ when they want to move on so soon.
So, is low staff turnover and high staff retention always good? Oakwood associates have considerable experience in working with organisations based in small communities far from major urban centres. In these settings we see many people who have 25 or more years’ service with their employers, with no plans to move on or indeed to progress or develop within their organisation until they retire. Some of these people are in top management positions, but not all are.
In many of these organisations, such long service is rewarded without looking at the relative productivity or profitability of long-serving employees. If the organisations are not growing, unproductive long-serving workers can block the recruitment, development and promotion of newer employees and in so doing stifle innovation and useful change.
So what’s the answer? We need effective competency models and performance management systems that enable us to set standards and measure the effectiveness of all employees. And we need to ‘know the numbers’ about how employees’ effectiveness changes through their life-cycle in the organisation. Only then can we start making policy about ideal minimum and maximum staff turnover and retention rates: but in the future we could see 25 years service as no better than 2 years!
In major UK urban centres, young adults often say that they want to move jobs every two to five years, a rate that seems too fast for them to learn how to do a job well before moving on. The employment prospects of young adults in the UK are the worst they’ve been for fifty years or more, mainly due to the worldwide economic crisis, but maybe also partly due to employers not seeing young people as a ‘good investment’ when they want to move on so soon.
So, is low staff turnover and high staff retention always good? Oakwood associates have considerable experience in working with organisations based in small communities far from major urban centres. In these settings we see many people who have 25 or more years’ service with their employers, with no plans to move on or indeed to progress or develop within their organisation until they retire. Some of these people are in top management positions, but not all are.
In many of these organisations, such long service is rewarded without looking at the relative productivity or profitability of long-serving employees. If the organisations are not growing, unproductive long-serving workers can block the recruitment, development and promotion of newer employees and in so doing stifle innovation and useful change.
So what’s the answer? We need effective competency models and performance management systems that enable us to set standards and measure the effectiveness of all employees. And we need to ‘know the numbers’ about how employees’ effectiveness changes through their life-cycle in the organisation. Only then can we start making policy about ideal minimum and maximum staff turnover and retention rates: but in the future we could see 25 years service as no better than 2 years!
Thursday, 28 April 2011
The Royal Wedding: an example of effective recruitment, onboarding and succession planning?
We don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there’s a wedding in the UK on Friday. Kate Middleton, a young woman with no royal blood, is marrying Prince William Mountbatten-Windsor, second in the line to the throne of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize and Saint Kitts and Nevis.
In the recent film The King’s Speech, the actor Colin Firth, playing Prince William’s great grandfather George VI – before becoming king – says ‘We’re not a family. We’re a firm.’ So Miss Middleton, in marrying into the Mountbatten-Windsors, is not just joining a family: she is being inducted into a powerful, well-resourced and long-lasting organisation, a brand.
So perhaps this can be a reminder to look at your organisation’s policies describing the recruitment of family members of existing employees, and describing the onboarding and induction of new recruits?
We can see Miss Middleton joining the Mountbatten-Windsors as an example of long-term strategic succession planning. If current plans come to fruition, she will be the Queen Consort – wife of the King – in some years’ time. This is a position of considerable power and influence. So the extended courting period between Miss Middleton and Prince William has been an extensive assessment centre and onboarding process, to ensure that she is right not just in her relationship with her future husband but also in her future job.
Oakwood wish the happy couple, and indeed their entire organisation, a fruitful and productive future. And we wish all our students an equally effective set of policies and practices.
In the recent film The King’s Speech, the actor Colin Firth, playing Prince William’s great grandfather George VI – before becoming king – says ‘We’re not a family. We’re a firm.’ So Miss Middleton, in marrying into the Mountbatten-Windsors, is not just joining a family: she is being inducted into a powerful, well-resourced and long-lasting organisation, a brand.
So perhaps this can be a reminder to look at your organisation’s policies describing the recruitment of family members of existing employees, and describing the onboarding and induction of new recruits?
We can see Miss Middleton joining the Mountbatten-Windsors as an example of long-term strategic succession planning. If current plans come to fruition, she will be the Queen Consort – wife of the King – in some years’ time. This is a position of considerable power and influence. So the extended courting period between Miss Middleton and Prince William has been an extensive assessment centre and onboarding process, to ensure that she is right not just in her relationship with her future husband but also in her future job.
Oakwood wish the happy couple, and indeed their entire organisation, a fruitful and productive future. And we wish all our students an equally effective set of policies and practices.
Monday, 18 April 2011
Create your own competencies or use the research of others?
There are good arguments for every organisation creating its own competency framework, as explained in the best practice journal paper referenced in this blog a couple of posts ago. The main benefit is that such organisation-specific competencies can reflect the unique culture, values, mission, vision and strategic objectives of a mature and successful organisation. But what if your organisation is not mature enough to have developed it’s own unique culture etc.? Or what if your organisation has been created in the image of another organisation (and doesn’t want to just use the competencies that the ‘parent’ organisation uses)?
Then it makes sense to use good quality work done by others. Take a look at:
Bartram, D. (2005). The Great Eight Competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1185-1203.
Professor Bartram describes an extensive research programme to identify a set of robust general management competencies that should apply in most organisations. The research was undertaken by the occupational psychology company SHL, and is often used by that organisation to promote the sale and use of its products and services. Here at the Oakwood Club and Alumni Network blog, we’re not in the business of recommending (or criticising) other organisations, but we like the ‘Great Eight’ competencies described in the paper, even if they are used by organisations as no more than a starting point in making their own competency framework.
Take a look at the paper. I could help you get your competency framework started.
Then it makes sense to use good quality work done by others. Take a look at:
Bartram, D. (2005). The Great Eight Competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1185-1203.
Professor Bartram describes an extensive research programme to identify a set of robust general management competencies that should apply in most organisations. The research was undertaken by the occupational psychology company SHL, and is often used by that organisation to promote the sale and use of its products and services. Here at the Oakwood Club and Alumni Network blog, we’re not in the business of recommending (or criticising) other organisations, but we like the ‘Great Eight’ competencies described in the paper, even if they are used by organisations as no more than a starting point in making their own competency framework.
Take a look at the paper. I could help you get your competency framework started.
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
Staff surveys: lessons from Market Research
Staff surveys are used a lot but they are not always useful. Running the same annual survey gives us year-on-year comparison data, but the questions can lose meaning or focus as the organisation changes. After all the work of designing, administering and analysing a new survey, we often end up with information that either doesn’t help (‘That’s not we really wanted’) or seems trivial (‘We already know that’). Part of the problem is that we don’t know the difference between what Market Researchers call Qualitative and Quantitative research.
Quantitative research (‘quant’) collects data that can be simply coded numerically: typically, ‘Yes’, ‘No’ and multiple choice responses to straightforward questions. Quant needs large samples of respondents (hundreds) because large samples enable statistical analysis that yields reliable and valid results. The trouble is, quant can be time-consuming and resource-heavy, and if the wrong questions are asked then all that is wasted. And since quant is often all we do, the process of surveying staff gets a bad reputation.
Qualitative research (‘qual’) collects data that is not easily quantifiable or numerically coded. It usually concerns people’s ideas and feelings, which can be complex and not easily summarised. It’s often collected in in-depth interviews or focus groups: the answers to open questions such as ‘Why?’ and ‘How?’ Qual is done to ‘scope’ or explore a range of opinions. An objective, experienced and emotionally intelligent qual researcher can get a vast amount and variety of information out of a few meetings. They can put questions in their organisational context. They can also ensure that respondents reflect upon questions before answering: they don’t get ‘gut feel’ or ‘knee jerk’ responses. But the number of people (staff and key stakeholders) involved is nearly always too small for their answers to yield statistically meaningful results: we can’t measure the relative popularity or importance of the ideas and opinions collected.
So what’s the answer? Do both!
Begin with qual. Use an experienced and objective outsider to scope the area you want to survey. Gather the full range and variety of issues. Produce an interim report. Then – if your sample is large enough to enable meaningful statistical analysis – write your quant questions, distribute your quant questionnaire (email, paper and online), collect and the interpret responses and write your final report. This way you’ll focus your staff survey on what’s really important, and the expensive part – the quant – will not be money wasted.
Quant AND qual. That’s how professional Market Researchers do it.
Quantitative research (‘quant’) collects data that can be simply coded numerically: typically, ‘Yes’, ‘No’ and multiple choice responses to straightforward questions. Quant needs large samples of respondents (hundreds) because large samples enable statistical analysis that yields reliable and valid results. The trouble is, quant can be time-consuming and resource-heavy, and if the wrong questions are asked then all that is wasted. And since quant is often all we do, the process of surveying staff gets a bad reputation.
Qualitative research (‘qual’) collects data that is not easily quantifiable or numerically coded. It usually concerns people’s ideas and feelings, which can be complex and not easily summarised. It’s often collected in in-depth interviews or focus groups: the answers to open questions such as ‘Why?’ and ‘How?’ Qual is done to ‘scope’ or explore a range of opinions. An objective, experienced and emotionally intelligent qual researcher can get a vast amount and variety of information out of a few meetings. They can put questions in their organisational context. They can also ensure that respondents reflect upon questions before answering: they don’t get ‘gut feel’ or ‘knee jerk’ responses. But the number of people (staff and key stakeholders) involved is nearly always too small for their answers to yield statistically meaningful results: we can’t measure the relative popularity or importance of the ideas and opinions collected.
So what’s the answer? Do both!
Begin with qual. Use an experienced and objective outsider to scope the area you want to survey. Gather the full range and variety of issues. Produce an interim report. Then – if your sample is large enough to enable meaningful statistical analysis – write your quant questions, distribute your quant questionnaire (email, paper and online), collect and the interpret responses and write your final report. This way you’ll focus your staff survey on what’s really important, and the expensive part – the quant – will not be money wasted.
Quant AND qual. That’s how professional Market Researchers do it.
Friday, 8 April 2011
How old is your competency framework?
Competency frameworks are funny things. If they are well-designed, fit the organisational culture and work well they have a way of taking over HR processes. Pretty soon they form the basis of every recruitment campaign, every learning needs analysis, every development plan, career plan and succession plan, every performance management review meeting...
But it’s almost as if they work TOO well. When organisations use ‘joined-up thinking’ to link all these processes with competencies, then the levels of competency (skills, knowledge, abilities) of employees tend to improve. Two to five years after being introduced, the levels, and even the competencies themselves, start to look out of touch with the increasingly high levels of behaviour and performance demonstrated by employees. They need revision and updating.
Of course, if your organisation’s competency framework (you have got one, haven’t you?) ISN’T being used to improve recruitment, development, performance management and reward, then the levels of competence of employees could well have NOT changed since the framework was introduced. And if it’s not being used in any structured or integrated way, then it’s probably not being evaluated either.
So there’s the dilemma: really good competency frameworks need (expensive) regular reviews and revisions, while mediocre or under-used competency frameworks can be left alone for years.
What’s yours like?
But it’s almost as if they work TOO well. When organisations use ‘joined-up thinking’ to link all these processes with competencies, then the levels of competency (skills, knowledge, abilities) of employees tend to improve. Two to five years after being introduced, the levels, and even the competencies themselves, start to look out of touch with the increasingly high levels of behaviour and performance demonstrated by employees. They need revision and updating.
Of course, if your organisation’s competency framework (you have got one, haven’t you?) ISN’T being used to improve recruitment, development, performance management and reward, then the levels of competence of employees could well have NOT changed since the framework was introduced. And if it’s not being used in any structured or integrated way, then it’s probably not being evaluated either.
So there’s the dilemma: really good competency frameworks need (expensive) regular reviews and revisions, while mediocre or under-used competency frameworks can be left alone for years.
What’s yours like?
Monday, 28 March 2011
Competency best practice
In running the CIPD foundation certificate programmes, Oakwood International is continually reminded that competencies are at the foundation of best practice in selection, promotion, performance management, development and reward systems, as well as many other HR processes. So it’s really helpful to find a well-written new professional journal article that gives an overview and examples of many of the uses and benefits of competencies.
Take a look at:
Campion, M.A., Fink, A.A., Ruggeberg B.J., Carr L., Phillips G.M., Odman R.B. 2011. Doing Competencies Well: Best Practices In Competency Modeling. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), pp. 225–262. Available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01207.x/full
It’s USA-centred, with lots of references to research and work done in the US government and military, in Microsoft and Boeing. But the sheer quantity and quality of the analysis makes it necessary reading for anyone using or intending to use competencies at work – anyone working in HR really!
Take a look at:
Campion, M.A., Fink, A.A., Ruggeberg B.J., Carr L., Phillips G.M., Odman R.B. 2011. Doing Competencies Well: Best Practices In Competency Modeling. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), pp. 225–262. Available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01207.x/full
It’s USA-centred, with lots of references to research and work done in the US government and military, in Microsoft and Boeing. But the sheer quantity and quality of the analysis makes it necessary reading for anyone using or intending to use competencies at work – anyone working in HR really!
Monday, 21 March 2011
Let me give you an example…
Training in competency-based interviewing is a mainstay of Oakwood’s old CIPD Certificate in Personnel Practice and new CIPD Certificate in Human Resource Practice programmes. The STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) model, and its key underlying question – ‘What did you do?’ – are practical routes towards valid recruitment practices.
But on LinkedIn at the moment, a friend and Associate of Oakwood, Mike Todd, has made a really insightful comment:
To be effective competency based interviewing very much depends on the candidate being prepared for the questions and being able to recall appropriate examples of behaviour. There is a danger you can end up recruiting candidates who are the most articulate with good recall. Fine if they are the competencies you need ...not so good if they are not. There are many very capable people who take their skills for granted. They are unconsciously competent.
Ask a learner driver for an example of when they last drove well and it is likely they will have an example immediately to mind. Ask a highly experienced driver the same question and they might struggle for an answer as they take the skill of driving for granted. Evidence from competency based questions has to be weighed up against information from other sources…
http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=46136440&gid=3753338&commentID=33725240&goback=%2Enmp_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1&trk=NUS_DISC_Q-subject#commentID_33725240
Question: how does the organisation aiming to be a best practice recruiter get over the problem of some of its high potential applicants not having the articulacy or the practice (or the confidence) to excel in a competency-based interview?
Answer: train them! Make sure all applicants know the plan or agenda for their interview or assessment day. Tell them what will happen and when. Explain the competency model your organisation uses and invite them to prepare to describe a number (ten?) of specific situations or events at work where they made decisions or took actions that demonstrate their level of competency. At least, put the information on your organisation’s website and in each letter or email inviting the candidates to interview. At best, offer free interviewee training sessions to prospective candidates and the wider community as part of your corporate social responsibilities.
And remember, just as the key question for interviewers is ‘What did you do?’, the most important phrase for interviews to use is ‘Let me give you an example…’
But on LinkedIn at the moment, a friend and Associate of Oakwood, Mike Todd, has made a really insightful comment:
To be effective competency based interviewing very much depends on the candidate being prepared for the questions and being able to recall appropriate examples of behaviour. There is a danger you can end up recruiting candidates who are the most articulate with good recall. Fine if they are the competencies you need ...not so good if they are not. There are many very capable people who take their skills for granted. They are unconsciously competent.
Ask a learner driver for an example of when they last drove well and it is likely they will have an example immediately to mind. Ask a highly experienced driver the same question and they might struggle for an answer as they take the skill of driving for granted. Evidence from competency based questions has to be weighed up against information from other sources…
http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=46136440&gid=3753338&commentID=33725240&goback=%2Enmp_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1&trk=NUS_DISC_Q-subject#commentID_33725240
Question: how does the organisation aiming to be a best practice recruiter get over the problem of some of its high potential applicants not having the articulacy or the practice (or the confidence) to excel in a competency-based interview?
Answer: train them! Make sure all applicants know the plan or agenda for their interview or assessment day. Tell them what will happen and when. Explain the competency model your organisation uses and invite them to prepare to describe a number (ten?) of specific situations or events at work where they made decisions or took actions that demonstrate their level of competency. At least, put the information on your organisation’s website and in each letter or email inviting the candidates to interview. At best, offer free interviewee training sessions to prospective candidates and the wider community as part of your corporate social responsibilities.
And remember, just as the key question for interviewers is ‘What did you do?’, the most important phrase for interviews to use is ‘Let me give you an example…’
Monday, 7 March 2011
Crises, disasters and continuity of business
Recent events in Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia were thrown into perspective when Harry Puckering, one of Oakwood’s directors had to cut short a CPP Module because of some modest civil unrest. Harry is now safely at home with his family.
But one thought that pops up is ‘Does your organisation have a plan for how to continue operations and business in a crisis or disaster?’ And, if so, does the plan take account of the differing needs of the various Human Resources (i.e. people) in your organisation?
If you work in a very large organisation running critical operations, such as in the petrochemical, aviation and finance sectors for example, the answer to both questions is almost certainly ‘Yes!’ But for smaller, private organisations the answer may well be ‘I don’t know.’ or even ‘No.’ The needs of locals and nationals are possibly different to those of resident ex-patriots. Different groups of nationals and ex-pats may have entirely separate needs too (based, for example, on where their homes are or what their family circumstances are). And short-term contractors and consultants (such as trainers!) may need handling differently too.
Clearly, whilst in crisis, we must do the best we can – putting staff safety and open communications at the top of the agenda. But once the situation starts to calm down, we must capture the learning from events, the way we handled them, and change or alter our plans for the future.
How about we make a commitment to pull together the key HR players and run a meeting based on the GROW model, to review the effectiveness of the decisions and actions taken in the crisis:
• GOALS and OBJECTIVES. What were the values, principles and assumptions that informed people’s decisions and actions in the crisis? How well did these connect to the organisational goals and the needs of the crisis? What do we want to happen next time?
• REALITY. What did people actually do? What was the precise timeline of events? How well did their actions follow the plan and the values, principles and assumptions that informed it? What did they do that was unplanned or unexpected? Were the right people involved? How well were communications during the crisis? Did people have the resources they needed? What helped people? What obstacles and barriers got in their way?
• OPTIONS. What could be done in future? How do the values, principles and assumptions need to change? How does the plan need to change? Who needs to be involved? What is best practice? What other organisations can the organisation benchmark itself against? What would we do differently – and why?
• WILL, WHO and WHEN. Who takes responsibility for the action plan? When does the new plan ‘go live’? How will we measure success next time?
So, when the dust clears, try to make sure that the next crisis will be handled better than the last crisis.
But one thought that pops up is ‘Does your organisation have a plan for how to continue operations and business in a crisis or disaster?’ And, if so, does the plan take account of the differing needs of the various Human Resources (i.e. people) in your organisation?
If you work in a very large organisation running critical operations, such as in the petrochemical, aviation and finance sectors for example, the answer to both questions is almost certainly ‘Yes!’ But for smaller, private organisations the answer may well be ‘I don’t know.’ or even ‘No.’ The needs of locals and nationals are possibly different to those of resident ex-patriots. Different groups of nationals and ex-pats may have entirely separate needs too (based, for example, on where their homes are or what their family circumstances are). And short-term contractors and consultants (such as trainers!) may need handling differently too.
Clearly, whilst in crisis, we must do the best we can – putting staff safety and open communications at the top of the agenda. But once the situation starts to calm down, we must capture the learning from events, the way we handled them, and change or alter our plans for the future.
How about we make a commitment to pull together the key HR players and run a meeting based on the GROW model, to review the effectiveness of the decisions and actions taken in the crisis:
• GOALS and OBJECTIVES. What were the values, principles and assumptions that informed people’s decisions and actions in the crisis? How well did these connect to the organisational goals and the needs of the crisis? What do we want to happen next time?
• REALITY. What did people actually do? What was the precise timeline of events? How well did their actions follow the plan and the values, principles and assumptions that informed it? What did they do that was unplanned or unexpected? Were the right people involved? How well were communications during the crisis? Did people have the resources they needed? What helped people? What obstacles and barriers got in their way?
• OPTIONS. What could be done in future? How do the values, principles and assumptions need to change? How does the plan need to change? Who needs to be involved? What is best practice? What other organisations can the organisation benchmark itself against? What would we do differently – and why?
• WILL, WHO and WHEN. Who takes responsibility for the action plan? When does the new plan ‘go live’? How will we measure success next time?
So, when the dust clears, try to make sure that the next crisis will be handled better than the last crisis.
Sunday, 27 February 2011
When the PM gets tough, the HR team get going
The principles of performance management (PM) are simple. Make sure that the people in your organisation know what they need to do and why they need to do it; make sure they get the right support, monitoring and guidance while they work; make sure that their work is evaluated and recognised; make sure all this is built into wider more strategic activities like long-term planning. PM is no different to good management.
But the practice of PM is hard. Think about a typical manager with, say, five direct reports who works in an organisation with a conventional, old-fashioned hierarchical management structure. If that manager follows CIPD best practice and runs quarterly PM review meetings, allowing two hours for each meeting, that’s 20 meetings or 40 hours work. Once you add in time for collecting and collating evidence, preparation, writing up notes and consequential follow-up, that manager can be spending more than 100 hours per year on PM.
Of course, nowadays fewer and fewer organisations have conventional, old-fashioned hierarchical management structures. In matrix organisations, employees work on projects run by people other than their line managers. Indeed, such employees may hardly ever see their managers, spending all their working time with their project managers and co-workers.
In the matrix environment, the need for good PM is more important than in conventionally structured organisations. Employees need SMART personal objectives, to keep themselves focussed on priorities as they move from project to project. Line managers need reliable communication paths to project managers, so that they can create and maintain SMART objectives and collect evidence of performance. Employees and line managers need to meet and talk regularly to evaluate the objectives, the evidence and the structures within which the work is done.
Other common working practices put additional pressure on PM. Employees and line managers may work different shifts, or flexitime periods, or be located far apart – even in different time zones. Home-based working, teleworking, hot desking, part-time working, job-sharing and other flexible working patterns can all make it harder and more time-consuming for employees and line managers to get together for their PM meetings.
But as PM gets tough, the HR team must get to work. It’s not enough for us just to ensure that our organisation’s PM paperwork or online system is kept up to date. We must help and support line managers and employees to use and get real benefit from PM: training and policing the creation of SMART objectives, creating and maintaining the communication links between line managers and project managers, ensuring that line managers and employees have the time and resources to meet and discuss, and then using all the information collected in PM to make better HR plans which deliver on business-critical objectives.
But the practice of PM is hard. Think about a typical manager with, say, five direct reports who works in an organisation with a conventional, old-fashioned hierarchical management structure. If that manager follows CIPD best practice and runs quarterly PM review meetings, allowing two hours for each meeting, that’s 20 meetings or 40 hours work. Once you add in time for collecting and collating evidence, preparation, writing up notes and consequential follow-up, that manager can be spending more than 100 hours per year on PM.
Of course, nowadays fewer and fewer organisations have conventional, old-fashioned hierarchical management structures. In matrix organisations, employees work on projects run by people other than their line managers. Indeed, such employees may hardly ever see their managers, spending all their working time with their project managers and co-workers.
In the matrix environment, the need for good PM is more important than in conventionally structured organisations. Employees need SMART personal objectives, to keep themselves focussed on priorities as they move from project to project. Line managers need reliable communication paths to project managers, so that they can create and maintain SMART objectives and collect evidence of performance. Employees and line managers need to meet and talk regularly to evaluate the objectives, the evidence and the structures within which the work is done.
Other common working practices put additional pressure on PM. Employees and line managers may work different shifts, or flexitime periods, or be located far apart – even in different time zones. Home-based working, teleworking, hot desking, part-time working, job-sharing and other flexible working patterns can all make it harder and more time-consuming for employees and line managers to get together for their PM meetings.
But as PM gets tough, the HR team must get to work. It’s not enough for us just to ensure that our organisation’s PM paperwork or online system is kept up to date. We must help and support line managers and employees to use and get real benefit from PM: training and policing the creation of SMART objectives, creating and maintaining the communication links between line managers and project managers, ensuring that line managers and employees have the time and resources to meet and discuss, and then using all the information collected in PM to make better HR plans which deliver on business-critical objectives.
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Can you reward people who do not reach all their annual objectives?
A quick thought. In our everyday lives, most of us like to think that the good things we do balance out the less good things. For example, if we regularly make gifts to charity or treat strangers with respect then we may let ourselves ‘off the hook’ for occasionally buying ourselves an unnecessary present, or being impolite to staff in shops or restaurants.
But is this idea of balance acceptable at work? In other words, does meeting or exceeding some of our objectives, goals or targets make up for failing to meet others? And in particular, should an organisation reward an employee for over-performance on some objectives when they have underperformed on others?
Does this mean that all objectives need to be prioritised, and that people can afford to skip or ignore the lower priority objectives? And what if they skip the high priority objectives?
The thing is that best practice guidelines often say that people should have about four to eight objectives, which in no way covers all the responsibilities and tasks that are described in their job descriptions or role profiles. So objectives are ALL pretty high priority to start with, and how can the organisation afford for some of them to be ignored?
What happens in your organisation? Do people get rewarded even when they miss some objectives? Are some objectives simply more important than others? Does over-delivery in some areas balance under-delivery in others? Are rewards at the discretion of line managers or the Senior Management Team? OR does your organisation only start rewarding staff when they at least meet ALL of their objectives?
But is this idea of balance acceptable at work? In other words, does meeting or exceeding some of our objectives, goals or targets make up for failing to meet others? And in particular, should an organisation reward an employee for over-performance on some objectives when they have underperformed on others?
Does this mean that all objectives need to be prioritised, and that people can afford to skip or ignore the lower priority objectives? And what if they skip the high priority objectives?
The thing is that best practice guidelines often say that people should have about four to eight objectives, which in no way covers all the responsibilities and tasks that are described in their job descriptions or role profiles. So objectives are ALL pretty high priority to start with, and how can the organisation afford for some of them to be ignored?
What happens in your organisation? Do people get rewarded even when they miss some objectives? Are some objectives simply more important than others? Does over-delivery in some areas balance under-delivery in others? Are rewards at the discretion of line managers or the Senior Management Team? OR does your organisation only start rewarding staff when they at least meet ALL of their objectives?
Monday, 14 February 2011
Objectives, results, rewards and discipline
Organisations vary in how much they link individual performance management results, rewards (salary increases, bonuses and incentives) and formal discipline systems. It’s often said as a matter of policy that ‘information collected as part of the performance management process may be used in the allocation of reward or in the application of formal disciplinary or capability actions’ but organisations seldom make clear precisely how it is used.
In our work as business partners, change agents and commitment builders it is worthwhile trying to explore and explain how our organisations use performance management information. At one extreme, line managers can be left pretty much alone to: create whatever performance objectives they want for their staff; collect what evidence of performance against objectives they think fit; make recommendations for reward based on their own criteria etc. In this setting you sometimes hear line managers say things like:
’You’ve exceeded all your objectives but I now realise that they were all set far too easy. As a result I’ve decided to give you a lower than average increase next year. We’ll set more challenging objectives in the future.’
Or:
’You’ve worked really hard and well but failed to meet your objectives and I now realise that they were all set far too hard. As a result I’ve decided to give you the maximum allowable increase next year. We’ll set more realistic objectives in the future.’
Working like this is not labour-intensive – line managers do as much or as little as they feel they can – but it can still cause trouble. Everything – the objectives, the evaluations, the scale of rewards – becomes subjective, nothing is coordinated and other strategic systems that should draw on performance management information, such as the succession plan or the organisational learning need analysis, don’t get what they need. It can be very demoralising working in such a situation.
At the other extreme are organisations that explicitly reward overperformance against objectives while also initiating formal discipline or capability actions against staff that underperform. But such an approach is labour intensive: it requires all stages of the performance management process to run like clockwork, with all line managers setting equally SMART objectives by the same deadlines and all monitoring and evaluating evidence of performance. On the face of it it’s a good idea but it can seem relentlessly inhuman or machine-like in its efficiency. As a result, this approach seems to be abandoned as ‘too much work’ almost as often as it’s trialled.
Neither of these extremes is a workable version of best HRM practice and your organisation probably has a compromise system somewhere in the middle. But it is worth trying to discuss and agree the assumptions your Senior Management Team, your managers, staff and you are making about the links between individual objectives, results, rewards and formal disciplinary systems. Making such complex and ambiguous ideas clear is a challenge and a reward in itself, and doing so should enable your organisation to function in a more effective manner.
In our work as business partners, change agents and commitment builders it is worthwhile trying to explore and explain how our organisations use performance management information. At one extreme, line managers can be left pretty much alone to: create whatever performance objectives they want for their staff; collect what evidence of performance against objectives they think fit; make recommendations for reward based on their own criteria etc. In this setting you sometimes hear line managers say things like:
’You’ve exceeded all your objectives but I now realise that they were all set far too easy. As a result I’ve decided to give you a lower than average increase next year. We’ll set more challenging objectives in the future.’
Or:
’You’ve worked really hard and well but failed to meet your objectives and I now realise that they were all set far too hard. As a result I’ve decided to give you the maximum allowable increase next year. We’ll set more realistic objectives in the future.’
Working like this is not labour-intensive – line managers do as much or as little as they feel they can – but it can still cause trouble. Everything – the objectives, the evaluations, the scale of rewards – becomes subjective, nothing is coordinated and other strategic systems that should draw on performance management information, such as the succession plan or the organisational learning need analysis, don’t get what they need. It can be very demoralising working in such a situation.
At the other extreme are organisations that explicitly reward overperformance against objectives while also initiating formal discipline or capability actions against staff that underperform. But such an approach is labour intensive: it requires all stages of the performance management process to run like clockwork, with all line managers setting equally SMART objectives by the same deadlines and all monitoring and evaluating evidence of performance. On the face of it it’s a good idea but it can seem relentlessly inhuman or machine-like in its efficiency. As a result, this approach seems to be abandoned as ‘too much work’ almost as often as it’s trialled.
Neither of these extremes is a workable version of best HRM practice and your organisation probably has a compromise system somewhere in the middle. But it is worth trying to discuss and agree the assumptions your Senior Management Team, your managers, staff and you are making about the links between individual objectives, results, rewards and formal disciplinary systems. Making such complex and ambiguous ideas clear is a challenge and a reward in itself, and doing so should enable your organisation to function in a more effective manner.
Monday, 7 February 2011
The focus of performance management review meetings
Line managers sometimes seem a bit lost about what to talk about in performance management review meetings. Here are some ideas that should give line managers some areas to focus on.
• Evidence. Reviewing a person’s performance is an activity that needs to be based on hard evidence. Both the line manager and their staff member need to get into the habit of keeping records and evidence of what they do. As a rule of thumb there should be at least one document per month describing or demonstrating what the staff member has achieved. Basing review meetings on evidence rather than people’s often faulty memories means that they will focus on what actually happened rather than on people’s differing interpretations of events.
• Objectives. The most important comparison is between the staff member’s objectives (goals, targets) for the period and their actual results (key performance indicators or KPIs). Objectives created using the SMART approach tend to be less ambiguous when looked at later in the year. The ’M’ in SMART stands for ‘Measurable’, so evidence of performance should be collected and measured in line with the objective.
• Competencies. The evidence can also be used to evaluate how well the staff member demonstrates the levels of competencies required in their job description, role profile or person specification. Where the evidence does not clearly demonstrate underlying competence, line managers need to check whether: the competence is demonstrated through other means; or the competence still is needed in the role.
• Values. Does the evidence demonstrate an understanding and commitment to the organisation’s values? For example, if a value is ‘To actively encourage equality and diversity at work’, what evidence is there of behaviour in line with this value. In a mature organisation, there will be considerable overlap between the behaviours that demonstrate competencies and those that demonstrate values.
• No surprises. Line managers and staff members may need to be reminded not to save up the important discussions for their performance review meetings, but rather to deal with matters as they come up through the period. Although performance review meetings should have some formality, there is no harm in them being treated as opportunities to record or acknowledge previous informal discussions and meetings. After all, the entire performance management process is not intended to be extra management work, but rather a check that day-to-day management and implementation is following best practice.
So: five ideas that could help your line managers run more effective performance review meetings.
• Evidence. Reviewing a person’s performance is an activity that needs to be based on hard evidence. Both the line manager and their staff member need to get into the habit of keeping records and evidence of what they do. As a rule of thumb there should be at least one document per month describing or demonstrating what the staff member has achieved. Basing review meetings on evidence rather than people’s often faulty memories means that they will focus on what actually happened rather than on people’s differing interpretations of events.
• Objectives. The most important comparison is between the staff member’s objectives (goals, targets) for the period and their actual results (key performance indicators or KPIs). Objectives created using the SMART approach tend to be less ambiguous when looked at later in the year. The ’M’ in SMART stands for ‘Measurable’, so evidence of performance should be collected and measured in line with the objective.
• Competencies. The evidence can also be used to evaluate how well the staff member demonstrates the levels of competencies required in their job description, role profile or person specification. Where the evidence does not clearly demonstrate underlying competence, line managers need to check whether: the competence is demonstrated through other means; or the competence still is needed in the role.
• Values. Does the evidence demonstrate an understanding and commitment to the organisation’s values? For example, if a value is ‘To actively encourage equality and diversity at work’, what evidence is there of behaviour in line with this value. In a mature organisation, there will be considerable overlap between the behaviours that demonstrate competencies and those that demonstrate values.
• No surprises. Line managers and staff members may need to be reminded not to save up the important discussions for their performance review meetings, but rather to deal with matters as they come up through the period. Although performance review meetings should have some formality, there is no harm in them being treated as opportunities to record or acknowledge previous informal discussions and meetings. After all, the entire performance management process is not intended to be extra management work, but rather a check that day-to-day management and implementation is following best practice.
So: five ideas that could help your line managers run more effective performance review meetings.
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
How HR teams can use the outcomes of performance management review meetings
When Oakwood trainers ask students about what they do with the outcomes of annual performance management review meetings – documents composed and signed by both line managers and staff or similar files produced on computers – the answer is often ‘Filed’. This can be why performance management sometimes feels like a waste of time, if all the work just ends up in a filing cabinet.
But how should these important documents be used? Firstly they need to drive decisions about individual rewards (salary increases, bonuses and incentives), individual learning and development plans, individual career plans, and, in extreme cases, discipline or capability actions. These decisions need to be made by line managers with the support of their HR business partners, and then recorded and acted upon.
Secondly, the documents need to be put together, analysed and evaluated en masse to:
• Update the organisation’s succession plan
• Review the organisation’s competency framework and job family structure
• Assess the effectiveness of last year’s learning and development programme(s)
• Create the coming year’s learning needs analysis (organisational and occupational level) and learning and development plans
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the current performance management process and make recommendations for future performance management training
• Compare and cross-check the work of different line managers to increase fairness and consistency
• Enable demand-side manpower planning
• Audit the effectiveness of organisational development (OD) initiatives such as matrix management, virtual teams, hot desking, flexible working (such as part-time, annual hours and flexi-time, job sharing, home and teleworking etc.)
• …
All of which demonstrates how powerful a tool performance management outcomes can be. The LAST thing we should be doing is simply filing them.
But how should these important documents be used? Firstly they need to drive decisions about individual rewards (salary increases, bonuses and incentives), individual learning and development plans, individual career plans, and, in extreme cases, discipline or capability actions. These decisions need to be made by line managers with the support of their HR business partners, and then recorded and acted upon.
Secondly, the documents need to be put together, analysed and evaluated en masse to:
• Update the organisation’s succession plan
• Review the organisation’s competency framework and job family structure
• Assess the effectiveness of last year’s learning and development programme(s)
• Create the coming year’s learning needs analysis (organisational and occupational level) and learning and development plans
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the current performance management process and make recommendations for future performance management training
• Compare and cross-check the work of different line managers to increase fairness and consistency
• Enable demand-side manpower planning
• Audit the effectiveness of organisational development (OD) initiatives such as matrix management, virtual teams, hot desking, flexible working (such as part-time, annual hours and flexi-time, job sharing, home and teleworking etc.)
• …
All of which demonstrates how powerful a tool performance management outcomes can be. The LAST thing we should be doing is simply filing them.
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Annual objectives are not secrets
In Oakwood we regularly hear about organisations where line managers, and sometimes Human Resources teams, complain that performance management (PM) is no more than a bureaucratic paper-pushing exercise. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of PM. After all, PM is really just…
• Making sure people understand what work they need to do and why they need to do it
• Checking that they are doing it to acceptable standards and taking action if standards drop
• Once it’s done, reviewing and evaluating the work to try and learn from it
… and that seems no more or less than good management.
So here is a simple change to operating practices that makes a big difference to the impact and effectiveness of PM. STOP MAKING INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIVES SECRET.
There is no reason for most PM objectives not to be made public knowledge within the organisation. Obviously, those that concern confidential information should not be disclosed to everyone, but such objectives are rare.
So rather than hiding people’s PM objectives in drawers or filing cabinets or computer files, let other employees see them. If space allows, have every person in the organisation write their own objectives on a white board close to their desk or workstation. Put them on the intranet. Put team, department and divisional objectives on noticeboards.
Doing so will have a number of benefits:
• Most people will put more care into the creation of objectives, knowing that they will be under public scrutiny
• The whole PM process will be policed better by the people involved with it
• Less-than-SMART objectives will be spotted and revised
• Ambiguities, repetitions and gaps in coverage will become obvious
• Different people’s objectives will become more consistent
• Understanding of other people’s jobs will improve
• ‘Silo mentalities’ will become less common
If people also record their performance beside their objectives, even more benefits will accrue:
• Good work will be spotted and reinforced more easily
• Shortfalls and problems will be more noticeable and so hopefully easier to solve
• People will be able to ‘horse trade’: offering help with others’ objectives if their own are furthered
Go on. Try it!
• Making sure people understand what work they need to do and why they need to do it
• Checking that they are doing it to acceptable standards and taking action if standards drop
• Once it’s done, reviewing and evaluating the work to try and learn from it
… and that seems no more or less than good management.
So here is a simple change to operating practices that makes a big difference to the impact and effectiveness of PM. STOP MAKING INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIVES SECRET.
There is no reason for most PM objectives not to be made public knowledge within the organisation. Obviously, those that concern confidential information should not be disclosed to everyone, but such objectives are rare.
So rather than hiding people’s PM objectives in drawers or filing cabinets or computer files, let other employees see them. If space allows, have every person in the organisation write their own objectives on a white board close to their desk or workstation. Put them on the intranet. Put team, department and divisional objectives on noticeboards.
Doing so will have a number of benefits:
• Most people will put more care into the creation of objectives, knowing that they will be under public scrutiny
• The whole PM process will be policed better by the people involved with it
• Less-than-SMART objectives will be spotted and revised
• Ambiguities, repetitions and gaps in coverage will become obvious
• Different people’s objectives will become more consistent
• Understanding of other people’s jobs will improve
• ‘Silo mentalities’ will become less common
If people also record their performance beside their objectives, even more benefits will accrue:
• Good work will be spotted and reinforced more easily
• Shortfalls and problems will be more noticeable and so hopefully easier to solve
• People will be able to ‘horse trade’: offering help with others’ objectives if their own are furthered
Go on. Try it!
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
The timing of performance management/review/appraisal meetings
For the next few weeks, we'll be looking at performance management isues. First, when do the review or appraisal meetings happen?
Many organisations still combine within a single annual meeting the opportunity for line managers and staff members to evaluate the previous year’s performance and set the next year's objectives, goals or targets. In a typical company year – starting on 1 January and ending 31 December – this means that such a single annual meeting usually happens late in December or early in January, and occasionally slips to mid-Quarter 1 or even later.
In some organisations this meeting lacks focus due to other business priorities and, as the review is intended to look at the whole of the last 12 months it often feels rushed, and the goal setting often feels much too late. Additionally with only one annual performance review, how many of us can remember what we did 3 months ago, far less 9 or 12 months ago?
But it needn’t be like this. CIPD best practice guidelines suggest that there should be at least quarterly one-to-one review meetings between staff and their line managers. The schedule might look like this:
January: summative* review of the previous year’s performance against objectives
April: formative* review of current performance against objectives for this year Q1
July: formative review of current performance against objectives for this year Q2
October: formative review of current performance against objectives for this year Q3 AND make a start in creating next year’s objectives
Convincing line managers and staff to hold four performance management meetings a year rather than one will be easier once they realise that the four meetings can be much shorter and simpler. They give managers and staff members the opportunity to re-focus their attention so they can alter, change or even re-set the objectives for the coming period. By getting staff members to bring along evidence of their performance, which then becomes the main topic for discussion, there can be greater buy-in to future achievement.
* Summative and formative as used here have precise meanings:
The summative meeting looks back over the entire year after it is completed and tries to learn from it. This meeting evaluates the original objectives, any changes made to objectives over the year, and the performance of the staff member in working toward those objectives. The point of this meeting is to ‘draw a line’ after the previous year and pass on data for other important HR processes, such as Learning Needs Analysis and the allocation of Rewards.
The formative meeting is rather different: it looks at current objectives and current performance and is intended to ‘steer’ current and ongoing work to maintain total focus on business objectives.
Many organisations still combine within a single annual meeting the opportunity for line managers and staff members to evaluate the previous year’s performance and set the next year's objectives, goals or targets. In a typical company year – starting on 1 January and ending 31 December – this means that such a single annual meeting usually happens late in December or early in January, and occasionally slips to mid-Quarter 1 or even later.
In some organisations this meeting lacks focus due to other business priorities and, as the review is intended to look at the whole of the last 12 months it often feels rushed, and the goal setting often feels much too late. Additionally with only one annual performance review, how many of us can remember what we did 3 months ago, far less 9 or 12 months ago?
But it needn’t be like this. CIPD best practice guidelines suggest that there should be at least quarterly one-to-one review meetings between staff and their line managers. The schedule might look like this:
January: summative* review of the previous year’s performance against objectives
April: formative* review of current performance against objectives for this year Q1
July: formative review of current performance against objectives for this year Q2
October: formative review of current performance against objectives for this year Q3 AND make a start in creating next year’s objectives
Convincing line managers and staff to hold four performance management meetings a year rather than one will be easier once they realise that the four meetings can be much shorter and simpler. They give managers and staff members the opportunity to re-focus their attention so they can alter, change or even re-set the objectives for the coming period. By getting staff members to bring along evidence of their performance, which then becomes the main topic for discussion, there can be greater buy-in to future achievement.
* Summative and formative as used here have precise meanings:
The summative meeting looks back over the entire year after it is completed and tries to learn from it. This meeting evaluates the original objectives, any changes made to objectives over the year, and the performance of the staff member in working toward those objectives. The point of this meeting is to ‘draw a line’ after the previous year and pass on data for other important HR processes, such as Learning Needs Analysis and the allocation of Rewards.
The formative meeting is rather different: it looks at current objectives and current performance and is intended to ‘steer’ current and ongoing work to maintain total focus on business objectives.
Monday, 10 January 2011
Useful ideas from psychometrics (first of an occasional series)
When we describe a person (in situations like recruitment or development discussions, but also anywhere, really) we often use phrases like ‘she’s confident’ or ‘he’s extravert’ as if they were absolutes, when we are really comparing the person with something. Trouble is, we don’t always specify or even know what, if anything, we are comparing the person with.
So here are a few concepts from the world of psychometrics that could help us clarify our thinking: criterion-referenced vs. norm-referenced vs. ipsative comparisons.
In criterion-referenced comparison we are comparing particular qualities of a person to an objective external measure: ‘his approach to health and safety in the workplace was exactly in line with the organizational policy’.
In norm-referenced comparison we are comparing the person to a (specific) group of other people: ‘she was the most systematic of a pretty well-organised group.’
It can be useful to make both criterion- and norm-referenced comparisons: ‘although he met the necessary requirements for this competency as listed in the person specification, he was judged the poorest of all the candidates in this area’ or ‘she did not meet our minimum standards, but she was the best of the available applicants’.
Finally, ipsative comparisons compare different qualities within a single individual. For example ‘his personal drive for success outweighs his introversion’.
If we put all three types of comparison together we can make very rich descriptions of people: ‘although decision making is probably the least of his talents, and did not meet the high levels of ability shown by his peers, it still exceeds the minimal standards we have set for this role.’
So: you and your managers can experiment with enriching the way they describe people in your organisation by using some ideas from psychometrics. Pass it on!
So here are a few concepts from the world of psychometrics that could help us clarify our thinking: criterion-referenced vs. norm-referenced vs. ipsative comparisons.
In criterion-referenced comparison we are comparing particular qualities of a person to an objective external measure: ‘his approach to health and safety in the workplace was exactly in line with the organizational policy’.
In norm-referenced comparison we are comparing the person to a (specific) group of other people: ‘she was the most systematic of a pretty well-organised group.’
It can be useful to make both criterion- and norm-referenced comparisons: ‘although he met the necessary requirements for this competency as listed in the person specification, he was judged the poorest of all the candidates in this area’ or ‘she did not meet our minimum standards, but she was the best of the available applicants’.
Finally, ipsative comparisons compare different qualities within a single individual. For example ‘his personal drive for success outweighs his introversion’.
If we put all three types of comparison together we can make very rich descriptions of people: ‘although decision making is probably the least of his talents, and did not meet the high levels of ability shown by his peers, it still exceeds the minimal standards we have set for this role.’
So: you and your managers can experiment with enriching the way they describe people in your organisation by using some ideas from psychometrics. Pass it on!
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
Social networking applications and websites
Many organisations ban or block their employees’ access to and use of social networking websites like Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn in order to reduce security risks or stop the employees ‘wasting company time’. But have you thought about a different approach: allowing – even encouraging – such access but MANAGING the process through effective planning and goal setting, monitoring and measurement, assessment and evaluation. After all, many of your (younger?) employees are already spending time on social networking sites every day, so why not nudge them into using them to the benefit of the organisation?
For example, a new application called Ning allows users – individuals or organisations – to set up their own ‘private’ social networks. So you could have an internal organisational social network, working like LinkedIn or Facebook, which only your staff would have access to. Train your people in what to do then let them loose, sending private person-to-person messages, and posting less confidential messages to others’ walls, with linked attachments. Automatically, the software will tell their friends and contacts what they are doing in a similar way to how they half-hear other employees’ telephone conversations in an open-plan workplace. At a stroke, some of the need for monthly reporting could just fade away.
If you are braver, you could enable the use of Facebook and LinkedIn by workers. Just make sure you train them how to set their security at maximum: vital with the increasing risk of identity theft. And make sure there’s a shared understanding of what is meant by ‘Commercial in Confidence’ and ‘Personnel in Confidence’. You may even need a new policy on this.
Twitter’s a bit different of course. It’s best thought of as a mini Blog, broadcasting to anyone who’ll listen. But Twitter also allows some levels of security. And many of the best and most interesting Twits are already Twittering in, from and about their work.
So, you don’t have to automatically ban new technologies in work. You can research them, trial them and MANAGE them!
For example, a new application called Ning allows users – individuals or organisations – to set up their own ‘private’ social networks. So you could have an internal organisational social network, working like LinkedIn or Facebook, which only your staff would have access to. Train your people in what to do then let them loose, sending private person-to-person messages, and posting less confidential messages to others’ walls, with linked attachments. Automatically, the software will tell their friends and contacts what they are doing in a similar way to how they half-hear other employees’ telephone conversations in an open-plan workplace. At a stroke, some of the need for monthly reporting could just fade away.
If you are braver, you could enable the use of Facebook and LinkedIn by workers. Just make sure you train them how to set their security at maximum: vital with the increasing risk of identity theft. And make sure there’s a shared understanding of what is meant by ‘Commercial in Confidence’ and ‘Personnel in Confidence’. You may even need a new policy on this.
Twitter’s a bit different of course. It’s best thought of as a mini Blog, broadcasting to anyone who’ll listen. But Twitter also allows some levels of security. And many of the best and most interesting Twits are already Twittering in, from and about their work.
So, you don’t have to automatically ban new technologies in work. You can research them, trial them and MANAGE them!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)