Over the past ten years the practice of hiring coaches to work with the leaders and those identified as future leaders has grown rapidly. Some organizations choose to send their leaders to coaches training; others hire external coaches, or a combination of both internal and external coaches. The question for organizations is whether or not to provide coaching training for leaders and whether to hire internal or external coaches. I have worked with many leaders in my career that are exceptional coaches, yet have not had any specific training as a coach. HR must develop a way to assess whether or not coaching training or providing a coach to a (potential) leader is the right choice, or if some other type of intervention would be more effective. In some organizations, the culture may not be suited to the structured form of coaching being taught in coaching programs today. HR must be able to determine what type of coaching, informal or formal is most appropriate in the organization and within specific work teams.
Google executive coaching and you will find various surveys that support executive coaching, however these surveys have small sample populations. The respondents are people who have had executive coaches and felt they had a good experience. As humans in a busy and stressed environment, a little one on one time focused entirely on your own specific needs is likely to be a good experience with a skilled coach. But does this experience translate into improved business results?
To date, there is no measurement tool available that would answer that question-some executive coaching businesses suggest using 360’s to show before and after results. 360’s may not be realistic for small to medium sized businesses, businesses undergoing market reversal, or budget tightening as they can be expensive to conduct. In addition, it is not possible to isolate coaching as the only cause of any change in 360 results. The variables that affect 360 results are significant and at best they can only tell one if they are improving in noted areas, not the source of the change. Learning is incremental and as the leader goes through their coaching process they are also involved in various other undertakings that will affect their knowledge, skills and abilities. In addition, who the respondents are to the 360 may change as people change jobs/organizations, or the same respondents will have undergone their own personal changes and now view the person being reviewed differently.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development provides this role for HR in managing coaching activities:
The HR department has a central role to play in designing and managing coaching within an organisation. The quality of coaching and the results it delivers depend on choosing appropriate coaches (line managers, internal or external coaches), managing relationships and evaluating success. HR practitioners need to understand when coaching is an appropriate and effective intervention in relation to other learning and development options. They need to be clear about what the different types of coaching and diagnostic tools/models are, and when each is appropriate. They need to understand how to select appropriately qualified coaches and then match them to both the organisational culture and to the needs of particular individuals. Finally, HR practitioners hold the responsibility for setting up contractual arrangements, as well as developing mechanisms to evaluate the effectiveness of the coaching activities.
http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/lrnanddev/coachmntor/coaching.htm
Copyright CIPD 2009
151 The Broadway, London SW19 1JQ, UK
www.cipd.co.uk
Incorporated by Royal Charter, Registered charity no. 1079797
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Does Your Performance Management Program Work?
Performance Management is of value to organizations in that it provides employees with a road map of what they will do to contribute to driving business results. It consists of goals/objectives specific to organizational business plans, regular communication that provides coaching where needed and lets the employee know how they are doing, and development goals that ensure employees are able to develop skills and knowledge required to meet changing business needs.
Cannell (2009) states: “So performance management is about establishing a culture in which individuals and groups take responsibility for the continuous improvement of business processes and of their own skills, behaviour and contributions. It is about sharing expectations. Managers can clarify what they expect individual and teams to do; likewise individuals and teams can communicate their expectations of how they should be managed and what they need to do their jobs. It follows that performance management is about interrelationships and about improving the quality of relationships - between managers and individuals, between managers and teams, between members of teams and so on, and is therefore a joint process. It is also about planning - defining expectations expressed as objectives and in business plans - and about measurement; the old dictum is 'If you can't measure it, you can't manage it'. It should apply to all employees, not just managers, and to teams as much as individuals. It is a continuous process, not a one-off event. Last but not least, it is holistic and should pervade every aspect of running an organisation.”
Why do so many managers complain about the bi-annual performance review process? To some degree it is because the review process is to a large degree looking backwards, when the managers’ focus is required to be on the future. If managers are communicating effectively with employees throughout the year, then why do they need to spend valuable time filling out forms that hold little advantage for them? Some managers will tell you that it is an ‘HR’ requirement and that they resent the time and energy spent completing forms; or that the design of the form does not facilitate the capture of the information appropriately. There are many performance management resources available on the internet (http://managementhelp.org/perf_mng/perf_mng.htm) and HR Professionals can draw from these resources to design a performance management program that specifically targets the needs of the organization. Effective performance management programs will show measurable business improvements, support succession planning, and ensure that employees are prepared to meet the changing needs of the business.
Cannell, M., (2009). Performance Management: An Overview, London, CIPD 2009.
Cannell (2009) states: “So performance management is about establishing a culture in which individuals and groups take responsibility for the continuous improvement of business processes and of their own skills, behaviour and contributions. It is about sharing expectations. Managers can clarify what they expect individual and teams to do; likewise individuals and teams can communicate their expectations of how they should be managed and what they need to do their jobs. It follows that performance management is about interrelationships and about improving the quality of relationships - between managers and individuals, between managers and teams, between members of teams and so on, and is therefore a joint process. It is also about planning - defining expectations expressed as objectives and in business plans - and about measurement; the old dictum is 'If you can't measure it, you can't manage it'. It should apply to all employees, not just managers, and to teams as much as individuals. It is a continuous process, not a one-off event. Last but not least, it is holistic and should pervade every aspect of running an organisation.”
Why do so many managers complain about the bi-annual performance review process? To some degree it is because the review process is to a large degree looking backwards, when the managers’ focus is required to be on the future. If managers are communicating effectively with employees throughout the year, then why do they need to spend valuable time filling out forms that hold little advantage for them? Some managers will tell you that it is an ‘HR’ requirement and that they resent the time and energy spent completing forms; or that the design of the form does not facilitate the capture of the information appropriately. There are many performance management resources available on the internet (http://managementhelp.org/perf_mng/perf_mng.htm) and HR Professionals can draw from these resources to design a performance management program that specifically targets the needs of the organization. Effective performance management programs will show measurable business improvements, support succession planning, and ensure that employees are prepared to meet the changing needs of the business.
Cannell, M., (2009). Performance Management: An Overview, London, CIPD 2009.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
What Some People Say
Where Does HR Stand Now?
I recently read a blog which discussed the ability of HR Professionals to be viewed as respected contributors to their organizations. If I understood the posting accurately the blogger, Ian Cook, Director, Research and Learning, BCHRMA, suggested that HR Professionals understand the components and expected results of their roles but that they are still not considered deserving of respect in the way that they need to be. Ian suggested that perhaps a name change would help change mindsets; He said that “We have most of the answers when it comes to structure, value proposition and strategic drive – so what do we call ourselves….. any ideas?”
My experience over the past 5 years in particular (but similar to my experience over the past 18 years in HR) is that HR Professionals may still have a ways to go on the impressing front. They may understand that they need to be able to drive business results and what those results are, to be able to strategize, provide leadership etc. The question is, have they developed the skills and motivation to actually provide results or is this simply academic?
If I think about several rather disturbing discussions I have found myself in over the past several years, it would appear, that improving results has some way to go. In various settings, at a party, at an alumni gathering, at a casual dinner with friends, in several workplace settings, with other HR Professionals, with Organizational Development Professionals, I have experienced some negative reactions to HR. It was clear that these people reacting to HR are anything but impressed; indifference,disgust, anger, and concern are the some of the reactions I have encountered. If it is true that HR has the ability to drive business results effectively, why is there such a negative reaction? Why do people believe the role of HR is largely administrative, to fire (or layoff), to create bureaucratic policies that may actually hinder productivity? Is this a case of the need for marketing the true role and effectiveness of HR?
Integrity is a hallmark of Human Resources Professionals, yet this concept has come under fire in some of the above noted discussions. People have been quick to relate incidents where, in their experience HR has shown a lack of integrity. Some of this may have been perspective-after all, sometimes the work of HR is done under a cloak of secrecy. Secrecy is often necessary to avoid legal complications, protect reputations of innocent people, protect privacy as required by law, etc. Sometimes people see this secrecy as a lack of integrity. Yet, they accept this same lack of information sharing as appropriate from other leaders in the organization. So, what is the difference between the behavior of these leaders and HR? These leaders have earned respect through their technical expertise, a willingness to share their knowledge with others, an understanding of how to inspire and motivate others, proving through action that they know how to create business results, and accomplish goals. So why have HR Professionals not gained the same level of respect? Is it possible that a name change will create a change of mindset or is a significant change in the way HR collaborates with other departments required?
I recently read a blog which discussed the ability of HR Professionals to be viewed as respected contributors to their organizations. If I understood the posting accurately the blogger, Ian Cook, Director, Research and Learning, BCHRMA, suggested that HR Professionals understand the components and expected results of their roles but that they are still not considered deserving of respect in the way that they need to be. Ian suggested that perhaps a name change would help change mindsets; He said that “We have most of the answers when it comes to structure, value proposition and strategic drive – so what do we call ourselves….. any ideas?”
My experience over the past 5 years in particular (but similar to my experience over the past 18 years in HR) is that HR Professionals may still have a ways to go on the impressing front. They may understand that they need to be able to drive business results and what those results are, to be able to strategize, provide leadership etc. The question is, have they developed the skills and motivation to actually provide results or is this simply academic?
If I think about several rather disturbing discussions I have found myself in over the past several years, it would appear, that improving results has some way to go. In various settings, at a party, at an alumni gathering, at a casual dinner with friends, in several workplace settings, with other HR Professionals, with Organizational Development Professionals, I have experienced some negative reactions to HR. It was clear that these people reacting to HR are anything but impressed; indifference,disgust, anger, and concern are the some of the reactions I have encountered. If it is true that HR has the ability to drive business results effectively, why is there such a negative reaction? Why do people believe the role of HR is largely administrative, to fire (or layoff), to create bureaucratic policies that may actually hinder productivity? Is this a case of the need for marketing the true role and effectiveness of HR?
Integrity is a hallmark of Human Resources Professionals, yet this concept has come under fire in some of the above noted discussions. People have been quick to relate incidents where, in their experience HR has shown a lack of integrity. Some of this may have been perspective-after all, sometimes the work of HR is done under a cloak of secrecy. Secrecy is often necessary to avoid legal complications, protect reputations of innocent people, protect privacy as required by law, etc. Sometimes people see this secrecy as a lack of integrity. Yet, they accept this same lack of information sharing as appropriate from other leaders in the organization. So, what is the difference between the behavior of these leaders and HR? These leaders have earned respect through their technical expertise, a willingness to share their knowledge with others, an understanding of how to inspire and motivate others, proving through action that they know how to create business results, and accomplish goals. So why have HR Professionals not gained the same level of respect? Is it possible that a name change will create a change of mindset or is a significant change in the way HR collaborates with other departments required?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)