CaribHRForum

The longer I practice HR the clearer a few things appear to me. Over the years, one of the things that has become patently clear to me is that many (to say all might sound a bit too presumptuous) of the problems currently experienced in companies can be traced to poor or inadequate hiring practices. Failure to address and correct hiring issues is not only creating countless problems for companies, but is also seriously preventing them and their various staffs from achieving their fullest potential.

The matter then becomes one of identifying the problems associated with hiring and seeking appropriate measures to rectify them. The good news in all of this for HR is that improving the hiring process is an area in which HR can undoubtedly take the lead and create substantial value for a corporate entity. HR has found itself in this enviable position because in many instances HR is the initiator and/or driver of the hiring process. In many instances, if HR is not in complete control of the hiring process, it is in at least a strategic position to exert a significant degree of influence on it.

This article will review a few processes that can lead to “poor hiring” decisions and suggest ways in which they can be rectified. All things being equal, I believe it is safe to say that “it takes excellent people to create excellent companies”. If this is the case, why are we finding it so difficult to find “excellent” people to fill positions within our various companies?  The answer I believe resides in the way we conduct our selection process. Here are some measures that HR can undertake to correct some of the deficiencies in the hiring process.

Understand the Corporate Culture

It is impossible to hire correctly without fully understanding the corporate cultural milieu in which one operates. Those of us who have experienced or lived in a different culture can well remember the often awkward, even embarrassing episodes we perhaps faced when we first encountered the new culture. Our “unfamiliarity” with the new culture negatively impacted our “normal” performance. In many ways we felt like ducks out of water. The more familiar we were with the new culture before encountering it, the easier or even quicker was our adjustment to it. The same is true in corporate settings. A person’s “cultural fit” with an organization can have a profound impact on that person’s performance.

In hiring, HR needs to ensure that there is a better “cultural fit” between people being considered for employment and the corporate culture that they are entering. The closer one gets to the “ideal” match the quicker and easier will be the person’s adjustment. An excellent case in point of this principle is demonstrated by Southwest Airlines (one of the world’s most profitable and successful airlines), where they understand the unique nature of their corporate culture. They understand that it takes a certain type of employee to be successful in their fun-loving, even irreverent corporate environment. Therefore Southwest’s hiring mantra has been “hire for attitude, train for skills”.

Southwest is in no way disregarding skills, but they are acknowledging that in the larger scheme of things, having the correct attitude trumps skills.  Not having the right attitude makes it difficult for a potential employee to adjust or even survive in their corporate environment. Failure to adjust to one’s environment can affect an employee’s present and future job performance.

Understand the Nature of the Position

Another major pitfall that HR can easily succumb to is trying to fill an open employment position while not fully understanding all of the requirements that go along with that position. Having an in-depth knowledge of a position before attempting to fill it should be a no-brainer, but more often than not this step is done rather shoddily, or not at all. To fill a position adequately, one must know all the details and requirements of that position. What characteristics a person would need to be successful or, for that matter unsuccessful, should be understood and addressed. The ultimate goal of HR should be to “fill positions” and not simply to “place people”. The emphasis first and foremost should be on the position. Focusing on the position will ensure that it will be filled with the most suitable candidate.

Another distraction can arise by the way HR chooses to review an applicant’s qualifications for a position. Many critical and important questions can crop up as HR seeks to address this issue. What constitutes an applicant meeting the requirements for a particular position? Are there minimum and maximum requirements for the position? Do the requirements need to be achieved formally (e.g. through some type of schooling), or informally (e.g. gained through practical experience)? What tools should be used to assess whether or not an applicant has the necessary requirements? These questions all need to be adequately addressed by HR to make certain that hiring decisions make an impact on the organization.

Minimum Vs Maximum Requirements:

In reviewing the list of job-related requirements HR is often faced with several choices. Should HR choose applicants with some, most or all of the identified job requirements in order to make a good hire? In my opinion, simply having to choose between low, medium or high skill levels is not the appropriate route or method to pursue.  A more appropriate route is deciding what skills are absolutely needed by anyone to be adequately functional in the targeted position. In other words, we are establishing a minimum or threshold level, below which we are not prepared or willing to accept any applicant.

By taking this position we are doing two things, (1) making a clear statement that to be considered seriously for an available position all applicants must have a basic level of skills and (2) recognizing that if applicants don’t have the basic skills they will not be able to immediately function adequately in the position.

What do we do with those applicants who have skill levels above the designated threshold? This is an excellent question and a wonderful position for any corporate body to find itself in.  If this is the case, there are several decisions HR can make depending on financial resources.

HR might want to go with the applicant with the basic skills set and compensate that individual at the lower end of the position’s pay range. This scenario is plausible if the position in question is changing at a slow enough pace to allow the incumbent sufficient time to acquire additional skills and grow with the job.

However, if the position exists in a more dynamic environment and requires any new hire to hit the ground running and always be a bit ahead of the skills curve, then HR might want to go initially with an applicant with more advanced skills. In this case HR will have to compensate the applicant at the mid section or higher end of the position’s pay range.

The skills level HR chooses to fill a position will also have an impact on HR’s training budget. There is usually an inverse relationship between the level of skills that one has and the level and degree of training needed.

Credentials Vs Experience:

There is often the issue of whether to fill a position with someone who has undergone formal training (e.g. a degree or equivalent) or with someone without a degree but who has amassed a great deal of experience on the job. HR must appreciate the fact that learning occurs in places other than the classroom. Learning takes place in all aspects of life and the results are just as valid as the classroom.  The question, then, should not be focused on where the learning took place, but rather on whether or not an individual can demonstrate the competencies that exhibit that learning did in fact take place. This is not to deny or ignore the fact that there are some positions (due to government or other regulatory concerns) that do require some type of formalized training.

The question then becomes is the applicant capable of demonstrating the competencies required by the position. If an applicant can do this, then the applicant should be given a shot at the position, regardless of where or how he/she got his/her training. I am afraid that if we continue to ignore people who “came up through the ranks” we might be overlooking a valuable source of excellent talent.

Many of us can recall at least one situation where someone successfully “acted” in a position, but was denied an appointment to that position because they did not have the right “formal” credentials. This not only borders on the ridiculous, but it makes a mockery of any performance evaluation process that is in place. Think about it, we are removing someone who is satisfactorily performing in a position (they are not credentialed), to replace them with someone (who is credentialed) whose track record might be unknown and we are hoping, no betting, that they will perform satisfactorily in the position.

Understand the Selection Process

A process is often only as good as the tools it uses. Using the appropriate tools will increase the probability of a successful outcome. It is no different with the hiring process. The use of appropriate hiring tools will increase the probability of selecting excellent hires. A couple of tools I would like to briefly discuss include HR planning and the interview process.
HR Planning:

Actively looking for people only when you need them is a big mistake. The closest analogy I can use to describe such a process is one where we eat only when we were hungry. If we were to do this we would more than likely do ourselves nutritional harm by only choosing the foods that are readily available and not what’s healthy for us. We are all aware of and perhaps have practiced at some point panic or “warm body” hiring. When we engaged in these practices we are less likely to go after and select quality applicants.

Proper HR planning should remove some of the personnel surprises and eliminate or at least reduce the need for “panic hiring”.  Personnel needs should not come as a surprise to HR if past, current and future corporate trends are monitored closely. To support this effort, adequate replacement and succession plans ought to be in place to take care of any unexpected or short term vacancies.  A good gauge of how well HR is doing in the area of planning is to ask a few simple questions. What is our corporate turnover rate? Where is our most employment churn coming from? What events during the year place the greatest demands on the use of our human capital? What would HR do if there were an unexpected (increase/decrease) demand for our products/services? The answers to these questions will reveal HR readiness to account for and adequately manage personnel movements.

Interviewing:

There is not a tool that is as frequently used and equally abused as the interview. The interview should be more than a casual chat with an applicant. A good interview should give the interviewer the necessary information about an applicant in order to make a good hiring decision.  Anything less is irrelevant and quite frankly a waste of the interviewee’s and/or interviewer’s time.

One way HR can improve on this process is to use a behavioral approach when interviewing. This particular approach seeks to do two things (1) identify the job competencies required for performance in the current position and (2) determine whether or not the applicant has demonstrated the use of these competencies in the past. The purpose of the interview should be to determine whether or not the applicant has the required skills needed to do the job. If HR is not using some type of behavioral interview to select employees, it remains questionable whether or not that they are selecting the best candidates.

Conclusion

The hiring process is still more of an art than a science.  Therefore, to expect perfection in the hiring process is unrealistic.  However, we do know that there is much that can be done to improve the existing system in order to increase the quality of hires. This increase in quality should lead to higher productivity that will benefit both the corporation and its employees.

H. Nathan Charles, Ph.D.
 Email This Post

In tough economic times, one of the first casualties in many organizations is often their training budgets. This is often the case because training is often seen as an expensive frill that can be tolerated in good economic times, and a tremendous financial burden that needs to be reduced or eliminated in more challenging times. Such an approach evaluates training solely based on its cost to the organization rather than on the value it generates. Though cost should not be completely ignored in any organization, it must not be the only basis on which training decisions should be made.

The question that ought to be asked of any program, and training is no exception, is whether or not it creates value in amounts that are significant and measurable to justify its existence. If the benefits do not exceed the cost, such programs should be considered for possible reduction and/or elimination.

The training department can and must play an integral role in helping the organization accurately assess the importance and benefits to be derived from a well designed and implemented training program. To do this, the training department must ensure that its existing and future programs incorporate the following ingredients in their design and implementation phases.

A Well Developed Strategy:

In my years of consulting I have had the opportunity to study the training programs of various organizations of all sizes in several industries. The one thing that I found consistent is that those organizations, regardless of size and industry, that had a clearly defined training strategy that was aligned with its organizational strategic objectives, had the most effective and successful training results. A clearly defined strategy does several things:

1.    It gives meaning and direction to what is being done. It prevents us from going astray or being distracted. Strategy serves as a guide that we can consistently consult to make sure that we are on the right path.
2.    It clearly communicates to others that there is a process in place and things are not being left to chance. Knowing that there is a process in place can serve as a confidence booster.

Identifying the Source of the Problem:

To make sure that our training efforts are successful we must accurately identify the source(s) of the problem(s).

There is often the tendency to allow training to become the organization’s scapegoat for all of its various woes. Not all problems in an organization can be successfully resolved through training. To believe so and act accordingly would be a mistake and result in dismal failure. To ascertain if training could be helpful in resolving a problem, the following assessment needs to be made.

Is the problem in question due to a lack of some skill or knowledge (“I don’t know and I am not doing”)? If this is the case then training can be helpful in providing the deficient skill or knowledge that can improve performance. However, if the lack of some skill or knowledge is not the issue (“I do know and I am not doing”), then training is not the issue and will not be helpful. In such cases we need to look for the answer(s) in other areas of the organization.

The Assurance of Learning:

The strength of any training program is the learning that takes place when it is taken.

If learning does not take place, regardless of how good a time was had, we have just wasted our employees’ time and other corporate resources. I happen to live in two worlds by being both an academician and a practitioner in my profession. I am often appalled when I compare the rigorous methods taken in the academic training world to ensure that learning occurs to those taken in the corporate training world to ensure the same.

Unfortunately, corporate training often pales in comparison to the academic world. I do see a difference between academic and corporate training and I am not recommending that we follow the exact procedures for both of them. Such an approach might not be appropriate or even beneficial.

I am, however, suggesting that we apply a greater degree of rigor in our corporate training methodology to ensure that learning does in fact take place. I am tired of seeing corporate training where no substantial mechanisms are in place to determine whether or not learning has occurred or that participants have acquired the identified competencies.

I have witnessed corporate training sessions where some participants arrive late, leave frequently to answer or make calls, don’t engage in note taking, and seem otherwise disengaged, because they know full well that they will not be held accountable in any measurable manner for the material presented. I am advocating that more stringent methods be adopted to ensure that all participants leave the training session on the same page.

If the assurance of learning is a desired objective we need to carefully examine the manner in which the material is presented to the learner. All too often in corporate training a pedagogical (the teaching of children) rather than an andragogical (the teaching of adults) approach is taken. A fact that should not be lost in corporate training is that we are dealing exclusively with adult learners. This being the case, it must be noted that adults learn differently and they bring more things to the table than younger learners. Therefore the method used to present material to adult learners must be age appropriate if it is to be viewed as meaningful and successfully assimilated by adults.

The Transfer of Learning:

This is the flip side of the assurance of learning.  If assurance of learning is focused on the learning that occurs during the training session, then the transfer of learning is focused on how this learning is effectively utilized in the workplace. Both aspects are important and are dependent on each other. If the learning derived during the training program does not positively impact performance in the workplace, then such training was a failure. Demonstrating a difference in workplace performance is the gold standard for the efficacy of training. There are several measures that can be added to a training program to ensure that a transfer of learning takes place.

1.    Involvement of other management staff – The training department should make every effort to involve the management staff of the function for which it is designing the training. The functional areas are the customers and they should be involved at every level of the design and implementation processes. The respective function should own the processes from beginning to end, with the training department serving as the facilitators of the processes. This way we can be assured that a program will be designed that meets the needs of the customers.

If the management teams from other departments are actively involved in the process, they are more likely to be supportive of the training that participants received and are trying to implement in their respective workplaces. This support can include giving encouragement and opportunities to trainees to use their newly acquired learning in ways that will benefit them, their departments and eventually their organizations. We can all recount with frustration, the times when we or others had received training and were not given the opportunity to use such training back on the job.

2.    Use of appropriate methodology – Again, we must remember that we are dealing with adult learners. Adult participants need to be involved in their own learning.  I will strongly suggest the use of relevant simulations, role play and other methods that will draw upon the adult’s life and work experiences. The best approach is to get participants actively involved and working on problems that are similar to those that they will encounter back in their work areas. If the training environment does not mirror/reflect the work environment then we should probably rethink our training approach.

3.    Use of feedback from previous participants – The training department needs to keep in touch with alumni of training programs to get their feedback on the value of the training they received. This feedback can be used to improve future editions of the training to ensure that they are meeting their objectives.

Evaluation of Impact of Training:

The training department job is not done when the required training has been delivered. There is always the question of the impact that the training is having on the organization. Without this information we will not be able to identify whether or not the training undertaken was a worthwhile exercise. To evaluate impact we must conduct carefully designed experiments with the appropriate controls to rule out random error.

For example, if we put in place a sales training program to increase the effectiveness of our sales team, we might want to evaluate the program’s impact in terms of a few key financial metrics. The results of this evaluation will help us in calculating the ROI (return on investment) for this program. Undisputedly proving the effectiveness of any program will not only enhance the credibility of the training department, but it will also demonstrate that training can affect the bottom line and enhance the profitability of a company.

Conclusion:

Training will continue, especially in tough economic times, to have its challenges. Perhaps the training department will have to adjust what it does, or the way it conducts it business in order to meet these daunting challenges. One thing is certain, the training department has to continually demonstrate its effectiveness and make a case for its existence. If training is not seen as a value adder to the organizational process or bottom line, it will be easily dismissed and made the target of future cuts. But if it can demonstrate that it can positively influence the profitability of a company, it will be embraced as a key strategic player.

H. Nathan Charles, Ph.D.
 Email This Post

In corporations around the world, the most profound culture change in living memory is taking place while human resource practitioners are sitting on the sidelines, often without knowing that it’s happening.

Contrary to the news headlines, it’s not driven by the recession, politics, crime or anything quite as noticeable.

Instead, it’s being driven by smartphone technology which is steadily putting 24-7 access to cell phone calls, emails, instant messages, text messages  and voice-mails in the pocket of every employee.  That this is happening is an inescapable fact.  Here’s the proof:

• the UK had a 70% surge in smartphone use in 2009
• the US is expected to have an 80% penetration rate of smartphones by 2010 (source: comScore 2010 study)

At the same time, workers are becoming more addicted:

• 30% of workers who use technology feel the need to stay connected to work 24-7
• 62% of at-work email users check work email over the weekend.  19% check it more than 5 times.  More than 50% check it on vacation, with the highest numbers coming from mobile users: 78% (source: 45th Annual Email Addiction Survey 2009, AOL)
• 59% of those using portable devices check email as it arrives
• 43% of users sleep near their email unit to hear incoming messages
• 43% check email first thing in the morning (source:  Opinion Research Corp, 2007)
• 25% say that of workers think that their supervisors expect them to be online after hours
• 17% say that it is frowned upon if they don’t connect to work during their vacations (InterCall survey 2010)

Recent research shows that smartphone penetration in companies is rising, and it’s not too hard to predict that the time will come when more employees have smart-phones than desktops and laptops.  In other words, the number of employees who can be reached 24-7 will grow to almost 100%.

For companies, this means that they’ll be able to gain access to more of their employees’ time than they ever had before.  For corporations, this is quite a valuable gain in productivity, even if it amounts to a mere 2 hours per employee.  It means that the companies work can continue uninterrupted on weekends, at odd hours, on holidays, during vacations, weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, funerals, etc.

The amazing thing is that this change in “teamwork” didn’t come as a result of any initiative launched by HR.  Nor was it decided by an executive committee on productivity.  Instead, it seems to have come in the back door when no-one was looking, smuggled in with today’s electronic Trojan Horses:  Blackberrys, iPhones, Androids and the like.

If you are an HR professional, you actually have a duty in all this, in at least three areas.

1.  Productivity

It’s devilishly easy to worsen one’s own productivity with one of these devices.  We all know people who interrupt conversations, meetings, phone-calls, projects, church services, driving trips and even runs in the park to respond to their smart-phones.  The fact is, those who respond quickly are the ones who are likely to be getting little else done.

In some companies, employees that are unwilling or unable to respond to all email within the hour are sent for “time management training.”  by contrast, those that are “hyper-responsive” and live on email interruptions are held up as role-models.  It might be the job of HR professionals to reverse these trends, and insist that worker productivity must be preserved by rooting out bad habits and destructive expectations.

Employee productivity is clearly at risk, but in most companies it’s unclear who is accountable for this critical metric.  HR needs to take the lead.

2.  Private Time

Smartphones, anxious managers and willing employees are all that are needed to turn a standard 40 hour work-week into one in which employees are perpetually “on-call” during every day and night of the year.   Unlike surgeons, who are on-call for specific lengths of time, an increasing number of employees never give up that status, and have become conditioned to dash for their smart-phones regardless of their concerns for their families, their safety and  their sanity.

Many do so because they are afraid of losing their jobs.

A company I consulted with has a CEO who thinks nothing of sending messages at 2:00am, and he fully expects the recipient to answer every time.  Of course, this behavior has a ripple effect.

His anxiety gets transmitted down the line, from executives to managers, all via smart-phones, until the message hits the right person… shortly before 3:00am.  His bright idea in the middle of the night to increase market share by 1.5% simply could not wait.

It’s little wonder that employees subject to this kind of lifestyle often burn out.

Where is HR while all this is happening?  Well, it’s not as if there is a meeting held to decide on how much private employee time to claim for the company.

In fact, most executives would make light of the fact that their employees are giving up more of what used to be private time, while enjoying the benefits of Saturday night, 11pm conference calls.  It’s not that they are without a conscience, but it’s simply not their job to add up all the costs and to ask the question: “Is this madness worth it?”

I believe that HR is ideally positioned to raise this concern.

3.  Legal Ramifications

Depending on your country’s laws, your hourly workers might have a case for paid overtime when they spend the better part of an hour responding to email over the weekend.

Also, when your employee crashes the company car on New year’s Day while texting a Vice President on an urgent matter, where exactly does liability lie?

In most companies, it’s unfortunate that most of these cultural changes will happen without anyone in HR noticing.  After all, HR is often the last to get new technology, and by the time the Blackberry’s are handed out in the department, the culture of the company might have already changed.

A few HR professionals, however, will see what’s coming and sound an alarm.

They’ll be prepared for the inevitable culture change that smartphones enable, and they’ll have a plan waiting for the time when smart-phones become as ubiquitous as PC’s.  They’ll have thought about policies to guide smartphone use, and be ready to provide training on how  to maximize productivity rather than destroy it.

They’ll be ready to show CEO’s and MD’s that their actions have a ripple effect, and that they need to make an explicit, informed decision about the kind of company culture they want.  To ignore the change is to invite a decrease in productivity, threats to employee’s life balance and possible legal action.

Francis Wade

P.S. For more on the latest in productivity thinking in companies, visit the 2Time: Time Management 2.0 blog at http://2time-sys.com

After being in the HR profession for the last 25 years I am still amazed at a question that is still asked about the profession. Does HR deserve a place at the corporate decision- making table?

Sometimes to really comprehend the full magnitude of a question one must somehow decipher the real question that is behind the question that is before you. The question we are examining in our discussion is no different.  I believe that the real question is whether or not HR adds real value to the enterprise. Think about it, if something adds real and significant value to what is being done, it becomes moot (even nonsensical) to even discuss if it should be included.

I will resist the temptation at this time to take one side or the other in this discussion. Rather I would like to pose a few “pertinent” questions to the reader and allow him/her to draw his/her own conclusions.

Does HR understand the mission of their organization?

Put another way, does HR understand the “business” that their respective enterprises are pursuing. Notice that this is not a question of “what” you do, or even “how” you do it. It’s rather a question concerned with the “why” behind what you do.

A story I heard years ago (and one I have used quite a few times) will perhaps throw a bit more light on the point being made. I have been unable to independently verify the veracity of this story, but it still makes a powerful point. It goes like this…. A consultant meeting with a group of executives at a drill manufacturing company asked them what business were they in. They responded that they made drills. He asked them a second time and they responded with the same answer. He asked them a third time and they responded, this time with a noticeable frustration, with the same answer. We make drills (dummy!).  What happened next really seemed to confirm to them that they would have been better off keeping their dental appointment than coming to this seminar. The consultant went on to suggest to them that the real nature of their business was not the manufacturing of drills. I am sure that at this time some might have even had a good chuckle, perhaps reminding the consultant of the company he was visiting. The consultant continued and stated that their real business was the making of holes. The making of holes! In other words, the drills they manufactured, the “what”, was really to accomplish the “why” (the holes). As long as we remember the “why” of the business we will never veer away from our mission. The “what” can and will change with time and technological advancements (we can now make holes with laser) but focusing on the “why” will always keep us on track in accomplishing our true mission.

The question then is, does HR really understand the “business” that they are in. We may think that we do and the danger is for us to focus only on the “what” and the “how’’, but do we really understand the “why”, the reason we are in business. Neglecting the “why” can be a fatal error to any business and can even lead to its demise. An excellent example is Kodak, which at one point was the #1 film maker in its industry. Kodak might have retained that position if they had sufficiently differentiated the “what” from the “why” in their business. Kodak made a late entry into digital technology because it primarily saw itself as being in the “film making” business rather than in the “image capturing” business. It is very difficult for HR (or for that matter, any other corporate function) to adequately support an enterprise if they do not understand why they are there.

Does HR understand their role in the business?

If understanding the organization’s mission is the first step. Then considering the role that HR plays in accomplishing that mission should be the next step. HR has many roles to play in an enterprise. Some are legitimate and others, to be quite frank, are somewhat questionable. HR often finds itself in the position of having its various roles defined and shaped by others. HR is frequently what others say it is. This is often compounded by the fact that HR professionals themselves are often confused in their own minds as to the organizational roles they should adopt in order to be effective.

HR roles must go beyond that of being the employees’ ombudsman, the company’s cheerleaders, the morale builders, the conflict resolvers, and the party and picnic planners. These processes, though important, should not be the sole responsibility of HR. These processes should be embedded in the organization and shared equally by all departments. Becoming too closely identified with these areas can result in HR not being regarded as a serious player

HR has an important and strategic role to play within an organization. This role involves the proper management of the company’s talent in order to gain a competitive advantage.

Activities in this role will include the following:
•    Recruiting and selecting the right people.
•    Developing and implementing the necessary training processes to ensure that employees have the appropriate skills to be successful in a global economy.
•    Ensuring that the company has a competitive, cost effective benefits package.
•    Designing and implementing the necessary systems to accurately assess the performance of the employees.
•    Developing innovative compensation packages that will attract, retain, and motivate employees.
•    Creating and maintaining an organizational culture that encourages employees to maximize their potential.
•    Helping the organization and its employees adjust to changes taking place around them.

The above role is important and adds value to the organization. Pursuing such will give a great deal of credibility and respect to HR.

Does HR have the necessary skills to effectively do their jobs?

To adequately function in its strategic role, HR must have the necessary skills at its disposal. I hope that we are well beyond the days when it was incorrectly assumed that anyone, as long as they had a breath, was capable of functioning in the HR role. HR has evolved into a profession in its own right with its own set of skills. A review of some of these skills might prove helpful.

•    People skills – building trust, influencing others, sharing and communicating with others. High degree of emotional intelligence.

•    Organizational skills – information processing, delegating effectively, project management, decision-making.

•    Business skills – understanding and being comfortable with various business metrics. Business is about numbers and HR has to get use to this fact. HR has to be fluent in numbers and use them whenever necessary to support their various outcomes.

•    Political skills - appreciating the place and use of power in organizational settings. Leveraging what you have in order to get what you want.

•    Technological skills – being comfortable around and effectively utilizing the various technologies that are available.

•    Learning skills – being able to keep oneself and other abreast of what’s new and successfully integrating the information into the workplace.

•    Global skills – being aware of what’s taking place on a global basis and using the information to gain a competitive advantage.

•    Change Management skills – helping the organization and employees to embrace, adjust and become comfortable with the changes that are taking place.

•    Visioning skills – being able to anticipate future trends and challenges and preparing the organization to meet them.

These skills are very different and a far cry from those required of HR in the past. However, they are needed and very necessary for HR’s success in the present and in the future. Unless HR acquires these skills, HR will not be in a position to make any meaningful contribution at the corporate table, when present.

Nathan Charles
 Email This Post

Recently on my radio show, I did a short audio summary on the study my firm did back in 2007: The Trinidadian Executive in Jamaica.

The audio and the report can be accessed free of charge by clicking on this link which takes you to the page with the information - click here.

Incidentally, the show can be heard on the internet anywhere in the world: http://bessfm.com

As a consultant I am frequently asked about my views concerning the role that seniority should play in the promotion process. Though a seemingly innocuous or even straight forward question, I have found it to be neither.

As a matter of fact it can be somewhat of a loaded (political and emotional) question depending on who is doing the asking. The complexity of the issue is not so much in the question itself, but rather in the response to the question.

Different stakeholders expect and often actively seek responses that will support their various interests or positions. The varied responses depend on whether the question is being posed by an employee (either those with more seniority or those with less seniority), the employer, or the union. These various constituents can have diametrically opposed answers to this singular question.

Whenever I am asked if seniority should be the “centerpiece” of the promotion process, I usually respond with “it all depends”. Such a response can be viewed as a non-committal position, but from my perspective it accomplishes several important things:
• It gives me time to think, gather more information and make a better assessment of the present situation.
• It avoids the appearance of choosing a position before discussing the issue.
• It conveys to the questioner that the answer is not necessarily simple and gives him/her an opportunity to ask further questions.
• It gives the questioner time to think and enough “mental” room to at least entertain the idea that there might be alternatives to his/her point of view.

A clarification of the concept of “seniority” is critical before any constructive discussion can take place. How do we define this concept? If one defines the concept in a way that only applies to the length of time spent in a job or at a particular organization and nothing else, then it raises some serious issues when it is related to organizational settings.

A definition that is purely tenure-based can be problematic to an organization in several respects:
• It can promote an “entitlement” organizational mentality rather than an “achievement/performance” based mentality. Promotions in such environments become a right that is embraced, rather than something to be earned or achieved.
• It can serve as a disincentive for employee development. If one only “sits” and waits until it is his/her turn to move up, what are the incentives for that person to do more or even get better?
• It can rob the company of valuable talent. Talented individuals will not stay in an environment where they believe that their talents are not being recognized or rewarded, or which they regard to be unfair. Talented employees will always have employment options. Such employees are usually quite employable due to their enhanced skills, superior knowledge, and exceptional performance. They are usually the employees most likely to leave an organization when they are dissatisfied.
• It can sap the company of its vibrancy and competitiveness. If the “best” people are not occupying the critical positions, this will eventually affect the organization’s overall level of performance and consequently its level of productivity and competitiveness.

However, if by “seniority” one is referring to an employee who not only has the necessary tenure, but has managed to accumulate over the years a variety of skills, a string of accomplishments, and an enviable performance track record, then I am all for using it as “the” promotional criteria. A seniority system that is both tenure-based and performance-based works best for any organization. It ensures the long-term viability and sustainability of that organization. Such a system promotes the following:
• A “performance-based” organizational environment.
• An organization that values training and development for its employees.
• An organization that appreciates and rewards employees’ loyalty to the company.
• An organization where employees’ skills are aligned with its strategic objectives.
• An organization that is productive and competitive.

All promotional systems should have as their sole purpose the filling of identified positions with the most qualified persons. Anything less than this will not be in the best interest of those chosen or of the organization as a whole. The promotional decisions of an organization send messages to employees that are far more comprehensible than just filling job slots. Such decisions often convey to employees how much they are valued and appreciated by the organization as well as any possible future roles they will be allowed to play in the entity. Therefore, any promotional system, seniority included, used by an organization should be carefully thought through, always linked to performance, and perceived by all employees as being equitable and fair.

Nathan Charles
 Email This Post

I wrote a letter to the editor of the Jamaica Daily Gleaner on the reasons why Trinidadian elections are so important to Jamaica.

Click below:

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20100414/letters/letters1.html

Later that day, a similar article I wrote on the same topic was published in Your Money eZine. Click below to access this article.

 Email This Post

1.    What do they want now?
2.    Why aren’t they ever satisfied?
3.    Don’t they care about anything except money?

These questions are heard often enough in industry.   They all - and their many variations - have a common root in the desire to understand what causes people to behave as they do while at work.   They all represent different ways of asking the same timing - what motivates people?

Naturally, this fundamental question stems not from an academic desire to understand the psychology of people at work, but from an urgent need to deal with industrial problems - which tend increasingly to be defined in human terms. Traditional assumptions about what men want from work seem, at best, to have provided temporary solutions, and at worst to have been completely wrong. So, management is having to re-examine its ideas about people at work. Fortunately there is a growing body of knowledge, labelled behavioural science, which is providing useful insights. Because the science is young, and its data probabilistic, management cannot expect to find a single answer to its question, or even a recipe for success. The answer, in the sense of a principle which will invariably apply at all levels and in all situations, will almost certainly never be found. The human animal’s capacity for excepting himself from rules and principles of behaviour defined by other humans is one of his more noteworthy characteristics. The most we can hope for is a fuller understanding of human motivation, a better ability to diagnose and a greater probability that our efforts to motivate will succeed.

Motivation is a generic term which implies three things: need, the object or goal to satisfy that need, and the behaviour required to achieve the goal. In the employment situation, management controls some of the goals (money, security, status, etc.) sought by the employee, and defines the behaviour (in terms of job performance) that is expected of the employee if he is to achieve these goals. But the employee is almost invariably striving for satisfaction of more than one need at a time, and his behaviour is directed to providing maximum possible satisfaction of all his needs. For example, if an employee restricts output, and thereby his take-home pay, it is often because exceeding what his work mates judge to be a fair day’s work could lead to his expulsion from their group - which would thwart his social needs. In effect, the loss of friendship is too high a price to pay for the extra money. So performance is kept at a level which allows him to make as much money as possible without exceeding the norms set by the group. This maximisation process occurs, both consciously and subconsciously, for the whole complex of needs that are inseparable from the individual.
If there is a problem about motivating employees, it is probably for one of three reasons. The reward may not be relevant to the employee’s paramount needs, the reward may not be worth the expected behaviour, or the employee may be expected to behave in ways which prevent the adequate satisfaction of other needs. Thus, in order to motivate a man it is essential to create a situation, or to provide incentives, which will allow him to maximise the satisfaction of, not one or a few, but all of his needs. The first step is obviously to understand the kinds of needs he has.

Probably the most widely accepted theory of human needs is that of Abraham Maslow, who developed a hierarchical structure. Essentially, Maslow says that the human being is not born with a complete set of needs. Like any other animal, man is dominated at birth by the need to survive. He must eat, breathe, drink, rest and defecate. Until these needs are relatively well met, and no longer require all a man’s energies, the second and higher order of needs, the safety needs, assume no importance. Safety needs include security and order in the environment as well as physical safety. The young child who has just learned to speak spends a great deal of his time asking questions (who? what? how? why? when? and where?), in an attempt - not so much to understand as to categorise and give structure to the environment around him. If he is told that the moon is a lump of green cheese hanging in space, that is a sufficient and satisfactory answer for his purposes, and will probably do until he decides to become an astronaut.

Once the child feels safe, and perceives a coherent structure in his environment, the third, and again higher, level of need will begin to preoccupy him. This is the need for love and ‘belongingness’ - for intense and affectionate relationships with other individuals and for membership of groups whose values and attitudes he can share. At first a group of friends or a school, later teams and societies as well, and perhaps ultimately a political party, a church, a union or a company; will help meet this need. Once it is being satisfied the esteem needs begin to emerge and increase the appetite for success and for self Then the individual often gives up the comfortable camouflage of membership; he determines what his own values; attitudes and interests are, and may pursue them even when they bring him into conflict with the group. When survival is assured, when the world begins to ‘make sense’, when love and comradeship have been found; and he is conscious of his own worth, the individual is free to explore his potential and to exercise his capabilities. The need to ’self-actualise’ is the most mature need of all.. It is this need that gives man his dignity.
Self Actualisation Desire for Self-fulfilment Esteem Need Success, Self-respect Belongingness and Love Needs Affection, Identification Safety Needs Security, Order Physiological Needs Hunger, Thirst

When all of these needs are developed, the hierarchy, as such, breaks down. The needs are simply there, and we spend energy differently from moment to moment in an attempt to satisfy all or any one of them. But the hierarchy nevertheless reasserts itself from time to time, so that the individual will forsake attempts to satisfy higher needs until a lower need is no longer at risk. Thus it would be little use, for example, trying to sell crafts men the merits of a productivity bargain in terms of opportunities for achievement and advancement if, at the same time, it carried with it the threat of redundancy. They would be deaf to management’s arguments and blind to any opportunity for achievement until assured of the security of their jobs. This may seem obvious, but it is alarming how frequently industrial disputes are prolonged and embittered because the two sides are arguing about entirely different need levels.

The most important point, however, is that the normal adult human being is subject to all five levels of need. He cannot leave three at home and take two to work. He goes to work with them all and, given the opportunity, will attempt to satisfy them all either at work or through work. So if a manager wants to motivate his employees, he must be prepared to acknowledge the existence of all five levels.
The best understanding of how these needs operate in a work setting is provided by Frederick Herzberg. His early research attempted to analyse the factors which give rise to satisfying and dissatisfying experiences at work. Analysis of thousands of events, at all levels of the job hierarchy, produced a remarkably consistent and surprising result. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction appear to arise from two quite different roots. We had always assumed, as the semantics of the culture had taught us, that satisfaction and dissatisfaction were opposites - that the presence or absence of any factor was capable of producing the whole range of feelings.

We assumed that if a man was paid more money he would be satisfied, that if he was not he would be dissatisfied. The research results suggested that this is not necessarily so. The upper part of the diagram shows the percentage frequency with which a number of factors (achievement, conditions, salary, etc.) occurred when the satisfactions and dissatisfactions of those taking part in the study were summarised. Two clusters of factors emerged. Those which contributed primarily to job satisfaction were all things inherent in the task itself, they were part of the job content.

The other cluster of factors usually associated with dissatisfaction, were all part of the environment in which the job was done, its context. The lower part shows the same date combined to reveal the relationship of all the content factors and all the context factors to satisfying and dissatisfying events. Thus it appeared that 81% of the satisfying events were related to content factors and only 19% to the context - When it came to the dissatisfying events the inverse was true: 69% were related to job context factors and only 31% to content factors.

It would seem, therefore, that improvement in the job context serves primarily to alleviate continued dissatisfaction and contribute only minimally to job satisfaction. Because context factors are environment and essentially preventative, Herzberg termed them the ‘hygiene’ factors, on the medical analogy. Further research, and indeed the whole history of industrial relations, suggests another interesting characteristic: hygiene factors seem to require replenishment at regular intervals if dissatisfaction is to be allayed continuously. People will continue to demand periodic rises, even though they have not increased their output. We are no more likely to find the wage increment or fringe benefit that will keep employees from feeling a need for more, than we are to find the food which will relieve us of ever having to eat again.

Similarly, content factors play a major role in generating. satisfaction, and when they are present in a job its performance tends to be improved. For this reason Herzberg has called these factors ‘motivators’. In the strictest sense, anything which gives impetus to behaviour is a motivator and a kick up the backside would qualify according to this definition; it would be unlikely though, to meet Herzberg’s additional requirement of increased satisfaction. But management’s use of the term, like Herzberg’s, normally implies an improvement in both attitude and performance.
Putting Herzberg and Maslow together, it is clear that the hygiene factors are the industrial expression of the first three levels of the need hierarchy, and the motivators are the upper two. The real importance of Herzberg’s research is not that it demonstrates the existence of all five levels of need in a work situation, but that it provides insight into how they operate, and where changes have to be made if we are effectively to tap the resources of employees.

Traditional solutions - improving working conditions, increasing financial incentives or providing greater job security - are important if we are to keep employees from being dissatisfied and doing less than a ‘fair day’s work’. But it must be remembered that this is all that they are likely to achieve. To get extra effort and commitment we have to be prepared to consider what people do as well as how we treat them.

In the past, very little formal attention was paid to motivators as a means of influencing employees’ performance and attitudes. This is perhaps because the absence of motivators in a job does not produce complaint - only apathy and lack of interest and initiative. These are all too easily attributable to the ‘personality’ of the employee, and all too frequently result in his being written off as lazy or irresponsible. But it is very difficult to behave responsibly if you do not have any responsibility, or to know the satisfaction of achievement if you are given no opportunity to fail. If managers want more than just a fair day’s work, if they want workers’ commitment, enthusiasm and initial they must be prepared to pass on responsibility, and assume that it will be accepted responsibly.

Seeking to enrich people’s work, to improve job satisfaction by deliberately building into the job greater scope for personal achievement and recognition, and more opportunity for individual advancement, certainly calls for conscious effort. But studies in both the US and the UK have demonstrated that the effort can pay worthwhile dividends. A typical example is illustrated by a study involving sales representatives and carried out in this country.

The company had long held a major share of the domestic market, but its position was increasingly threatened by competition. Its market share had been declining for a number of years, and although the decline had levelled off results remained static and showed no sign of improvement. Examination of the product range suggested that Its products were fully competitive in price and quality; the critical factor appeared to be sales representative effort. An attitude survey suggested that the men were satisfied with their jobs and although they were not paid on a commission basis their conditions of employment were known to compare well with the average for the industry. Since regaining lost ground depended on a sustained extra effort from a group of people already comparatively well treated and reasonably satisfied, it seemed an ideal opportunity to find out if the incentive for the extra effort could be found in the work itself.

A programme of change was designed with the aid of the sales management, using brain-storming techniques, and using Herzberg’s framework as a model. One result of this was that salesmen were no longer required to submit a written report on every call. They were asked simply to pass on information as appropriate, or request action when they thought it was called for. Calling frequencies were no longer determined in conjunction with the are sales manager. This was left entirely to the salesmen themselves, and they kept the only records for purposes such as staff reviews. They were also able to request technical service directly from their technical counterparts - and the paperwork was cleared after the event.

The salesmen were authorised to make settlements up to £100 following complaints about product performance if, in their opinion, there was no possibility that consequential inability would be prejudiced. They were also armed with authority to deal with excess stock held by customers, in whatever way they thought most appropriate, with no upper limit on sales value. They were given price discretion on nearly the whole of the product range - with a lower limit often below any price previously quoted by the company. Each of the changes was designed to make the salesmen’s ’s job a more complete one. It represented an effort to shift commercial judgement from headquarters to the representative on the spot, to make him someone the customer could really do business with.

To determine the effectiveness of the changes, it was necessary to apply them to only a representative sample of the sales force. This allowed comparison of the sample’s performance with that of a similar group selling the same products to the same trades, who acted as control group. The changes were introduced during December 1967, and the trial period ran from the beginning of January to the end of September 1968. The critical measure of performance was sales turnover checked by gross margin.

During the trial period the experimental group improved its performance by almost 19% a gain of over £12,000 in sales value, while the control group’s sales declined by 5%. The equivalent change for both groups in the previous year had been a decline of 3%. All quotations other than at list price were reported by the representatives and it was possible to analyse the gross margins achieved by both groups. The analysis showed the gross margin on the experimental group’s sales to be proportionately as high, if not higher, than the control group’s. The experimental group had apparently used its price discretion to negotiate greater volume, and had not increased turnover at the expense of profit. A repeat of the attitude survey showed that the experimental group’s satisfaction was significantly greater, in contrast to the control group’s whose attitudes remained largely unchanged.

Perhaps the greatest advantage of the experiment, in the sales manager’s view, was that the salesmen, once they possessed real negotiating authority, began finding that price alone did not make a sale. Having failed on occasion to sell products even at a reduced price, they were forced to re-examine and improve their product understanding and selling strategy. Because this occurred on their own initiative, the satisfaction of succeeding was entirely their own.

Such experiments, with or without controls, may be appropriate to the solution of specific problems. It is more difficult to introduce this kind of change in the company as a whole. Attempts to do so are likely to be as varied as the companies that make them, but one formula being adopted more and more frequently is that of management by objectives. Essentially, the system involves each unit in the company in setting its particular objectives within the boundaries of an overall company objective. When the objectives are agreed the key tasks necessary to their achievement are identified, and departments and individuals set their own performance targets consistent with their key tasks. To describe the approach so simply is, of course, to do it an injustice, because the description cannot convey the underlying philosophy.

Even as described here, Management By Objectives is an excellent communications device for conveying the company’s direction and purpose, and the contribution required from each of its parts. The trouble is that if the philosophy is misunderstood it becomes a device for telling people what they must achieve without regard to circumstances, and thus easily degenerates into management by results.

But applied with an understanding of human needs, including the need to achieve, Management By Objectives is potentially one of the best vehicles for inaugurating the kind of change advocated here. It defines, with the help of the individual himself, what kind of achievement is valued and is possible, and it ensures that both the man and his manager examine the discretion and resources necessary to realise that achievement. Review sessions then become concerned less with abstract human characteristics and personality traits than with providing a constructive feed-back on past performance and a definition of future tasks. Management By Objectives continually requires a manager to deal with a man through the medium of his task, and to ask again and again if it is sufficient for the man and the company.

In the end, top management is only likely to achieve the results it wants from employees if it ensures that all intermediate managers have as full an understanding of human motivation as possible, and possess the discretion and incentive to use that understanding

Marcia Goodridge
 Email This Post

One of the many pleasures I experience when teaching, consulting, or conducting seminars in the Caribbean is meeting the large number of very knowledgeable, talented and dedicated human resources people in the region. These people are passionate professionals who love what they do and use their skills to effectively utilize the region’s human capital within their various organizational settings. The results of their efforts can easily be seen by the many well managed and successful world-class corporations that exist in the region.

However, as I move around in the broader communities of the countries I am visiting, I often experience what I consider to be a major HR disconnect. At some points it seems as though I am in a totally different time and place. The HR efficiency I witnessed in the corporate “enclaves” did not seem to get translated into the “greater” communities.

On returning to the other “side” I often share my experiences with the group I am working with to get a reality check of my observations.  Whenever my observations are confirmed I usually asked the group two questions.  What is creating this situation? What can you do about resolving this situation?

The first question usually elicits a lively debate that clearly demonstrates that the participants have a good grasp of the issues involved in creating the situation. The second question (which I view as the easier of the two) usually transforms a group of highly energetic, skilled and successful people into a more subdued group who admits that there is little they can do to change the situation in question.

Being from the region myself, I fully understand that there are political and other realities that fuel some of this sense of hopelessness. Those things aside, I believe that the HR profession in the Caribbean must play a larger role in the transformation of our various societies and countries. To do this, HR professionals must think beyond their respective organizations and search for ways to transfer and utilize their skills to impact their communities and by extension their countries.

Why do I think that HR professionals rather than some other group should take the lead in this transformation that should take place in our various societies?  This leap I believe is easier for HR to make than for any other group, some of the reasons being that:

1.    HR currently has the necessary skills set and expertise to do so.

2.    Many of the problems that currently plague our communities and countries are human-based problems.

3.    HR is already working on and successfully resolving many of these problems at a micro level in their respective organizations.

4.    The investments that HR make in their communities will eventually benefit and have a positive impact on their various organizations.

I am in no way suggesting that the HR profession acting alone can solve all of the problems in a given community or country. That’s too much of a burden or responsibility to place on any one discipline or group. What I am suggesting is that with HR’s unique set of skills it can effectively take the lead in this transformational initiative. To be successful in this process HR professional must be aware that the following is often required.

1.    Courage – Change often takes courage. Courage to do the right things when there is a great deal of opposition or lack of support.

2.    Communication – Lessons learnt (good or bad) that can assist other groups in the regions. Communicating our ideas to others can minimize or even eliminate the need for other groups to always “reinvent the wheel” and thereby waste precious time and resources.

3.    Collaboration – There is still strength to be found in numbers. When possible find like minded people with whom to associate and share your ideas. Ideally the transformational process should be a high priority of the local HR association. The visibility at this level can lend the necessary credibility and the required resources to the process. Collaboration rather than competition should become the norm. Can I suggest that a good place for you to begin or continue your collaboration is on the excellent platform provided by the CaribHRForum.

Nathan Charles
 Email This Post

For all those performance management specialists out there, what is the most effective prescription to assess, manage and drive the performance of senior company executives?

Like all experts, we start off by saying “it depends”.

Performance assessment systems are usually built around achieving predetermined deliverables ranging from financial to non-financial and also including some discussion and feedback around behavioral competencies. We often overlay this system with various weightings that reflect our company values.

What are your thoughts on a system that only uses a financial concept to determine value add by an Executive without any consideration of behavioral competencies? There seems to be a trend in this direction, but let me qualify that, as it’s a trend only based on observation within my own environment. I am not quite sure if this is a Caribbean thing, or a Capitalistic thing, or if we just following the “God given instructions by a Board of Directors in their infinite wisdom”.

Should this myopic construct gain traction, we will be making a number of assumptions about senior executives and leadership on the whole. One such assumption is that once someone is in a position of executive leadership, there is little or no need to meaningfully or substantively review behaviours that may or may not reflect the company’s core values.

We assume at senior levels, behaviours like shouting at staff among an audience filled space, or asking a direct report to compromise data or not fully disclose data or fudging numbers, or passing the buck, or using confidential information in a reckless manner are not existent or not relevant. There is a plethora of behaviours that can mushroom without some level of applied scrutiny.

We have a generation that is growing at warp speed; they have access to more information in one week than someone had in their whole lifetime back in the 1800’s. Technical competencies are increasingly being conquered at a younger and younger age, but the warp speed growth does not seem to mirror itself as far as the behaviours are concerned. What do we end up with? We have very smart or intelligent individuals without true wisdom or humanity leading our companies, nations and by extension the world.

As our executives quickly rise through the ranks, they may not be humble, mature, and may not play fair and because there is no redress, they do what is necessary to achieve the financial objective and in the eyes of all, they are celebrated as a success. I venture to say that this modus operandi is certainly not sustainable for the organisation or for the individual; as my mother says “the longest rope has an end”.

It is sad but true that people who find themselves in situations like this where negative behaviours seem to bring success, need a failure to re-set reality, and they need to take two steps back to really make one step forward.  They require executive coaching to help them along the leadership path where they can gain and or develop the wisdom, learn the true value of people and the priceless notion of respect and discretionary effort by an engaged workforce.

Ken Blanchard and Marc Muchnick’s book called the “Leadership Pill” talks about integrity, partnership, affirmation and about the perfecting the blend where the highest achievement as a leader is “Winning the Respect and Trust of your Team”. We are all familiar with the sayings “What gets measured gets done” and “what gets rewarded gets done”.

If we are only measuring and rewarding financial or economic value, we actually impede our long term growth. What will we end up with some years from now with a reward and performance assessment system that is not aligned with our core values?

Denise Ali
 Email This Post