Holly MacDonald of Spark + Co. http://www.sparkandco.ca/home/, wrote a blog post http://sparkyourinterest.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/questions-im-no-longer-answering/ that inspired me to write this post.
Holly and I met for the first time over coffee last month, but had some awareness of each other because of our work in HR/OD and Training. We had a lively discussion about the various approaches to HR/OD and Training that we encounter when talking to managers about what those professions have to offer and when talking to employees that find themselves in ‘learning opportunities’ that are required by their management team. I also belong to several LinkedIn groups that are oriented to those professions and have encountered some members that post interesting articles and comments and some that make me wonder if we live on the same planet. Yes, this post is going to talk about my favorite HR, OD and Training competency-collaboration.
In one LinkedIn group the members tend to have discussions that use purely academic information and terminology that is specific to the OD profession but is rarely used in business. The discussions rarely even skirt the very real concept that business executives need to hear specifically and in the language of business how the theories will perform in their business. In other words, how will this affect our bottom line, how will this help us attract and retain the best employees, and how will this aid us in representing our business to the external world.
As Holly mentioned in her blog it is not unusual for managers to tell a Trainer or HR person that their staff or a staff member “needs training” in some area. If the HR, OD or Training Professional starts asking the right questions it often becomes apparent that it isn’t training that is required but something else entirely; or that training is required but it isn’t the training the manager thought was needed. Yet how many HR or Training professionals simply say-okay, and go ahead and organize whatever course the manager first suggested without ever investigating what is really going on? If our conversations with employees who find themselves in not so helpful courses are any indication it still happens more than it should.
Perhaps I have been more shocked by the negativity towards HR Professionals exhibited in some of the online forums on LinkedIn by people who describe themselves as OD Professionals. In my opinion, OD Professionals should be people oriented and that means respectful. Is the HR profession in need of upgrading, sure, and many of you who read my blog know what I think about that-but the vitriol expressed by some of the OD Professionals, often in language that few outside the profession would even understand or relate to, crosses a line. OD Professionals that use elitist terminology and denigrate people who don’t meet their idea of perfection are not, in my opinion professionals at all. One of the key competencies for HR, OD and Training professionals is collaboration and this must cross all cultural and organizational boundaries. From a business perspective, having HR, OD and Training professionals work together, collaboratively, makes sense. Maybe in 2011 we can start to work together and demonstrate respect through the way we treat each other.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Social Media-The Human Factor
Having read literally thousands of articles, blogs, opinions, comments, several books on Social Media and had many face to face conversations on the topic I recently began to think more in depth about the human factor in using Social Media in Organizations. This may seem like an obvious aspect to think about yet when I review everything so far one thing becomes clear, most of the information talks about how to use the tools, how to apply the tools to further your business, how one should think, behave, brand and represent yourself and your organization in the realm of Social Media networks. In other words like so many introductions to change, it is all about how, what and why you ‘should’ use Social Media but largely skims over personal preferences in how we interact with others and how we learn and teach.
Information that discusses Social Media purely from the human perspective is almost non-existent. So, what do I mean by the human perspective (factor)? Essentially it is the same perspective that often gets too little attention in any change in organizations, knowing how and why one should adopt the change is rarely the problem when people fail to do so. People don’t adopt some changes because despite being ‘told’ why they should, they are not able to see any real benefit in their day to day work life. Some bloggers have suggested that adoption of Social Media tools is a generational issue, but it isn’t, it is a preference issue which crosses all generational groups.
Perhaps the collaborative, relationship building aspect of Social Media use has created a new imperative for organizations to pay attention to the human perspective when adopting new technology. If the people in your organization do not see the real benefits of using the tools in successfully reaching their goals they are not going to use them. If the people in your organization do understand the potential for using the tools to share and gain knowledge regarding their jobs they might half-heartedly use them once in awhile, but they will choose the face-to-face option more often, because that is their personal preference. You can inundate people with the whys and musts of using Social Media, much like organizational leaders do with any change they introduce, but can you change their personal preferences?
The answer is likely, ‘to some degree’, you will not change personal preferences but you may be able to engage them in some useful adoption of Social Media if you offer opportunities and uses that provide an actual benefit that makes sense to them. Leaders in organizations can also maintain some important balance in the adoption of Social Media tools in the organization by listening to and employing the perspectives of those who prefer face to face interactions. Social Media means we have expanded our ability to build new relationships in new ways but it is important to maintain face to face interactions as these interactions remain a very valuable means of keeping strong communities going. Face to face interactions can also be more efficient – if you have ever found yourself engaged in an endless email string that could have been resolved in a short 5 minute face to face conversation you know what I mean.
What personal preferences affect your decisions as to whether you will enthusiastically embrace social media tools in your day to day work life, reluctantly and half-heartedly try it out because you keep hearing you ‘should’ or avoid it as much as possible? Does all the rhetoric about Social Media simply turn you off? Have you tried some tools and simply disliked the forum?
Information that discusses Social Media purely from the human perspective is almost non-existent. So, what do I mean by the human perspective (factor)? Essentially it is the same perspective that often gets too little attention in any change in organizations, knowing how and why one should adopt the change is rarely the problem when people fail to do so. People don’t adopt some changes because despite being ‘told’ why they should, they are not able to see any real benefit in their day to day work life. Some bloggers have suggested that adoption of Social Media tools is a generational issue, but it isn’t, it is a preference issue which crosses all generational groups.
Perhaps the collaborative, relationship building aspect of Social Media use has created a new imperative for organizations to pay attention to the human perspective when adopting new technology. If the people in your organization do not see the real benefits of using the tools in successfully reaching their goals they are not going to use them. If the people in your organization do understand the potential for using the tools to share and gain knowledge regarding their jobs they might half-heartedly use them once in awhile, but they will choose the face-to-face option more often, because that is their personal preference. You can inundate people with the whys and musts of using Social Media, much like organizational leaders do with any change they introduce, but can you change their personal preferences?
The answer is likely, ‘to some degree’, you will not change personal preferences but you may be able to engage them in some useful adoption of Social Media if you offer opportunities and uses that provide an actual benefit that makes sense to them. Leaders in organizations can also maintain some important balance in the adoption of Social Media tools in the organization by listening to and employing the perspectives of those who prefer face to face interactions. Social Media means we have expanded our ability to build new relationships in new ways but it is important to maintain face to face interactions as these interactions remain a very valuable means of keeping strong communities going. Face to face interactions can also be more efficient – if you have ever found yourself engaged in an endless email string that could have been resolved in a short 5 minute face to face conversation you know what I mean.
What personal preferences affect your decisions as to whether you will enthusiastically embrace social media tools in your day to day work life, reluctantly and half-heartedly try it out because you keep hearing you ‘should’ or avoid it as much as possible? Does all the rhetoric about Social Media simply turn you off? Have you tried some tools and simply disliked the forum?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Social Media – HR and Training & Development
The decision to embrace the introduction of Social Media tools to an organization is best followed by some fairly standard business practices, deciding what goals and objectives are to be met by the use of the tools and developing governance protocols for the use of the tools.
When developing governance policies at some point the decision making will shift into two streams of consideration:
1) External use of the tools-marketing, branding, customer service and recruiting are the most common uses as well as awareness, community building and fundraising for not for profit organizations.
2) Internal use of the tools – inside the firewall-opening communication channels to improve expertise/knowledge sharing and disseminating information rapidly, training and development, increasing cross functional collaboration, reducing the need for traditional surveys, detecting and addressing rumours earlier.
Many organizations have introduced technology solutions to their training and development efforts in the past decade but the user interface is most likely user to technology rather than embracing the use of community interactions to improve the learning opportunities. One of the biggest complaints about traditional online learning, whether at an educational institute or within a corporation is that it reduces the opportunity to share experience and ideas with others in the learning community. The use of Social Media tools has now changed that concern simply because it simplifies and encourages such sharing and allows users to share across a broader knowledge base than ever before.
When looking at internal uses of Social Media it is easy to see that collaborating with marketing and customer service teams that have already entered the world of Social Media will bring valuable experience to the use internally. Interacting with the public at large provides insight to what to expect within the organization as to the behaviour, needs and wants of the end users of the tools.
What other potential uses do you see for the internal use of Social Media tools? What do you think the biggest challenges will be to introducing the tools? What is your current practice for developing governance policies for new technologies in the organization? Do you have union contracts that include clauses related to the introduction of new technologies? How does that affect your process?
When developing governance policies at some point the decision making will shift into two streams of consideration:
1) External use of the tools-marketing, branding, customer service and recruiting are the most common uses as well as awareness, community building and fundraising for not for profit organizations.
2) Internal use of the tools – inside the firewall-opening communication channels to improve expertise/knowledge sharing and disseminating information rapidly, training and development, increasing cross functional collaboration, reducing the need for traditional surveys, detecting and addressing rumours earlier.
Many organizations have introduced technology solutions to their training and development efforts in the past decade but the user interface is most likely user to technology rather than embracing the use of community interactions to improve the learning opportunities. One of the biggest complaints about traditional online learning, whether at an educational institute or within a corporation is that it reduces the opportunity to share experience and ideas with others in the learning community. The use of Social Media tools has now changed that concern simply because it simplifies and encourages such sharing and allows users to share across a broader knowledge base than ever before.
When looking at internal uses of Social Media it is easy to see that collaborating with marketing and customer service teams that have already entered the world of Social Media will bring valuable experience to the use internally. Interacting with the public at large provides insight to what to expect within the organization as to the behaviour, needs and wants of the end users of the tools.
What other potential uses do you see for the internal use of Social Media tools? What do you think the biggest challenges will be to introducing the tools? What is your current practice for developing governance policies for new technologies in the organization? Do you have union contracts that include clauses related to the introduction of new technologies? How does that affect your process?
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Social Media and HR
Ready or Not, It Is Here
Are you using Social Media for recruiting or are you thinking that you should be using it but feel overwhelmed by the enormous amount of information in cyberspace and being touted at various conferences and seminars? If you are somewhat tentatively using it for recruiting purposes or made some attempt to learn more, you are in good company and it is understandable if you have merely dipped your toe in the waters not quite sure what to do with it all.
Social Media is simply a series of tools that uses technology to build communities that share information, ask and answer questions, educate, collaborate, and connect. Why do we want to build internal and external communities that use Social Media tools and what does this have to do with HR? Let’s start with asking the same question about HR - what does HR do? Share information, ask and answer questions, educate, collaborate and connect. Social Media tools create the ability to start, monitor, and participate in discussions about your organization both among the employee base and with everyone outside of the organization. HR professionals can use Social Media tools to monitor and participate in discussions within the organization but also gain knowledge about what is being said about their organization on various Social Media sites and develop cost effective and wide ranging recruitment programs.
If the organization is not participating in a meaningful way they not only lose the opportunity to build communities and present a balanced discussion about it but they take the very real risk of allowing the conversation to go unchecked. And it will, actually it is whether you are paying attention or not.
HR professionals have a great opportunity to take the lead with adopting Social Media and demonstrating how effective it can be by using the competencies that all great HR professionals develop as part of their practice. In previous posts I commented that collaboration may be the most effective competency that HR professionals can use in their work. Being skilled at collaborating can help develop communities within an organization and externally with customers (both business to consumer and business to business organizations will benefit from such communities). A must have for developing strong collaboration skills is to also continuously update your communication skills and in the world of Social Media, communication skills can make all the difference to attaining your goals and minimizing or mitigating negative outcomes.
A real world example of one thing that Social Media tools can do to help you in your work occurred in a LinkedIn group for HR professionals in British Columbia. A member of the group asked for sources of information to help write a Social Media policy. Within a few hours he had three of the best resources and examples available on this topic. This saved him hours of searching for the information himself and the cost of paying an external consultant to help with his project. It is fairly easy to imagine how many other uses of Social Media are available to help you in your work.
We are currently working on a book that takes Social Media out of the realm of hype and conflicting sources and uses plain business protocols to start the Social Media journey for professionals. This book will provide references to sources that our research over the past year unearthed as reliable and user friendly for those of us that are not technical whizzes but use technology to improve our work.
Do you feel like you want to take the lead on Social Media in your organization but are not sure where to start? Does the constantly evolving world of Social Media create confusion about how to choose which tools that will help accomplish your goals effectively? My goal is to bring the discussion down to earth and help untangle the complexities of Social Media. I will continue to post on this topic over the next while based on the thoughts raised in conversations with HR professionals.
What thoughts cross your mind when you think about Social Media? What do you wish would exist to make the learning process easier and faster?
Are you using Social Media for recruiting or are you thinking that you should be using it but feel overwhelmed by the enormous amount of information in cyberspace and being touted at various conferences and seminars? If you are somewhat tentatively using it for recruiting purposes or made some attempt to learn more, you are in good company and it is understandable if you have merely dipped your toe in the waters not quite sure what to do with it all.
Social Media is simply a series of tools that uses technology to build communities that share information, ask and answer questions, educate, collaborate, and connect. Why do we want to build internal and external communities that use Social Media tools and what does this have to do with HR? Let’s start with asking the same question about HR - what does HR do? Share information, ask and answer questions, educate, collaborate and connect. Social Media tools create the ability to start, monitor, and participate in discussions about your organization both among the employee base and with everyone outside of the organization. HR professionals can use Social Media tools to monitor and participate in discussions within the organization but also gain knowledge about what is being said about their organization on various Social Media sites and develop cost effective and wide ranging recruitment programs.
If the organization is not participating in a meaningful way they not only lose the opportunity to build communities and present a balanced discussion about it but they take the very real risk of allowing the conversation to go unchecked. And it will, actually it is whether you are paying attention or not.
HR professionals have a great opportunity to take the lead with adopting Social Media and demonstrating how effective it can be by using the competencies that all great HR professionals develop as part of their practice. In previous posts I commented that collaboration may be the most effective competency that HR professionals can use in their work. Being skilled at collaborating can help develop communities within an organization and externally with customers (both business to consumer and business to business organizations will benefit from such communities). A must have for developing strong collaboration skills is to also continuously update your communication skills and in the world of Social Media, communication skills can make all the difference to attaining your goals and minimizing or mitigating negative outcomes.
A real world example of one thing that Social Media tools can do to help you in your work occurred in a LinkedIn group for HR professionals in British Columbia. A member of the group asked for sources of information to help write a Social Media policy. Within a few hours he had three of the best resources and examples available on this topic. This saved him hours of searching for the information himself and the cost of paying an external consultant to help with his project. It is fairly easy to imagine how many other uses of Social Media are available to help you in your work.
We are currently working on a book that takes Social Media out of the realm of hype and conflicting sources and uses plain business protocols to start the Social Media journey for professionals. This book will provide references to sources that our research over the past year unearthed as reliable and user friendly for those of us that are not technical whizzes but use technology to improve our work.
Do you feel like you want to take the lead on Social Media in your organization but are not sure where to start? Does the constantly evolving world of Social Media create confusion about how to choose which tools that will help accomplish your goals effectively? My goal is to bring the discussion down to earth and help untangle the complexities of Social Media. I will continue to post on this topic over the next while based on the thoughts raised in conversations with HR professionals.
What thoughts cross your mind when you think about Social Media? What do you wish would exist to make the learning process easier and faster?
Monday, May 31, 2010
Change and Shifting Frames
This weekend, Chris Brogan, http://www.chrisbrogan.com/ posted an interesting article on frames. The content isn’t new to me as it is an important component in change management that often doesn’t receive enough attention by business leaders when their organizations take on significant change projects or experience change from external forces. However, the timing was perfect as I have been struggling to fully shift from my old frame to my new frame for several months now.
While my personality is one that often seeks out change and enjoys the benefits that can come with it, this change requires a shift that means adopting core competencies that I have previously felt were not well suited to my abilities.
It also means that some of my core strengths are not as applicable going forward as they used to be. It felt a bit like putting one foot over the edge of that proverbial cliff and a bit like leaving behind some old friends-those competencies that I was so comfortable with. This weekend I realized that it was time to take both feet off the cliff. The option is to fly or drop, the choice is mine.
Considering the idea of frames and change is an important concept for HR practitioners to consider as they are often in a position to help others with the change process.
Are you in a position of having to choose a frame and shift fully into it? What is helping you do this? Where do you seek help as you work your way through the process?
While my personality is one that often seeks out change and enjoys the benefits that can come with it, this change requires a shift that means adopting core competencies that I have previously felt were not well suited to my abilities.
It also means that some of my core strengths are not as applicable going forward as they used to be. It felt a bit like putting one foot over the edge of that proverbial cliff and a bit like leaving behind some old friends-those competencies that I was so comfortable with. This weekend I realized that it was time to take both feet off the cliff. The option is to fly or drop, the choice is mine.
Considering the idea of frames and change is an important concept for HR practitioners to consider as they are often in a position to help others with the change process.
Are you in a position of having to choose a frame and shift fully into it? What is helping you do this? Where do you seek help as you work your way through the process?
Thursday, April 22, 2010
The Role of HR and Intra-Organizational Social Media Use
I have conducted extensive research into the use of Social Media in organizations over the past several months. It started out as a bewildering and massive array of information while I sorted out which 'experts' really are experts. I quickly came to realize that the world of Social Media is like many other professions (such as HR) in that one must learn as much as they can in a 'generalist' sense, then choose an area of specialty.
As a person with an extensive HR/OD background the concept of the use of Social Media in an intra-organizational sense is intriguing. I have also read reams of information on using Social Media for marketing and branding. While my future use of Social Media will be in a new business launch later this year, the idea of using Social Media for HR and OD purposes still captures much of my interest.
One thing that is clear is that many organizations still fear opening the gates to Social Media in their organizations. The key is to treat it in a similar manner that you would any other major business process or program. The organization must first hold discussions on what the implementation of Social Media can do for various aspects of the business. Once that is determined the leaders (including a starring role by HR/OD) must develop a well thought out policy for the organization's Social Media strategy. IBM has one of the best I have seen so far and it is easy to find via Google.
The next step is organization wide communication and education on the strategy, the policy, the roll out and the expectations of all employees regarding the use of Social Media in the organization.
This should sound familiar and if it seems daunting it is a little, however the rewards of a well thought out strategy and roll out will be evident within the first six months.
The benefits of Social Media for improving organizational communication, recruiting and training and development programs are significant if the organization takes time to develop and then follow an effective plan first.
What steps regarding the use of Social Media have been taken in your organization? Have you proposed or initiated any Social Media related projects in your HR/OD role?
As a person with an extensive HR/OD background the concept of the use of Social Media in an intra-organizational sense is intriguing. I have also read reams of information on using Social Media for marketing and branding. While my future use of Social Media will be in a new business launch later this year, the idea of using Social Media for HR and OD purposes still captures much of my interest.
One thing that is clear is that many organizations still fear opening the gates to Social Media in their organizations. The key is to treat it in a similar manner that you would any other major business process or program. The organization must first hold discussions on what the implementation of Social Media can do for various aspects of the business. Once that is determined the leaders (including a starring role by HR/OD) must develop a well thought out policy for the organization's Social Media strategy. IBM has one of the best I have seen so far and it is easy to find via Google.
The next step is organization wide communication and education on the strategy, the policy, the roll out and the expectations of all employees regarding the use of Social Media in the organization.
This should sound familiar and if it seems daunting it is a little, however the rewards of a well thought out strategy and roll out will be evident within the first six months.
The benefits of Social Media for improving organizational communication, recruiting and training and development programs are significant if the organization takes time to develop and then follow an effective plan first.
What steps regarding the use of Social Media have been taken in your organization? Have you proposed or initiated any Social Media related projects in your HR/OD role?
Friday, April 16, 2010
Are Organizations Made Up of Talent, Capital or People?
Over the past 8 years there has been a growing trend to using new buzz words in HR. We no longer refer to employees as people, now we call them ‘talent’ or ‘capital’; we refer to executives as the ‘C-Suite’ and attempt to apply a financially oriented return on investment (ROI) to literally everything related to Human Resources.
Is it any wonder that managers, candidates and employees feel disengaged and frustrated with their experience with the people that work in HR? If the people of HR continue this trend of referring to people in this manner the concern is that we move further and further away from what our purported roles are. Whatever happened to facilitating the ability of the management team [people] to attract, retain and develop people? Remember the right people, in the right place, at the right time? I have yet to speak to a non-HR CEO or Manager that refers to the people that work for them as talent or capital-they call them people if referring to groups, or by name if referring to individuals.
Talent, in the form of competencies, skills and abilities come as a complete package, they are attached to people. We can not afford to forget this and by replacing the words people and human with talent and capital what message is being sent? People are far more complex that the set of skills they bring to the workplace and people who work in HR must be conversant with this complexity and understand how it affects the culture of the organization, the engagement of the people who work for the organization, and the future of the organization.
Instead of focusing on catchy new ways to describe what we do, why not focus on simply doing it better?
Is it any wonder that managers, candidates and employees feel disengaged and frustrated with their experience with the people that work in HR? If the people of HR continue this trend of referring to people in this manner the concern is that we move further and further away from what our purported roles are. Whatever happened to facilitating the ability of the management team [people] to attract, retain and develop people? Remember the right people, in the right place, at the right time? I have yet to speak to a non-HR CEO or Manager that refers to the people that work for them as talent or capital-they call them people if referring to groups, or by name if referring to individuals.
Talent, in the form of competencies, skills and abilities come as a complete package, they are attached to people. We can not afford to forget this and by replacing the words people and human with talent and capital what message is being sent? People are far more complex that the set of skills they bring to the workplace and people who work in HR must be conversant with this complexity and understand how it affects the culture of the organization, the engagement of the people who work for the organization, and the future of the organization.
Instead of focusing on catchy new ways to describe what we do, why not focus on simply doing it better?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Perspective on the HR Certification in Canada
At the end of January, my membership in the local HR Association came up for renewal, as did my certification requirement for the CHRP designation. Over the previous several months I debated whether or not to continue with either. I am moving into a new career arena and my satisfaction with the association and the designation had become increasingly poor over the past several years.
My decision shortly before the renewal date arrived was to let both lapse. I debated maintaining the designation for a further three year term but discovered that one is required to also maintain the association membership in order to do so. It was not a good return on investment to do this, therefore my decision was based primarily on a business decision but also on a quality factor.
My decision to forgo the designation is based on the fact that recertification points are offered for attendance at events that in my opinion do not improve ones ability to perform on the job. Points are awarded for attendance at a 1.5 hour session, which in my experience consists of about 20 minutes of introductions to everyone in the room and one hour of a consultant essentially selling a product, with a short question and answer session at the end.
In addition, the attribution of points for various events appears to lack logic. For example, you are awarded 30 points when you have a Masters thesis accepted and you are also awarded 30 points for attending a series of short seminars over the course of a 3 day conference.
While there is a significant requirement to demonstrate a high level of learning and application over a two year period for the Masters degree, there is no requirement to demonstrate that sitting through those seminars improves your ability to perform on the job. All you need do is hang in there for a few days and provide 'proof' via a receipt that you attended the conference. Given that fact, what logic was applied to awarding the same number of credits for both those events?
If HR professionals want this designation to attain real credibility then there is a need to sharply step up the requirements for recertification. The fact that it is all too easy to recertify shows up in a lack of high quality output on the job. The stream of complaints and HR bashing in the news and among employees and management in organizations is occuring for a reason and HR needs to start paying attention.
My decision shortly before the renewal date arrived was to let both lapse. I debated maintaining the designation for a further three year term but discovered that one is required to also maintain the association membership in order to do so. It was not a good return on investment to do this, therefore my decision was based primarily on a business decision but also on a quality factor.
My decision to forgo the designation is based on the fact that recertification points are offered for attendance at events that in my opinion do not improve ones ability to perform on the job. Points are awarded for attendance at a 1.5 hour session, which in my experience consists of about 20 minutes of introductions to everyone in the room and one hour of a consultant essentially selling a product, with a short question and answer session at the end.
In addition, the attribution of points for various events appears to lack logic. For example, you are awarded 30 points when you have a Masters thesis accepted and you are also awarded 30 points for attending a series of short seminars over the course of a 3 day conference.
While there is a significant requirement to demonstrate a high level of learning and application over a two year period for the Masters degree, there is no requirement to demonstrate that sitting through those seminars improves your ability to perform on the job. All you need do is hang in there for a few days and provide 'proof' via a receipt that you attended the conference. Given that fact, what logic was applied to awarding the same number of credits for both those events?
If HR professionals want this designation to attain real credibility then there is a need to sharply step up the requirements for recertification. The fact that it is all too easy to recertify shows up in a lack of high quality output on the job. The stream of complaints and HR bashing in the news and among employees and management in organizations is occuring for a reason and HR needs to start paying attention.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Will HR Become More Effective?
HR has the unfortunate tendency to be inward focused; rather than collaboratively engaging cross functional colleagues in HR project design and implementation, they garner sources of information from other HR practitioners to inform their project process. Successful HR projects that drive business goals require the expertise, input and engagement of the rest of the organization. Therefore the CHRP should include a significant requirement to develop a high level of competency in cross functional collaboration, project management and systems thinking. Business acumen is all well and good but of little value if you are unable to discern the need to engage others appropriately.
Of all members of an organization, the HR practitioner should be the role model of collaborative effort and show leadership in the practice of engaging others in business oriented projects. Yet too often, HR is seen as a department that is somewhat isolated and out of touch from the rest of the organization.
If HR associations took a different approach to the surveys they send out regarding the value of services offered by association to practitioners, they would gather radically different input. Send out a survey regarding the effectiveness of HR in their organization, to the non-HR employees and you will gather a very different perception of what needs to be done if HR is ever to begin to garner the respect they claim to want. To get the ‘seat at the table’, a stated desire that gets tossed out there so often will be attained by radical change. Is HR up to that challenge?
Of all members of an organization, the HR practitioner should be the role model of collaborative effort and show leadership in the practice of engaging others in business oriented projects. Yet too often, HR is seen as a department that is somewhat isolated and out of touch from the rest of the organization.
If HR associations took a different approach to the surveys they send out regarding the value of services offered by association to practitioners, they would gather radically different input. Send out a survey regarding the effectiveness of HR in their organization, to the non-HR employees and you will gather a very different perception of what needs to be done if HR is ever to begin to garner the respect they claim to want. To get the ‘seat at the table’, a stated desire that gets tossed out there so often will be attained by radical change. Is HR up to that challenge?
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Competency Development: Collaboration
Perhaps the most important competency HR professionals can develop is the ability to show leadership in collaboration. Collaboration is often defined as a problem solving competency, another way to look at it is for goal accomplishment.
Rather than viewing collaboration as a means to only solve problems, consider it as a way to develop a business case for a program that you see as innovative and important to the future success of the business. Working collaboratively means access to greater resources, recognition and reward when facing competition for finite resources.
For the HR professional, this means engaging subject matter experts across the organization to develop the best practice approach to accomplishing a goal. Perhaps your goal is to launch Social Media/Web 2.0 applications in the organization. In order to develop a comprehensive business case for the project you need to access expertise in IT, Marketing, Communications, and Learning and Development.
Engaging others to share their expertise requires that while you are taking a leadership role in developing a collaborative effort, you must ensure that all participants are committed to the success of the project. This requires that you use well developed leadership skills, especially in the competency areas of Emotional Intelligence.
When you are researching information related to the project through the internet Google searches are a very useful tool. A key resource via internet research however is the use of Social Media groups where you can access a vast scope of expertise; join groups that are not specific to HR as you will develop comprehensive and useful information resources by inviting knowledge that is diverse.
To start the discussion of what you ‘see’ as the goal(s) for the project, summarize the information you gather through online research. Ask the participants that you have engaged in your project for their thoughts on that information in relation to integration in your organization and what else needs to be considered.
Rather than viewing collaboration as a means to only solve problems, consider it as a way to develop a business case for a program that you see as innovative and important to the future success of the business. Working collaboratively means access to greater resources, recognition and reward when facing competition for finite resources.
For the HR professional, this means engaging subject matter experts across the organization to develop the best practice approach to accomplishing a goal. Perhaps your goal is to launch Social Media/Web 2.0 applications in the organization. In order to develop a comprehensive business case for the project you need to access expertise in IT, Marketing, Communications, and Learning and Development.
Engaging others to share their expertise requires that while you are taking a leadership role in developing a collaborative effort, you must ensure that all participants are committed to the success of the project. This requires that you use well developed leadership skills, especially in the competency areas of Emotional Intelligence.
When you are researching information related to the project through the internet Google searches are a very useful tool. A key resource via internet research however is the use of Social Media groups where you can access a vast scope of expertise; join groups that are not specific to HR as you will develop comprehensive and useful information resources by inviting knowledge that is diverse.
To start the discussion of what you ‘see’ as the goal(s) for the project, summarize the information you gather through online research. Ask the participants that you have engaged in your project for their thoughts on that information in relation to integration in your organization and what else needs to be considered.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Does Your Succession Plan Work?
This example shows how a leader that the succession planning process missed turned out to be the best choice for the job. The organizations’ succession plan identified specific people who were thought by their managers to have the potential to fill leadership positions. The development plan included coaching, support for ongoing education, leadership development programs, and opportunities to work in cross functional areas to gain tactical experience.
For employees that were not included in the succession plan, the opportunities available to them for promotion to leadership positions were support for continuing education, the opportunity to volunteer for various organization wide committees, and the ability to apply for leadership positions posted internally. The internal hiring process mirrored the external process.
In one such competition there were several candidates for a management position, but only two of these candidates are noted in this post.
One candidate was reluctantly nudged into the competition by others that felt he had demonstrated many of the competencies required. He consistently exhibited a solid understanding that everyone’s contribution to the organization was critical to the success of the organization. He was well respected both on a technical basis and an interpersonal basis by his peer group. He influenced the attitudes of his co-workers in a way that built commitment to quality and productivity. However, in his over ten years of experience, he had never expressed an interest in a leadership position; had not taken advantage of the opportunity to advance his formal education, or volunteered for any of the committees that would have him ‘noticed’ by the leaders of the organization.
Another candidate who had expressed an eagerness to attain a management position applied for the competition. During his employment with the organization he had taken advantage of the support for continuing education and volunteered for many of the organization wide committees. He was respected for his technical knowledge, however his interpersonal skills did not garner the level of trust and respect that the other candidate enjoyed. His influence with his coworkers was compromised because his skills (emotional intelligence) needed development in several areas.
Each candidate underwent an extensive interview process and wrote an exam that required knowledge of the business and a solid understanding of leadership practices. Once the interview and exam phases were complete the interviewing panel tabulated the results. The ‘reluctant’ candidate topped the list with the highest score, the ‘eager’ candidate placed fifth (out of six candidates) in the ranking.
Many of the criteria for ranking the candidates were items that could be objectively ranked, while the emotional intelligence items by nature had a certain amount of subjectivity in the rankings. The rankings were 80% objective and 20% subjective.
Why did the reluctant candidate fair so well in the rankings? By all appearances and criteria set by the organization for leadership he appeared to be a follower rather than a leader. Yet close observation of his actions throughout his work life and analysis of his interview and test results showed a remarkable level of understanding how to coach and motivate people.
Previous managers that he had reported to failed to submit his name for leadership development, in part because he did not overtly seek such a position. But also, because they failed to note his demonstrated skills and thus did not coach and mentor him.
The succession planning process, which appeared to be comprehensive, failed in one important aspect-the managers that submitted names were not adequately trained to effectively evaluate candidates. In this situation the internal hiring process filled in the gap.
For employees that were not included in the succession plan, the opportunities available to them for promotion to leadership positions were support for continuing education, the opportunity to volunteer for various organization wide committees, and the ability to apply for leadership positions posted internally. The internal hiring process mirrored the external process.
In one such competition there were several candidates for a management position, but only two of these candidates are noted in this post.
One candidate was reluctantly nudged into the competition by others that felt he had demonstrated many of the competencies required. He consistently exhibited a solid understanding that everyone’s contribution to the organization was critical to the success of the organization. He was well respected both on a technical basis and an interpersonal basis by his peer group. He influenced the attitudes of his co-workers in a way that built commitment to quality and productivity. However, in his over ten years of experience, he had never expressed an interest in a leadership position; had not taken advantage of the opportunity to advance his formal education, or volunteered for any of the committees that would have him ‘noticed’ by the leaders of the organization.
Another candidate who had expressed an eagerness to attain a management position applied for the competition. During his employment with the organization he had taken advantage of the support for continuing education and volunteered for many of the organization wide committees. He was respected for his technical knowledge, however his interpersonal skills did not garner the level of trust and respect that the other candidate enjoyed. His influence with his coworkers was compromised because his skills (emotional intelligence) needed development in several areas.
Each candidate underwent an extensive interview process and wrote an exam that required knowledge of the business and a solid understanding of leadership practices. Once the interview and exam phases were complete the interviewing panel tabulated the results. The ‘reluctant’ candidate topped the list with the highest score, the ‘eager’ candidate placed fifth (out of six candidates) in the ranking.
Many of the criteria for ranking the candidates were items that could be objectively ranked, while the emotional intelligence items by nature had a certain amount of subjectivity in the rankings. The rankings were 80% objective and 20% subjective.
Why did the reluctant candidate fair so well in the rankings? By all appearances and criteria set by the organization for leadership he appeared to be a follower rather than a leader. Yet close observation of his actions throughout his work life and analysis of his interview and test results showed a remarkable level of understanding how to coach and motivate people.
Previous managers that he had reported to failed to submit his name for leadership development, in part because he did not overtly seek such a position. But also, because they failed to note his demonstrated skills and thus did not coach and mentor him.
The succession planning process, which appeared to be comprehensive, failed in one important aspect-the managers that submitted names were not adequately trained to effectively evaluate candidates. In this situation the internal hiring process filled in the gap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)