Posted by Jason Averbook Feb 1, 2012
Since I have the opportunity to be in this lovely country keynoting a great global conference this morning, I thought I would share my thoughts on this topic via video.
I wish all could be here and experience the energy, passion and excitement of global HR leaders around the future of our craft. It is time to “think different” and I hope you are as excited as I am about our future. Take a watch of the video (it is only 5 minutes of your day).
Posted by Jason Averbook Jan 30, 2012
I just read that SHRM recently reported that 60% of employers said they checked credit histories for some or all job applicants. The rationale in using credit histories in hiring decisions is that a bad history of paying bills can be a pretty good indicator of an employee’s reliability.
I thought… maybe in the past, but that’s not fair for those re-entering the workforce after what we’ve been through economically in the past few years. Surely, companies CAN’T be tying an applicant’s credit history to potential workplace performance in this climate.
And, in fact several states have recently passed laws restricting the use of credit reports as part of the hiring process. California has new laws that took effect in January, (similar to existing laws in Hawaii, Maryland, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, and Connecticut) that now limits when employers, except for financial institutions, can lawfully use consumer credit reports in hiring decisions.
Good, I thought. (Insert tirade about what really caused the economic crisis to begin with).
But then I found an article that was posted about 18 months ago (during the height of the Great Recession) by Voluntary Benefits Magazine that told of a ‘silent killer’ afflicting 30 million employees in the US—a quarter of the American workforce—and warned that it could be eating away at businesses up to $15,000 per year per affected employee.
In mid-2010, it was estimated that 70% of Americans were living paycheck to paycheck, creating a financial stress epidemic. This means…7 out of 10 employees, co-workers, and associates were only one paycheck away from disaster. It was not good.
The warning to businesses was that all of this financial stress was responsible for reduced employee productivity to the tune of about 20 hours-per-month-per-employee. That’s how much time on-the-job, the article said, a financially stressed employee spends distracted by their personal financial difficulty. Spending work hours with things like calls from creditors and banks, worrying about how paying the mortgage, medical bills, or college tuition, or driving across town to pay a bill to avoid a utility being shut-off.
According to the same study, 15% of American employees were said to be having financial problems at the time – and many have not fully recovered.
All of these distractions decreased the employee’s ability to concentrate, increased absenteeism, and created a flood of frequent personal phone calls. Not to mention HR department distractions, higher health care costs and the risk of fraud and/or theft.
Without question, financially-stressed employees were spending several hours per week on their employer’s dime, focused on their own bottom line, rather than doing productive work to enhance their company’s bottom line.
Two things come out of this for HR and people managers.
First, ignoring the financial problems of (new or established) employees will cost your organization in lost productivity. So, it’s not just a moral imperative to help employee who have fallen behind – it may be a financial necessity.
Second, there may be some value of using a candidate’s credit score. I don’ think it can tell us anything about an applicant’s ability to do the job, but it may be able to help manage risk and avoid potential bad hires as organizations once again ramp up staff. But then again…something about it seems unfair.
I would love to get your thoughts on this one. Please take a minute to add your voice below.
Loading ...
Another infusion of knowledge…
Posted by Jason Averbook Jan 26, 2012
In his most recent New York Times OP-ED piece, Thomas Friedman writes about the accelerated rate that new technology has consumed jobs, and warns that being an average worker just won’t cut it anymore. As Friedman notes, “In the past, workers with average skills, doing an average job, could earn an average lifestyle. But, today, average is officially over.”
Throughout history, there have always been new jobs, new technologies, and new things for employees to learn. However, today, each advance in technology and globalization means the best jobs keep requiring workers to have more – and better – education to be above average.
In a global economy where employers have so much more access to inexpensive automation, and above average talent, everyone needs to find what makes them stand out – their unique value.
Certainly, technology plays a big major role in widening the skill gap. No human can compete with computer in terms of speed, or an assembly line robot in terms of precision. But now, it looks like it’s not just the big-brain, or high speed jobs that technology can replace.
A start-up called “E la Carte” is out to eliminate the need for table servers: The company has produced a kind of souped-up iPad (called Presto) that lets you order and pay right at your table. When you’re done, your order is sent to the kitchen, and Presto tells you how long it will take for your food to come out. While you wait, you can play games (will your waiter do that?!), and when you’re through with your meal, you pay right on the console, however you want, and the receipt is emailed to you.
I don’t think we’re headed for The Jetsons just yet, but this ever-changing landscape has created a demand for new and specialized skills for which most businesses and academic institutions have not adequately prepared.
Organizations have become much more particular about whom they hire, and hiring managers with limited budgets have become risk averse and are more exacting when defining the types of skills and experiences they need to fill positions.
Yet, being more exact can create a dramatic misalignment in the skills organizations believe they need to execute, and the skills for which they are shopping. Often, this is because organizations simply do not have reliable data to inform decision makers on how to align workforce talent to deliver desired business outcomes, relying instead on instinct, or feeling. Not a strategy for long-term business planning.
Addressing this information gap should be a fundamental component of any organization’s talent management practices. Better visibility into the skills that are needed versus the gaps that exist will help organizations realize that this issue is less about trying to stave off advancements in technology and more about employee skill development to meet the changing demands of the business.
And if I were a waiter, I would give back rubs… Take that Presto!
Another infusion of knowledge…
Posted by Jason Averbook Jan 24, 2012
We’re not even through January and the number of articles, blogs, and conversations around HR becoming more strategic in 2012 is astounding. The good news is that this conversation continues to move from the talent management community into corporate boardrooms and HR departments. The bad news is… well, you know where I’m going…
Dr. John Sullivan over at ERE.net offers a great (in his words) “think-piece” on transforming HR into a revenue-impact function to increase strategic value. It’s a compelling notion – HR as a revenue generator. The article makes a convincing case, and offers many “low-hanging fruit” actions for those not ready to carry out an HR-wide coordinated “revenue impact strategy” to consider to impact revenue.
Near the end of the article, Sullivan proposes this question:
“If you are still skeptical about this strategy and approach, ask your CEO whether they would prefer that you hire great clerks versus great salespeople. Also ask them if they would prefer that HR excel at low hiring costs, hiring without fewer legal issues, or would they instead prefer you to hire innovators and individuals who can increase revenues by 10 to 20%?
And incidentally, if you like this strategy, you should also consider related HR strategies. Where instead of focusing on revenue, the strategy would focus on increasing quality, speed/agility, customer service or innovation throughout the organization as a result of HR actions.”
And there’s the rub. Considering a strategy and executing a strategy are miles apart. If you’re left saying, “Yea, that would be awesome! But I wouldn’t even know where to start…” you’re not alone.
We’ve at Knowledge Infusion have been doing quite a bit of thinking about how to help HR organizations get a jump-start on creating and driving a new HR and talent management strategies, and how to support those ideas with a business case that makes sense (and can be created in HR).
What should your HR strategy be?
That’s a question many fail to answer. Answering that question requires a change from a transactional, functional approach to an integrated HR and talent management strategy that aligns HR with corporate objectives, to meet the specific needs of the business and end users.
The other thing that is required is an understanding that the HR function will not be “excellent” at everything and that “performing” is OK. When is the last time a business line leader called the CEO and told them how well HR has done on producing paychecks? Guess what, the business couldn’t care less (as long as they get paid) where the payroll was done and by whom. Use your scarce resources to drive value and not on the functions that don’t provide a competitive advantage.
By gaining a deeper understanding of the intersection between the business goals and talent management goals, you can identify and articulate the actions and resources needed to change behavior and establish a working talent management strategy.
The next step is to communicate both the efficiency and effectiveness of HCM investments that can be derived through people, process, and technology changes within the enterprise – the HCM business case.
This requires a focus on not only identifying cost savings, but also defining the strategic value of talent management investments gauged by business – not HR – measures.
This will allow you to define executive, manager, employee, and IT value propositions, calculate total cost of ownership, identify risk, and establish critical measures of success, which become the foundation of the HCM business case.
Of course now I’m guilty of drive-by HR advice, but if you want to learn more about how Knowledge Infusion can jump-start your talent management strategy and help you rapidly develop your HCM business case, stay tuned… there’s lots more on the way.
Another infusion of knowledge…
Posted by Jason Averbook Jan 19, 2012
Great article today at HR Magazine in the UK, entitled, “Are HR Management Courses Preparing Students to be the People Strategy Stars of the Future?” I encourage you to read it.
We have long been poking around the idea that HR leaders must develop a strong business focus to be able to add value to their organizations. Bringing an understanding of finance, sales, marketing, ethics, operations, planning and people, plus a bit of entrepreneurship seems to be the formula for “getting a seat at the table.”
In the UK, at least, it appears that organizations may be giving up on teaching the old dogs new tricks, and instead opting for bringing in a new generation of business-savvy HR graduates.
And, it appears UK universities are responding to this trend. According to the article, there are 747 institutions in the UK offering HR management courses, and 149 universities offering postgraduate HR courses.
A senior business manager at a global recruitment firm says there has been a definite shift in HR graduates’ understanding of the necessity of adding wider business experience to academic achievements to progress their careers. He is quoted as saying, “Getting more aware of business will help HR Directors become more skilled at selling the benefits of the HR function, clever ways of measuring ROI and benefits, for example – ‘we have improved engagement, so attrition is down’ – and so on. In the past, they might have struggled to do this, but now HR Directors are much more savvy about how they represent themselves and HR.”
And one of the new-breed recent graduates is quoted as saying, “I feel I can now go confidently into organisations and know what I am talking about. I have got wider knowledge and know where HR sits in an organisation and where it can add value. I now want to get the opportunities to put it into practice.”
Sure, this bright-eyed, newcomer might be years away from her seat at the table, but the article is clear that those who have made it have acquired additional business expertise.
The director of the Centre for HR Excellence at Henley Business School, sums it up nicely.
The debate about whether or not HR should have a seat at the table is over. They should. The questions about what is necessary to get there have been answered. Wider understanding of business.
The only question that remains is who will occupy that seat. If the value of experience is trumped by business savvy, or current HR leaders continue to resist expanding their entrepreneurial skill set, the organization may just look to a new generation of replacements – even if they can’t provide leadership in the short term.
Another infusion of knowledge…
Posted by Jason Averbook Jan 18, 2012
We hear so much about the changing nature of today’s workforce, but the video below (kudos to Kronos) really brings it home.
We’ve got 4-5 generations working side by side, global access to talent that is as close as a Skype or IM session away, and incredible workforce mobility, even in a down economy.
And in case you were wondering… the relative high rate of unemployment over the past couple of years hasn’t even put a dent in the 35 million jobs that could go unfilled as baby boomers retire. Yes, the war for “skills” is still on – big time.
With an ever-increasing mobile, social, aging, and intimately connected workforce, Talent Management and all of workforce technology is taking center stage, and HR is being asked to lead the organization in understanding how this new world of work…works.
I have never been more excited about the future of Human Capital Management as the centerpiece of corporate strategy, and thrilled to be helping organizations realize their business objectives through their people, processes, and HR technology. But I also know we’ve got lots of work ahead.
Check out the video and let me know how YOU will manage…
Another infusion of knowledge…
Posted by Jason Averbook Jan 17, 2012
Courtesy Andy Rementer
Susan Cain, author of the forthcoming book “Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking,” wrote a great article that appeared in the New York Times over the weekend. You can read it here.
The gist of her piece is that “Groupthink” is not quite as beneficial as many organizations think it is. While teamwork and collaboration can be a fun and stimulating way to exchange ideas, real breakthroughs, (and real work), happen in quiet solitude – mostly by introverts who are not “joiners” by nature.
Cain says, “It’s one thing to associate with a group in which each member works autonomously on his piece of the puzzle; it’s another to be corralled into endless meetings or conference calls conducted in offices that afford no respite from the noise and gaze of co-workers.”
The article also addresses the now-requisite team/company/group brainstorming session in which participants often succumb to peer pressure, and instinctively mimic others’ opinions for fear of offering non-conforming ideas. Noting that brainstorming sessions are one of the worst possible ways to stimulate creativity as decades of research shows that individuals almost always outperform groups in both quality and quantity, and group performance gets worse as the size of the group increases.
The “evidence from science suggests that business people must be insane to use brainstorming groups,” wrote the organizational psychologist Adrian Furnham. “If you have talented and motivated people, they should be encouraged to work alone when creativity or efficiency is the highest priority.”
It is easy to understand that solitude is a catalyst to innovation and creativity because it allows one to concentrate on the challenge at hand, and block out the dozens, if not hundreds, of distractions that are now commonplace in today’s open-space, collaboration-happy work environment.
Yet, as common sense as that sounds, organizations still insist on getting everyone involved in the creative process – whether for an innovative, new product, or a simple business process re-design.
This article made me think that there is a difference between gaining stakeholder buy-in, and requiring stakeholder definition, of HR – or any other – company ideas. Company leaders might want to see if “Groupthink” is stifling creativity in other areas of the business, but let’s you and I focus on HR for a minute.
Now is the time for HR to be bold. To lead. To be unafraid of proposing solutions dreamed up in HR. This means looking for ways to provide your best HR thinkers with some cover from the endless distractions, meetings, and conference calls, and trust that they will think of what needs to be thought of.
Now, you may ask, what about HR Governance and Governance meetings. These meetings should not be “Groupthink” but “Groupalign”, a big difference and one that slows down many organizations. Take your ideas, build execution plans, align and inform and show the results. The best organizations and teams in the world have this down, too much thinking and collaborating, nothing at end of game.
Of course, buy-in is critical for widespread adoption and long-term success, and collaboration can uncover hidden roadblocks or unseen “gotchas,” but if your Talent Strategy is linked directly to your Corporate Strategy (business outcomes), you’ll know exactly what to do to ensure HR solutions meet the objectives of the business.
And if you haven’t established that link, Knowledge Infusion can help. This is an area that I’m truly passionate about, so don’t hesitate to drop me a line.
As many authors do, Susan Cain uses Apple founder Steve Wozniak as an example of what quite solitude can produce.
“Before Mr. Wozniak started Apple, he designed calculators at Hewlett-Packard, a job he loved partly because HP made it easy to chat with his colleagues. Every day at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., management wheeled in doughnuts and coffee, and people could socialize and swap ideas. What distinguished these interactions was how low-key they were. For Mr. Wozniak, collaboration meant the ability to share a doughnut and a brain wave with his laid-back, poorly dressed colleagues — who minded not a whit when he disappeared into his cubicle to get the real work done.”
Another infusion of knowledge…
Posted by Jason Averbook Jan 12, 2012
As part of the Knowledge Infuser blog, we are DYING to hear from you on topics and get feedback, therefore we are looking to add polling capabilities. The question is, “WILL YOU VOTE?”
The way to make our community better is through collaboration. We have over 500 readers of blogs here daily, therefore should get a good response if we vow to respond.
I am asking beforehand, will you collaborate here? I want us to interact and grow together. Let me know, VOTE BELOW!
Loading ...Another infusion of knowledge…
Posted by Jason Averbook Jan 11, 2012
According to Forbes, December’s employment numbers outpaced analyst expectations, and showed the U.S. economy added another 200,000 jobs – the latest signal that a sluggish economic recovery is finding its legs.
Many suggest these kinds of gains may be causing the C-Suite to begin once again to pay attention to talent retention. And it’s not because executives recognize the need to show some loyalty to those who have been “doing more will less,” all these months.
There prevailing attitude during the economic downturn was that corporate is king, companies must do more with less, and a post-layoff workforce just needs to deal with it (and be happy to have a job).
But now, some are warning that if the C-Suite ignores this kind of improving employment data, they might be dethroned in an employee rebellion.
In many organizations, profits may be high, but growth has stalled as companies continue to use fewer workers to try to meet ambitious growth plans. The consequences of this 24/7 stress on the workforce? Lower productivity, less engagement, and top talent beginning to flee to the nearest competitor.
Kellner has come up with an interesting metric to prove his theory that employees are gaining more confidence that they can find a job elsewhere: The “quit rate.”
He was recently quoted as saying, “The rising quit rate may be the first sign that the balance of power is changing in corporate America between the executives and the underlings” he adds, “The grandiose plans that the corner office has in terms of creativity might have reached a limit.”
If this is true, organizations may once again be looking for incentives to rescue it from top performers from jumping ship. Fringe benefits like work-life balance initiatives, re-training programs, career development, and wellness programs (like stress-reduction), are already on the radar of many progressive companies. CEO’s in these organizations are being coached to call for new “wellness” programs to deal with a stressed-out workforce.
OK Talent Leaders, this is your cue! Get in there and save an already burned-out, stressed-out, maxed-out workforce from foosball in the break room and Free Pizza Fridays. Sure, some perks would be nice after cutting everything to the bone for so long, but we know better this time around.
We know that engaged employees outperform their average counterparts 10 to 1, and we’ve learned what really engages them, right?
Here’s something I’ve come to understand in running my company. Employees who are afraid of losing their jobs only work hard enough to keep them. They aren’t the engaged, superstars who break down barriers to drive the organization forward. This type of employee would quit in a heartbeat (and have no fear of landing another job) if they didn’t feel their work was appreciated and valued. And, while extras make work more enjoyable, no one every stayed with me through long hours, or endured a tough winter travel schedule to make sure client’s got our best, because of free coffee. They do it because they are fully aware, and often told, that they make a difference.
We have a new understanding and appreciation in Talent Management for the power of showing employees how their contributions impact the success of the company. We now know that engagement is a product of connecting people to a bigger meaning, a vision of what we’re striving to be, and showing them how they fit in.
In 2012, your “quit rate” may start rising. Many employees have become frustrated over the past couple of years, and in some cases, rightly so. January is often the time many organizations begin setting goals and performance expectations for the year ahead.
Take time this year to show your appreciation for those who have worked long hours, taken on dual roles, picked up the slack, and did “more with less” by showing them how those contributions have moved the organization forward.
Then pay them back by clearly linking this year’s goals to the success of your business, and reward them by showing exactly how their everyday contributions are so important to the next phase of company growth and success.
Go ahead and encourage the CEO to drop for the foosball table if you think it will raise spirits, and don’t pinch on the coffee or a round of bagels every once in a while – people love that.
But the time is NOW for Talent Management to come to the rescue of a weary workforce. Are you up for it?
Another infusion of knowledge…
Posted by Jason Averbook Jan 9, 2012
I read an interesting post from Liz Straus where she talks about the history and evolution of social media. What I found interesting was her take on the future of social media when used by companies.
“Social media doesn’t grow a business. Strategy and service does. Great and growing companies know what business they’re in and how to take care of the people who help their business grow. Facts are that … social tools are important in the way that computers, telephones, and pencils are, but business grows the way it always did.”
She goes on recognize that companies that deliver great service continue to bring on new customers and grow whether they’re on Twitter or not. She wraps up her post suggesting that organizations do the following test before implementing the next social media “thing:”
In any sentence that uses the term “social media,” you should be able take out that term and replace it with “telephone,” and the sentence should still make sense. She says, “If you want to predict where social media implementation is going in the next two years, do the ‘sentence test.’”
As I see it, the test isn’t to determine whether or not any given social media strategy or technology might work on some level, but rather to prove the long-term viability of the dozens of new tools thrown at us each day.
The idea of using the telephone as the yardstick is simple. The telephone – while once believed to have little business value – has, without question, allowed us to become closer to our customers, no matter what the physical distance.
The bottom line question is… Does your social media strategy bring you closer to your customer, or keep them at arm’s length?
Shouldn’t we use the same test in HR? Let me try… We are planning to use social media to improve our candidate experience.
As we continue to push for wider adoption of social media in HR and Talent Management and build these tools into our HR technology strategy, we need to be careful not to keep our “customers” at arm’s length and understand that no matter how convenient, or expeditious a tool might be… If it doesn’t do what we could do by picking up the phone and having a conversation, it probably won’t last.
Another infusion of knowledge…