Learning vs Training

I had lunch with a good friend today who is a consultant focused on leadership and development. We had a great conversation about business, the dynamics of organizations, what they want vs what is finally delivered,  development systems, mentoring, and competencies. At one point when he was talking about training he corrected himself and said learning instead. Well, that was a great time for me to chime in and mention a person I hired in 1994 to be the Director of Training & Development. In the interview process he corrected me by saying don't call it training, call it "learning". That has stuck with me since that time. My luncheon partner also agreed that the correct term in learning not training and that there is a negative connotation to the term. 

Well, I agree 100% and I hope you do as well. 

5 HR Metric Pitfalls to Avoid










Over the last few years, I have seen many dashboards, scorecards and metrics from a wide range of companies. The lessons learned leading up to a dashboard are so valuable. So for those of you that are just starting your metrics journey, I have a list of 5 pitfalls that if avoided can make your journey a lot more successful.

1) TOO Many Metrics
2) Ignoring your metrics
3) Measuring the WRONG things
4) Metrics that are not understandable by Joe Manager
5) No accountability

Let's briefly take a look at these...

Too many metrics: I never will forget asking a HR VP to see her metrics last summer. She in turn handed me an Excel workbook with almost 500 measures. Who can focus on 500 measures at a time? I asked who received these metrics and she told me they went to the Executive team, but they never did anything with them. Shocker! LESSON LEARNED: Make sure your metrics are reasonable in number and are tied to organizational strategy (closely related to point 3 above). I get asked all the time what is the right number of metrics? I don't know that answer as it depends on industry, strategy, organization size, etc. I know it's not 500 no matter how big you are!

Ignoring your metrics: I can remember another instance when asking about metrics and the HR VP told me she wasn't sure why they kept measuring as no one did anything with the data. Getting the right measures is just HALF the battle. Making sure ACTION is taken on the results is the other half of the battle. It is all well and good that you have a nice, new dashboard, but if no one cares or takes any action, that effort is all in vein. How can you get management engaged? LESSON LEARNED: Show them WIIFM. If they know how those metrics DIRECTLY impact their department and/or their goals and objectives, then a crazy thing happens...managers will pay attention. And if you hold them accountable...they HAVE to pay attention. (see point 5)

Measuring the wrong things: This pitfall is the most frequently occurring. I see this time and time again. An HR professional understands the need for metrics and/or the CEO has asked for them. The HR person then googles HR metrics and picks out some that "look good." Bad process. You must start at your organizational strategy and work your way down from there. If metrics are not linked to where the organization is going....then you may as well measure nothing. Sure, you have tracking measures like time to fill and cost per hire, but those are linked to HR efficiency that has a link to financial performance, which is a part of any strategy. But understanding how a company's human capital is contributing to goal attainment is critical. LESSON LEARNED: Use a strategy mapping process to ensure you are measuring what matters.

Metrics that are not understandable by Joe Manager: Many times we are so involved in our own data that we forget that it needs to be "consumed" by others. In the HR arena, that usually is line management. For managers to take action on things like turnover or engagement, they need to actually be able to understand the data. Distributing huge reports with tables and rows of data is not an effective way to communicate with managers. LESSON LEARNED: Use the KISS and Killer Slide concepts. Keep data simple by using color and pictures. Keep the "big aha" to 1-2 slides, showing impact rather than just data.

No accountability: This one makes me crazy. If you don't hold people accountable for actions, then guess what... nothing happens. It is just like when I was a little girl and was told don't leave your yard. That was all I was told. So, what did I do...bolt every time. Had I been told, if you leave the yard, "you will get the biggest spanking ever," that might have had a bearing on my decision. Seriously, if we tell managers to reduce turnover and increase engagement but don't back that up with rewards and recognition, do you think they will work hard at doing those things? LESSON LEARNED: Make sure metrics are linked to your performance management and rewards and recognition programs.

What other pitfalls have you encountered in your experience? There are others....I just wanted to start the conversation...do tell!!!

HR Outsourcing

One of the major issues facing HR organizations today is how much should a company outsource. Many large firms have outsourced their HR departments to save money and to expedite services. Deloitte recently prepared a study on trends in the industry and what decisions drive outsourcing.

Here are some issues that are driving these changes. Things are changing on the supplier side:
•Continued provider consolidation
•New providers are entering the marketplace
•More provider-to-provider relationships are being formed
•Providers are scaling back their solutions to focus on what they do well
•Continued addition of value-added and judgment-based services (i.e., workforce analytics, global mobility, and employee relations)
•Increased use of off-shore, lift, and shift-based services
•Integration services that cross-process areas, such as reporting are becoming more prevalent
•More flexibility in number of services/processes included as part of an HRO deal
•Increased use of platform-based solutions (Software as a Service or others)
•More comprehensive, integrated product suites
•Ability for buyers to negotiate more exit rights into the contracts
•Contracts are including higher fees ―at risk‖ and higher liability limits
•Greater emphasis on continuous improvement built into the contract
•Flexibility on establishing more meaningful Service Level Agreements up front

Have you looked at your organization to determine what should or should not be outsourced from HR.?

Common Sense Management

I had a great discussion with a person that I mentored 30 years ago and who is now a SVP of HR. I guess I was a good mentor in his early HR career. Our discussion was centered around common sense and how managers at times do not exercise common sense in managing their people or projects. Why is that? Well, I guess the stress of producing and balancing work causes some of it but I think there is a deeper issue. Intelligence in knowing what is right and linking that with doing what is right. 


My friend and I cited many example of how managers we have known, who were good mind you, went off and did some of the stupidest things, made bad decisions and then we had to go in and clean up the mess and solve the issues those decisions made. 


We also agreed that if it were not for some of these managers who blew it our companies would not need our resources. Well not to that extreme but close to it. I would like to identify a couple of key factors that drive the best managers at times to make bad decisions:

  • home & family issues and/or personal factors; 
  • pressure from upper management to produce and not a lot of time to think out the issue;
  • employees pushing the manager to extremes;
  • and not having the emotional intelligence to deal with decisions.
Those are just a few of my thoughts. I would like to hear what you think are some factors that drive good managers to stray.  

Don't Ignore Your Engagement Data




















I have just returned from another HR Metrics Summit hosted by ASMI. I had the pleasure to present on the topic of "Using Data to Make the Right HR Investments." This is the second time I have made that presentation and the second time I was asked a question regarding employee engagement and the confidentiality of engagement data.

How can you use employee engagement data when you have said it is confidential/anonymous?

We all know that engagement data is not anonymous due to technology but we do assure our employees that the data is confidential. We tell employees that comments and individual scores will not be revealed. And I agree this is a good best practice. I also think if you have a department or business unit that has less than 10 people, you need to aggregate those scores up to the next level as confidentiality is hard to protect when you have a small report-out group.

With all that said that does not mean you can't use the engagement data while conducting other meaningful HR analytics. I am suggesting using the data along with other variables to determine valuable insights for your organization. Here are just a few examples of how engagement data can be used:

1) Analyze your engagement data, our performance data and your turnover data to understand who is leaving in your organization. Is it your highly performing and highly engaged employees? If so, what are you going to do about that?

2) Analyze your engagement data and performance data along with quality of hire data to "predict" a profile of a successful candidate for your organization.

3) Analyze your customer satisfaction data and your employee engagement data to understand what drives customer and employee engagement so that you can replicate that experience over and over.

I am not suggesting using individual scores or comments, but using the data in a different, very meaningful way.

You have the data, you are not breaching any trust issues by using that data to make better decisions and solve business issues. You have probably paid a lot of money for the data, so get your money's worth and use it!

What are your opinions on engagement data? Use it? Shelf it?

Working Remotely Alleviates More Stress Than It Creates

Employees who spend most of their working week as telecommuters have greater job satisfaction than people who are primarily office workers, according to a study from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM).

Kathryn Fonner and Michael compared the advantages and disadvantages of the two work arrangements and found the main benefit of teleworking for at least three days a week to be decreased work-life conflict. While poor workplace communication is often cited as the biggest disadvantage of telework, respondents reported this as being of minimal importance and, although they exchanged information with others less frequently than office-based workers, they reported similar timely access to important work-related information.

According to Kathryn Fother the results of the study suggest multiple reasons why high job satisfaction and teleworking are linked. Specifically, remote working tends to shield employees from distracting and stressful aspects of the workplace, including office politics, interruptions, endless meetings and information overload.

"Our findings emphasize the advantages of restricted face-to-face interaction, and also highlight the need for organizations to identify and address the problematic and unsatisfying issues inherent in collocated work environments," said Fonner. "With lower stress and fewer distractions, employees can prevent work from seeping into their personal lives."
Kathryn Fonner added that, as well as introducing teleworking, organizations can consider a number of other strategies to increase job satisfaction including:
  • Limiting meetings and mass emails
  • Streamlining communication by creating an accessible repository of information
  • Designating times and spaces for office-based employees to work uninterrupted
  • 'Creating a supportive climate where employees can register concerns without fear of retaliation'
  • Encouraging employees to disconnect themselves from work communication when their day is finished
The study is reported in the November 2010 issue of the Journal of Applied Communication Research

Previous Article - Who Telecommutes?

Rising gas prices have resulted in many professionals considering telecommuting as an economical work option, but spending too much time working from home can mean saying goodbye to the corner office.
Surveys developed in 2006 by OfficeTeam, a leading staffing service specializing in placement of administrative professionals, were conducted by an independent research firm and include responses from 100 senior executives in Canada and 150 in the USA.

They found 32 per cent of Canadian respondents and 43 per cent of US respondents said telecommuting is best suited for staff-level employees, compared with 28 per cent and 18 per cent respectively who felt telecommuting is most beneficial for managers. In addition, more than half of Canadian respondents and more than two-thirds of US respondents said senior executives at their firms rarely or never telecommute.

When asked, 'At which level do you think telecommuting programs are most beneficial?' participants responded:
Level
Staff
Manager
Executive
Administrative support
Don't know/no answer
Canada (%)
32
28
16
15
 9
USA (%)
43
18
14
11
14

When asked, 'Overall, how frequently do senior executives at your firm telecommute?' participants responded:
Frequency
Very frequently
Somewhat frequently
Rarely
Never
Don't know/no answer
Canada (%)
18
21
38
20
 3
USA (%)
 5
23
55
12
 5
According to Diane Domeyer, executive director of OfficeTeam, it is often easier for staff-level employees to telecommute because their work can be performed autonomously. However, even those people who work from home need to spend time in the office.

Diane Domeyer added: "Effective management requires plenty of 'face time' with employees. Supervisors should have an open-door policy, and that means being available to staff who need guidance with projects. Employees who work from home must ensure that being out of sight doesn't also mean being out of mind for promotions, team projects and plum assignments."

HRM Guide provided this article





Cloud Video Startup Zixi Raises $4M

As more and more companies look at cloud computing as the next wave and to save on IT infrastructure costs the cloud is growing in video as well. 


Cloud video startup Zixi has raises $4 million in a round of funding for its web video broadcasting business.



The Waltham, Mass.-based company will use the money to build out a worldwide team and complete its infrastructure for delivering high-definition video via the cloud, or web-connected data centers. The company focuses on delivering cloud video with high quality, security, and the ability to make a return on investment.
Schooner Capital, a Boston-based private investment firm, led the round. Other investors include Sidney Topol, former chief executive of Scientific Atlanta, and Maurice Schonfeld, former CEO of CNN.
Zixi’s chief executive is Israel Drori. He said the company will offer high-quality video over the internet for broadcast, enterprise and video-on-demand services. Potential customers include companies that operate networks, video-on-demand services, web broadcasts, and device makers. Zixi could be used to broadcast video such as a Netflix streaming movie to a tablet computer or a smartphone without any noticeable hiccups. Customers include CNN, Reuters, CBS Sports and Netgear.
Zixi tries to set itself apart by making the best use of available network bandwidth. It minimizes startup delay, or the seconds it takes to launch a video, and eliminates buffering (or loading video into memory to ensure smooth playback) without sacrificing quality.
A company could use Zixi to securely telecast a high-definition video conference to multiple locations around the world in real time with low infrastructure costs. Zixi was founded in 2006 and it has 11 employees. Check out the Youtube demo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2KGkz9qtwk&feature=player_embedded

International Protection for Broadcasts Gaining New Momentum

The proposed international treaty on the protection of broadcasters is inching forward after nearly 10 years of consideration and member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization and other stakeholders are moving toward consensus on the central elements of what it is to do and what is the object of the protection.

Much of the rhetoric of stakeholders—particularly pay TV channels and sports rights organisations—has led many to believe it is about protecting their business models and revenue. They have done the proposed treaty a disservice.

It is about protecting the value creating activities of broadcasters in content selection, packaging and distribution—something that is not protected by copyrights, but can be protected with a neighboring right. What the treaty is intent on doing is protecting the broadcast—in a signal and derivative of the signal—which embodies the broadcasters value creation activities and is the object of the proposed protection.

The result may assist revenue generation and strengthen the business model of rights holders, licensers, and broadcasters, but it does not directly protect those.

What it will do is provide a streamlined mechanism for broadcasters to enforce their rights internationally when unauthorised reception, decryption, and retransmission and rebroadcast of their signals are done by other broadcasters and cablecasters. Such practices regularly occur in some countries and sometimes involve the second broadcaster substituting their own advertising and charging fees to obtain the broadcast.

The treaty essentially gives broadcasters the right to license other uses of their broadcasts and halt uses they have not licensed, but does not give them rights to the content in the broadcasts that they do not own.

The proposed treaty includes some protection of public interests, by permitting national limitations and exceptions for clearly public purposes such as education, service to visually or hearing impaired persons, etc.

Some scepticism about the proposals exists in developing nations, because most of the benefits will occur to broadcasters in high income and upper middle income nations and only limited benefits will occur in other states.

The thorns on the rose bush, however, involve the fact that many of the nations where egregious reuses of broadcasts have occurred have never well enforced copyright, so one must be highly optimistic to believe that passage of the treaty will solve the problem.

High Velocity Culture Change

Most managers are not good at cultural change especially when they are the front line to lead changes in the organization. Changing the culture in an organization is hard, heavy duty, and battle intensive for those responsible to lead that charge. Most managers do it as well as employees by taking the lead from their managers because the have to. Not that they want to but it is part of the survival process in an organization.

I would recommend the following if you are the person(s)/group(s)/executive team leading this major effort to keep pace with the changing environment, business, and any successors and/or assignees in an acquisition:
Use methods that are not standard operating processes - this will make people operate out of their existing cultural orientation:


  1. Change should be guided by where the organization needs to go rather than laborious cultural analysis and metrics. Make sure that the new highway for change is "clear to all employees" and that managers "get it and preach it"
  2. Blow up current understandings, destabilizing the organization so they have to move in a different direction. This will provide new energy in the organization; 
  3. Each facilitator/manager/group/executive team member has to show that they care more;
  4. Change the reward system and the milestones along the way so people understand there is a payoff for the change;Communicate more than ever and often, clearly articulating the logic, acknowledging the changes, and their effects along the way;
  5. Promote what you want the end result to be and how it will affect the organization, revenues, and profits;Make sure the people feel free from the old system;You need to expect that there will be people who will not buy into the new culture, loosing some valuable human capital along the way;
  6. Make sure all employees are involved; set up project leads - interdisciplinary and cross cultural. Blow up the bureaucracy along the way making structural changes that fit the final cultural goal;
  7. Lead by example and as in Field of Dreams, "they will come(follow)";
  8. Bring in new people and do not trust loyalty too much;
  9. Make sure each manager/group/executive team member surrounds himself or herself with strong supporters;
  10. Encourage people to think and act differently about their job, customer, and each other that builds on the culture you are creating;
  11. and finally make sure that you train people, re-orient the organization. 
I hope this helps for those of you that have to change and lead cultural change in your organization. If you follow these guidelines your success rate will increase dramatically in changing the culture. 

How Do You Measure Quality of Hire?



















I love it when I am asked questions about specific metrics in HR. I was asked two times last week about Quality of Hire. I think this metric is getting more and more momentum as it should. If you think about the QUALITY of your talent...you instantly can make a direct connection to revenue and bottom line results: (Let's define a quality hire is one that is productive, committed, and engaged)

1) The more talented and engaged a person is, the more they will produce adding to the top line
2) The better your hires, the lower your recruiting costs
3) Employees that are more committed, give better customer service leading to increased loyalty, sales and repeat business.

So, with the impacts listed above, it makes sense to keep a pulse on the quality of hires we make. That begs the question...."How do you do that?"

A few months ago, I had a very different opinion on how you measure quality of hire. I thought that measuring performance at certain intervals would give you the definitive answer to the quality of hire question. In reality, it gives you a one dimensional look into the process. We really need to look at various metrics to truly see the whole picture. Thanks to Darren Shearer, from SuccessFactors, he suggested at a HR Metrics Conference, using a quality of hire index which would include the following components:

1) New Hire Stay Factor
2) Engagement
3) Performance Data/Productivity Curves

I like this approach as it tells the whole quality story. What are your thoughts regarding quality of hire. Do you measure this? If so, how?

Editing, the Richness of Content, and the Current Limits of Web and Social Media

Editors matter.

The March 28-April 4, 2011, edition of the struggling news magazine Newsweek—which I admittedly have not read in years— provides some of the finest articles I have read in many months, illustrates the limits of online and social media, and shows why editors matter.

There is great benefit from both edited and unedited media and I don’t believe they have to be seen in dichotomous choices for the future of media. But I believe those who argue they don’t need to edited media doom themselves to narrowness and ignorance.

If I relied only on the links I receive daily from colleagues on Facebook, my news alerts for topics of interest, or digital listings of stories, I would miss the most important contribution of edited media—the service editors provide by reviewing and thinking about the world and putting journalists to work to provide a coordinated understanding of the available information. This week’s Newsweek epitomises that reality.

Although I often have my attention drawn to information and stories of interest from my social media, the pattern of stories and information sent to me would not have led me to Bill Emmott’s Newsweek story on the impact of disasters on politics, economics, and national psychology or Paul Theroux’s explanation of how Japan’s history has shaped its culture and how the generous global response to the earthquake and tsunami is forcing it to confront the fact that it is not alone and isolated in the face of geographical and physical constraints.

Had I relied on to the multiple news websites I peruse weekly, the ways they are presented and the ways that I search for news on them would not have led me to Newsweek’s fascinating story of the nuclear disaster at an Idaho test station in 1961 that may have been the result of a murder-suicide, its account of why a London murder has led to a boycott of Coca-Cola, or its account of why political ignorance in America is higher than that in European countries.

My point here is not that we should all be rushing out to subscribe to Newsweek (My apologies to Sydney Harmon, Barry Diller and Tina Brown), but that the functions of editors matter. Having someone look at the world and see ways that it fits together, have editors coordinate and incentive talented writers, and having editors create a collection of stories and information continues to produce value.

Those who believe that news, information, and understanding of the world can come through a disaggregated and uncoordinated flow of information and stories, much of which is not prepared by professional writers on a regular basis, miss the entire reason for the success of edited media over the past 300 years.

I do not wish to be construed as saying that online and social media do not make enormous contributions to our communications ability, but until they mature to the point they can support regular oversight and thought about the world and compensate professionals for whom investigating and reporting developments is their primary employment, digital media will not be able to replace the contributions of well edited print media.

After a decade and a half of digital media it is clear that we are able to move news and information to those platforms, but we are nowhere near the point we can shut off the presses without a great deal of loss of oversight and understanding about the world around our lives.

How Good is Your Performance Data?


















For many of my readers, you know that I am a huge proponent of analyzing performance data combined with other HR and customer data to increase organizational and individual performance.

In the past we have discussed using performance data to:

1) Profile top performers in the organization identifying key knowledge, skills and abilities, producing an A-Player profile used on the front end during the recruiting process to enhance quality hires on the first try.

2) Using performance data along with employee engagement and turnover data to predict those high performers that you are "at risk" of losing

3) Calculating Quality of Hire using 90 day performance rating along with other data to determine success rate of recruiting function.

In the three examples above it is critical that you are using reliable and valid performance data. For reliability, you want to make sure the instrument you use is reliable over time and managers understand how to rate. Validity means that you are measuring what you are supposed to be measuring. So for performance appraisals, this means making sure you have analyzed the behaviors and critical success factors for your job groups. I believe that one performance appraisal does not fit all. I also believe in the KISS principle, so you don't need a separate performance appraisal for every single job in the organization. But, it does take a competency modeling exercise to group the jobs that have "like" success factors.

I know that performance appraisals get a bad rap for a myriad of reasons but with so many HR metrics using this data for analysis, doesn't it make since to make sure your appraisals are top notch?

What grade do your performance appraisals get?