Archive for March, 2009
Talent Management – Which Module Should We Deploy First? Learning Management
Posted by: grandma in Employee Development, Goals, Succession Planning, Talent Management on March 31st, 2009
Talent Management integration is natural between the primary modules. When companies look to deploy a talent management solution they often struggle with how to map out a technology strategy. There are a couple of good firms that can help companies with projects like this (HRchitect and Knowledge Infusion to name two). Software firms like SumTotal, which is the highest rated Learning Management vendor, have built their company around “Talent Development”. Learning Management has been around at least 15 years and is the most mature module in the talent suite. It is the first module you should deploy. On the opposite end, Succession Planning is the last module that should go live because so many inputs are required for a sound succession plan – many of those inputs come from the Learning function.
Most companies have training programs already for their employees. Learning Activities need to be tied to a development plan; the association of these activities needs to be in place to execute the training. Your company should do development planning during the goal setting process. Development goals can be created alongside with work goals. It is a great time for your manager to convey a growth mindset and that they are amenable to pushing their employee to train. Tacit permission is needed so the employee can feel comfortable diverting from their job activities.
Learning Management is also the primer for Workforce and Succession Planning. Any company that plans its people around business initiatives will need to train its people. Any company that plans for succession and leadership development will need its people to acquire new skills.
The last, and most important reason, is that the return on investment for Learning is the greatest and most provable for all the talent modules. I hear a lot of CEO’s on analyst calls claim to develop and train their people – often these are hollow statements. If your company spends greater than 4.0% of payroll on learning and development, you know that this isn’t lip service.
Unions, EFCA and Company Performance – Part 2
Posted by: grandma in Compensation, Employee Engagement, Goals, Performance Management, Talent Management on March 27th, 2009
One fundamental issue with anniversary or focal performance reviews is how often the frequency of behaviors are measured. For unions, the frequency of measurement should naturally go way up, but for the wrong reasons. These measurements will tend to reflect whatever negative behavior occurred. There is less incentive for the manager to reward good behavior because he/she can’t – that particular employee gets lumped into a group where discretionary effort is not rewarded properly. So how do companies improve performance in a union environment without a proper reward system?
Here are 3 techniques that managers in union environments can utilize to improve performance in their work group:
1. Aligned Goals
2. Grandma’s Law
3. Reward Point System
Aligned goals are one way to unite unionized workgroups. Missions of both the union and the employees should be the same. These goals elements should be the primary leverage points in an employment contract. Always ask how union demands align with the goals and the core values of the company. If they don’t, the demand is a non-sequitor. Aligned goals will make the employee feel their activities are part of the overall strategy. They also erase the divide between the competing interest of management and unions.
Managers can use techniques like Grandma’s Law to influence behavior. Watch what activities your employees do when given a choice. Make those activities contingent upon the completion of tasks that are necessary for their position. Aubrey Daniels has some great examples of this in his book on performance management. You will find that production will go way up when an employee knows they have to complete Task A in order to move on to the more enjoyable Task B.
Utilize a point system versus monetary incentives – some would argue that point systems do way more to shape behavior than any other reinforcer. Money tends to be a reward for something but generally isn’t a reinforcer of behavior. Earning points for many people is a badge of honor. Look no further than an airline point system – anyone that has flown over a million miles on American has bragged about it. There are several companies that offer merchandise and experiences based on a point system – it is also easy to create your own but be sure you have the individual in mind when doing so.
Josh McDaniels epitomizes Fixed Mindset
Posted by: grandma in Employee Development, Employee Engagement, Leadership, Talent Management on March 18th, 2009
Fixed Mindset case Number 1: Yoga
“Today somebody came into my office and asked me about a yoga instructor helping the players. I never thought I’d be talking about yoga. I don’t know anything about yoga.” -Josh McDaniels – Denver Post 1/25/2009
When asked about Yoga and other items 2 weeks later: “The football part of it has been pretty much what I thought it would be,” McDaniels said. ”Some of the decisions you make on a daily basis, on non-football issues, have been a little surprising. The color of paint on your walls. Whether to do yoga. I’ve never really had the opportunity to decide things like that.” Asked what he decided on yoga, McDaniels said he said no, even though his mother, Chris, enjoys it. ”There’s not a lot of teams in the league that were doing that,” he said. ”I’m not sure you have to do that to be successful.” – this means the Patriots didn’t do it…
• Yoga helped Jordan Farmar with his 42” vertical in the NBA combine
• Yoga helped Kareem Abdul-Jabaar play well into his 40’s
• Your future perennially all-pro left tackle, Ryan Clady does yoga
Fixed Mindset case number 2: Mike Leach
Mike Leach was the long-snapper for the Denver Broncos since 2002. The first signing that Josh McDaniels in the off-season was to sign Lonnie Paxton making him the 2nd highest paid long snapper at 5.3 million in the NFL shelling out 1 million in a signing bonus.
So what was so wrong with Leach that Josh McDaniels needed to bring in Lonnie Paxton? Did he muff some snaps? Did he send the ball over the punter’s head? Did he throw it too hard so the holder couldn’t place it for the kicker?
Let’s look at Mike Leach’s numbers:
40 extra points – any blocks, muffs?
34 field goals – any blocks, muffs?
46 Punts – any blocks, muffs?
None.
None.
And None.
What was so great about Lonnie? He was a Patriot.
Fixed Mindset Case Number 3 – Jay Cutler – Managing your “A” Player
You are a high-performing individual contributor and you were just notified that your new boss starts today. You didn’t anticipate the change because you thought your manager was solid. You are the star of your manager’s team. You know your skills are marketable and there are several competitors that would love to have you. You get a call from a head-hunter that you know and you find out that your new manager is trying to replace you with one of “his guys” from his old firm. You haven’t had a single conversation with this new manager so how can he assess your skills and assume “his guy” is better than you? Lo and behold, “his guy” went to another company with a better offer. You approach your new manager about this and he denies it; you have the evidence that proves otherwise.
How would this make you feel about your long-term prospects at the firm?
Could you put your full faith in your new manager?
Is this good management?
There isn’t much difference between a player and a coach in the business world:
• The manager/employee relationship is predicated on trust
• You still have a hierarchy – Head Coach, Position Coach, Player
• You have mutual goals – To win the division, to get home field advantage, to win the SuperBowl
• A good manager knows you perform better when you are engaged – The most successful quarterbacks have had a great quarterbacks coach
• A good manager helps develop your skills
• A good manager wants you to be more successful than him
The number one reason why someone leaves a company is the relationship with their manager. If you are not hired by your manager, your performance rating will generally be lower. This is a proven correlation.
If Josh McDaniels were in the business world, he should be fired for incompetence at the manager level. Pat Bowlen should seriously make this consideration.
Unions , EFCA, and Company Performance – Part 1
Posted by: grandma in Goals, Performance Management, Talent Management on March 15th, 2009
Last week marked the first debate on the polarizing bill, Employee Free Choice Act or EFCA. This bill basically makes it easier for employees to unionize. If it passes, America will likely see a surge in the number of unions. Unions counter many of the benefits that a best practices talent management system would provide. One of those benefits is the increase in performance from an aligned goal-setting and performance process. Unions normalize high performers and hide the dead wood in organizations. Poor performers are rewarded just the same as high-performers. Unions are the antecedent that makes management behave antagonistically. There is one major reason to have a performance management system in a union environment: compliance.
Performance Management for compliance is one business reason that companies should conduct performance reviews. Having this system will mitigate the risk of a lawsuit for wrongful termination. Companies that don’t conduct these reviews are at a steep disadvantage if they cannot track poor performance or incidents of insubordination. This isn’t a great reason to ramp this up because you are basically buying a performance system to reduce your insurance premium.
Here are two recent cases for wrongful termination where the judgment against the company was greater than $100,000.
1) Former County Health Clerk
2) Former Recreation Manager
This would easily justify the cost of an automated performance management solution.
Make Your Goals “Attainable”
Posted by: grandma in Goals, Performance Management on March 8th, 2009
The acronym SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-Base) is pretty handy when creating goals. To me, realistic and attainable are interoperable. The “A” and the “R” are basically the same thing. SMART sounds better than SMAT so I propose we can change the “R” to “Rewarded”. The instrumentality of the goal should be built into the goal – “If I do this, what will I receive in return?” (see Grandma’s Law) The biggest mistake you can make when setting goals is to make them unattainable. The best mistake that you can make is to set goals too low. Here is a great article touting this practice. Setting a goal too high will actually decrease performance because the end is too far in sight. This is tantamount to a “stretch goal”. It indicates that there is discretionary effort to obtain the goal. A manager will want to get the best effort out of his or her employees – do they really want them to hold something back?
There has been a lot of press lately about the downside of goals. Here is a recent Harvard Business Review article titled “Goals Gone Wild”. The major item that the author failed to address is the root cause of a poorly designed goal setting process. Organizations as a whole don’t do a good job of this. Goal-setting should be embedded in a company culture and how to set goals should be required learning activity by all employees. Too often, required learning centers on compliance versus development.