HR Strategy: From Execution to Influence

To be effective leaders in their organizations, HR executives are going to need to successfully move the function from executing strategy to influencing it before decisions are made. The HR function has evolved over the past few decades, with each decade having a guiding paradigm that was interrupted by periods of economic recession.

The '70s were the decade of compliance, a time when HR's role seemed to focus on being the cop that kept managers from making discriminatory employment decisions. The '80s saw the emergence of strategic HRM, but from a siloed perspective as each aspect of the function (staffing, compensation, training, etc.) attempted to tie its activities to the firm's strategy. The '90s were characterized by the "strategic partner" paradigm, a time when HR's role was focused on aligning all of the function (processes, policies, etc.) in order to execute the strategy.

The present decade has been the decade of talent, with HR focused on creating the processes to attract, develop and retain the talent critical to organizational success. In each decade, the value of human resources increases, but each of these paradigms shares one thing in common: They all view HR's role as the executor of strategy. While HR's role in strategy execution is critical to both its internal credibility and the business' success, the emerging responsibility -- something we hopefully will see a lot more of in the next two or three years -- is to move from executing strategy to influencing it.

How HR leaders do this depends on whether their firm's strategic decision-making is characterized as a rational process or a process plagued by human frailty.

A Rational Process

The "rational" model suggests that strategy is a linear, goal-oriented, decision-making approach that entails gathering all of the relevant information and then making the decision what maximizes the relevant outcomes for the firm. This is usually the subject of the offsite "strategic planning" meetings and are reflected in the "strategic plan."

This approach assumes that all those involved in the decision share the same goals, but maybe not the same perspective or the same information. Thus, by getting them together to discuss their different perspectives and share their different information, consensus around what constitutes the "right" decision can be gained.

It is largely this model that has guided some of the work suggesting that HR can influence strategy by being "at the table" when these decisions are being made. Many decision-makers have functional blinders that limit how they define a problem. In addition, due to the pressures exerted by the financial community, decision-makers are prone to focus on the financial outcomes of a decision while ignoring other potential outcomes (corporate reputation, legal risk, customer reactions, employee engagement, etc.). These limitations to the decision-making process may result in decisions that provide maximum short-term financial payoffs, but simultaneously begin a set of processes that may threaten long-term viability.

In this model, the role of the HR executive is to ensure that these "unintended consequences" are all discussed and addressed before the decision is finalized. HR executives achieve this best not by telling, but rather by asking. Because HR executives may lack a reputation for deep knowledge of all areas of the business, they may not be viewed as a credible source of suggested strategies. However, because HR leaders are at the table, they can ask important questions. For instance, in the case of a downsizing or layoff, they might ask:

a) "If we decide to downsize by 10,000 will we be able to maintain our ability to provide customers with what they want from us?"
b) "What are some of the legal risks that we might incur if we engage in this layoff?"
c) "How will this impact our reputation as a socially responsible company?"
d) "Will this layoff be a negative signal to our talent that encourages them to start looking elsewhere?"

The economics of the business may dictate that laying off 10,000 employees is necessary. However, forcing the discussion may lead to either a different decision (Can we cut back hours and pay across the board instead of a layoff?) or to a better way to implement the same decision (How can we communicate to our talent that we value them so they do not begin looking outside?).

My work in studying HR leaders over the past three years reveals that forms of this process often take place outside of the normal "off-site" meeting. Members of the top management team may disagree with the direction a powerful CEO is pushing, but may be unwilling to express their disagreement openly.In this case, the HR leader's role is to try to surface those areas of disagreement confidentially, and then be the conduit to confront the CEO with these conflicting perspectives. This confrontation may take place in the CEO's office or at the executive leadership team meeting itself. Either way, HR executives are influencing the decision-making process when they take the responsibility for ensuring that all perspectives are recognized before a decision is reached.

Certainly, HR leaders can state a point of view, and, if grounded in a deep knowledge of the business, their opinion is often valued by other decision-makers. So the influence can be gained by persuasion as much as by questioning. In either case, the HR leader does not have the authority to make the better decision, but an effective HR executive will always make the decision better.

Plagued by Human Frailty

One hopes that the rational decision-making process characterizes all, or at least most, of the strategic decisions. However, has anyone ever seen a top management team? Too many "teams" are really made up of a group of individuals with their own ambitions, egos, desires and agendas.

A successful CEO may have become so blinded by his or her own success that dangerous levels of hubris begin to emerge. Or, either overtly or covertly, members of the team who hope to ascend to the CEO position may opportunistically seek to undermine the CEO and/or his or her potential competitors for that role. In essence, members of the top management team, like every other human being, can be subject to human frailties, and those frailties can severely impact the strategic decision-making process.

First, what are human frailties? These are universal characteristics of the human condition that, under the right circumstances, result in individuals making decisions that put self over others. While they are not limited to these, I like to focus on two that encompass most of the dysfunctional activities.

Hubris refers to excessive pride, or a belief that one's self is so good, intelligent, etc., that one can do no wrong. Every decision is the right one, and when others disagree, it is only because they do not possess the same level of capability. For instance, when retail industry novice Bob Nardelli, chairman and CEO of Home Depot, argued with longtime retail industry analysts that same-store sales was not a good metric for judging performance, he was displaying hubris.

Opportunism refers to self-interest seeking with guile, or having such a focus on achieving one's own ambitions or desires that one is willing to do whatever it takes, regardless of the consequences to others. The road of failed strategies is littered with leaders overcome by human frailties such as Ron Allen of Delta Air Lines, Jean-Marie Messier of Vivendi Universal or Phil Condit of Boeing. These are not evil men who sought to do harm to their organizations, but rather leaders blinded by their own weaknesses, which led them to pursue strategies that failed their firms.

In a process plagued by human frailties, HR executives may not find themselves in a position to influence at the table, but rather in the hallways; outside of the normal decision-making process.

Looking ahead, what do HR executives who find themselves in positions to influence decisions need to do? Here are several suggestions:

a) Be vigilant in identifying the first signs of human frailties. Business leaders who become isolated, unwilling to harbor disagreement, abusive or exhibit behavior that suggests they are above the rules are those suffering from frailties. If they are to succeed, the HR leader must step in.

b) Erect the guardrails that prevent human frailties. Executive coaches, 360-degree appraisals, employee-survey feedback and other feedback mechanisms can provide information business leaders will find difficult to ignore. My work with CHROs suggests that one of their major roles is to be the person who provides the hard feedback of how a leader is being perceived by others. Whatever the source, such feedback can keep egos in check and make leaders aware of their unrecognized opportunistic tendencies.

c) Create the controls that minimize the impact of human frailties. Some leaders may be overcome with frailties, yet still be effective decision-makers. For instance, much has been written about Steve Jobs, chairman and CEO of Apple, and his ego, tantrums and abuse of employees.

However, his intuitive grasp of the industry provides him with unique insights that have enabled Apple to emerge from the proverbial dustbin of the information- technology industry to become one of the most admired companies in the world. To the extent that his board and those around him ensure that he cannot make all decisions unilaterally, his frailties can live on while their impact is controlled.

Be ready to put your badge on the table. Most HR leaders can tell at least one story about the time they had to put their job on the line.

Randy MacDonald, senior vice president of HR at IBM, suggests that all good HR people will risk being fired at some point in their careers when they have to stand up for what they believe in. Sometimes it was having that hard conversation with the business leader about his or her weaknesses. Sometimes it was going before the board to report to them the business leader's weaknesses.

Regardless of the situation, the effective HR leader has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to ensure that the most effective leader is in place, and sometimes that means replacing the present one.

Our emerging research on HR leaders suggests that the most effective ones successfully oversee the implementation of business strategies through human capital decisions and HR processes. But it also suggests that those who stand out are the ones who can expertly influence strategic decisions before they are made, be that at the table or in the hallway.


Ref: Patrick M. Wright
[About the Author: Patrick M. Wright is the William J. Conaty GE Professor of Strategic Human Resources and director of the Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University. He has published more than 40 articles in journals such as Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review and Strategic Management Journal, and has co-authored two textbooks: Human Resource Management: Gaining Competitive Advantage and Management of Organization. Wright previously held positions in the College of Business at Texas A&M University and the College of Business at the University of Notre Dame.]

Organisational Endurance - People Management

Survival in today's tough economic times needs meticulous planning to build better talent muscle... .....

Key learnings:

• Today's employees needs to hone evelhe surviskills'" for bettr crisis management
• The changing staff fabric calls for a total shift in the process of work execution as the new generation has an entirely different take on job satisfaction

Global economy is undergoing a drastic change. While it is glaring in some aspects, it is latent in others. Irrespective of its visibility, change is here to stay. Organisations which commanded talent at will earlier are now finding it difficult to hook it. This is partly because of increasing job insecurity among employees and partly the employer's own limitations. From the worker's perspective too, there is a significant shift in the employability of skills. The skills that were valued in times of economic upswing are now becoming redundant as employers are looking at more 'specialist' profiles, unlike before when 'generalist' profiles were in demand.

Employers today are looking beyond employee pedigree and seeking skills that look more promising in this hour of uncertainty. Survival skills, as employers see them, are exactly what they need among the staff to combat present-day challenges. These skills are very broad and do not belong to a particular functional group.

Staying alive!

The following survival skills among staff and leaders are critical for organisations to stay afloat:

Critical thinking:

Working though old assumptions has rarely provided answers to new problems. Hence, workers need to think more critically and offer solutions that are fresh and innovative. Playing the loyalist to the old school of thought and looking for solutions with a closed mind may not help them find their way forward. Hence, today's challenges require workers to develop critical thinking abilities that would enable them take a more proactive stance.

Leading by influence:

Leadership could find its way by coercion and force before. Today, leaders have little choice but to work through influence. Workers tend to be more cooperative if they see their leader demonstrating strong, positive behaviour that inspires them to emulate. Thus, the new mantra for organisational success is leading by influence, and not by force.

Adaptability:

The changing corporate landscape is exerting pressure on all quarters of business. The pace of change is set to increase as time goes. It is therefore necessary for leaders and managers to understand the need to build on adaptability skills that enable workers change with the requirements of changing situations. In addition, workers have to be agile in responding to changing work environment. Rigidity and lack of versatility can take a toll on both individual as well as business performance.

Entrepreneurship:

The need for self-motivated people is more now than ever before. Organisations want employees who are self-driven and proactive. The concept of 'intrapreneurship' is becoming popular, with employers seeking better initiative among workers. Today, business problems need a creative approach since they are more dynamic as well as multi-dimensional. Hence, the need for creativity and initiative cannot be undermined.

Communication abilities:

With internet and intranet dominating the communication space, the oral and written communication skills are getting eroded. Employers are feeling deprived as the new generation of workers is dependent totally on the web-based mailing system for communicating with colleagues and the outside world. While it has its own advantages, formal communication cannot be replaced. Therefore, the need to develop oral and written communication skills continues to confront today's worker population.

Analytical abilities:

Employees today is are expencing an information explosion of sorts. much information on the counter, workers need to develop skills that would help theer, process and assimilate relevant informatioowledge.

Imagination:

Gone are the days when employees were expected to follow employer instructions on a job. Now, employees are expected to use their imagination to make suggestions for doing a job well. Employees are also encouraged to question and express their doubts over executing the assigned job.

Work in the new age

Faced with a serious lack of these survival skills, organisations are finding it difficult to accomplish their recruitment objectives. However, with appropriate measures, organisations can provide the right conditions for nurturing these skills.

Recruiting the right talent is only a part of the problem. There are other more important issues resulting from the changing staff fabric. These include creating challenges for employees, giving them better learning opportunities, and motivating the Gen X and Y workers to give their best.
Organisations that are willing to work from the employee's perspective will surge ahead of others who stay in the denial mode. For employees, developing survival skills will prove to be beneficial as it will not only make them more employable but also helps organisations fight the crisis better.

Ref: TheManageMentor

United We Fall - HR practices

When team work can be counterproductive.......

Key learnings:
Working in teams has its benefits
However, team work is not always the best thing for organisations

High-performing teams are a boon. That is why organisations spend fortunes on team-building activities. Even to suggest that businesses can survive without efficient work teams sounds blasphemous. But are teams always important? Is performing in teams the only approach to smooth organisational functioning? This article looks at when working in teams becomes counterproductive.

Absence of environment
Teams exist within an organisational context; and processes, regulations and infrastructure support team work and encourage it. The presence of certain factors or elements lays the foundation for effective team work. The following factors will have a direct bearing on the outcome of a team effort:

Rigid hierarchy: All organisations have hierarchical structures, only the degree of their flexibility differs. A flexible structure encourages delegation, open communication, participation in decision-making, and ensures that both individuals and teams have some leeway in what they do. A rigid structure would mean centralised decision-making, limited autonomy and strictly streamlined communication. A rigid structure limits the functioning of a team outside of it. Though a team is effective 'internally', its operations in the larger context will be difficult. For instance, if a team needs access to certain information, the management's rigidity will limit information sharing; thus hampering team functioning. Investment in team-building will be futile if the hierarchical structure prevents managements from being generous with permits, approvals and allotments.

Independence: There are individuals who thrive in teams; and for those whose success depends on their level of isolation, the less the interaction at work the better their performance will be. When an organisation is flushed with such individuals, then a largely team-based approach will be counterproductive. As one executive says, "Not everyone wants to be a team member. What this means is that an attempt to force them into a team structure imposed upon them will affect their performance and morale."

Nature of tasks: Some tasks require team work and some can be done by individuals with little intervention from others. Some call for both. If the prevalence of 'individual' tasks is high, forcing individuals into teams is a wasted effort. Furthermore, expecting individuals to function as a team when their jobs are linked remotely will affect individual performance. But how do organisations decide whether a task requires team work or not? Tasks do not need team work when they:

• Require little communication or interaction with others
• Are simple and repetitive-an old style assembly line for instance, where a set of simple yet discrete tasks can be performed by an individual
• When information needed for task completion is available with the individual himself

Autocratic leadership: When autocratic leaders like an idea, they insist on implementing it without analysing implications at different levels of the organisation. So when such leaders are 'convinced' about the need for team work, they will make it mandatory for employees to form and work in teams. This imposition of team work will have adverse consequences. Such teams do not perform as successfully as participative teams. Use of autocratic power to create teams results in:

• Mistrust in the management as information sharing will be limited
• Frustrated team members
• Difficulty in maintaining harmony even when performing simple, repetitive tasks

Stability factor: As dynamic as businesses are, stability is the quality that keeps organisations going. This stability results from streamlined procedures and a good corporate culture. In the absence of either, even a small change in the business environment will provoke a major overhaul within the organisation. Organisations which are shaken constantly by what happens in the market cannot support effective team functioning.

Teams need an ideal environment to perform ideally. When the requisite conditions are absent, asking individuals to form and work in teams will be a bad idea.

Ref: TheManageMentor.

Spirituality at Work

Organisations can help employees bring their spiritual beliefs to work without letting it disrupt work place harmony

Key learnings:

• Spirituality and religion can be practiced at work place if a certain level of restraint is maintained
• Leaders and managers have to be sensitive to the spiritual and religious needs of others and respect their individuality in this regard
• Following certain guidelines for nurturing a faith- friendly work place can help de-stress employees

Spirituality and religion are extremely personal. Understanding this very basic aspect of this “universal” issue is important as organisations suddenly find themselves surrounded by beliefs and values that echo intolerance. There is tremendous pressure coming in from all quarters of the society. Today’s staff is highly stressed and therefore needs spiritual healing more than the earlier generations. It is important that organisations allow people to practice their spirituality and religion in the work place to soothe nerves of people. Some however may argue that faith -friendliness may lead to cutting favourites and therefore may result in corporate disharmony. While this fear is not completely unfounded, it surely does not define the whole truth. Corporate sociologists believe that religion and spirituality being extremely sensitive are topics that need to be handled with great care. However, once the right precautions are taken creating a faith -friendly work place will benefit the organisation. It would help workers bond better and would also serve as an effective stress- buster.

Keep the faith Organisations can build a faith -friendly place and refrain from succumbing to the dangers of faith favouritism by incorporating certain measures in their actions and policies. The following is an account of measures and restraints that leaders and managers must practice if they wish to teach spiritual etiquettes.

Respect personal beliefs Every individual has a set of personal beliefs that are rooted in religious and spiritual sentiments. Respecting these, without questioning them would help develop a certain level of comfort. It would enable individuals to voice their feelings without fearing consequences of any kind. In addition , leaders and managers must refrain from using words like “meditation” and “religion” that could ignite undesirable response from individuals and may lead to unnecessary conflict or tension. Leaders should instead choose to use words like “reflection” and “spirituality” that are more neutral.

Go beyond religion Sociologists say that when organisations take the matter of spirituality beyond religion it is reflective of a sense of maturity and calmness. Including concepts like compassion for fellow human beings, care for environment and love for animals are examples of expanded spirituality. Employees justify their spirituality when they begin to feel for others and show their concern for fellow beings. Encouraging employees to embrace spirituality with a flavour of compassion by motivating them to participate in campaigns, marathons and other socially motivated drives can help in building a more rewarding bond between the employer and his staff. Employees begin to respect their leader more as they see his concern for others.

Develop spiritual etiquette Spiritual etiquette is the respect that every individual is expected to show for views, opinions, values and beliefs of others even if they do not approve of it. According to sociologists, maintaining a certain decorum when religious opinions are voiced and not taking things personally are important to build a harmonious work place.

Guard against faith bias Faith -friendliness would lose its purpose if employers fail to maintain an impartial take on faith. Bias towards any faith or religion can create disharmony leading to chaos and internal conflicts. Organisations therefore should be neutral in their approach and provide for all faiths equally. For instance, at Ford Motor Co, the Interfaith Alliance operates on the principle that if you want to incorporate your faith group in the alliance then you must help others of different faiths to meet each other too . In addition every faith group in the alliance has to interact with each other and co-operate on certain issues of social significance. The programme initiated by Ford has been a great success and has helped the company create a stress-free work environment.

Refrain from using religious symbols and teachings Leaders and managers should be aware of the sensitivity of religious issues and therefore should refrain from using symbols and teachings from any given religious scripture. Leaders may want to communicate certain teachings that they believe are essential . Then they should paraphrase the teachings and project them as thoughts from the management and not as teachings of a given sect or religion. In addition forcing employees to use meditation techniques or yoga that may be perceived as teachings from a particular religion should also be restricted.

Know when to interject Given the sensitivity of religious issues, managers should always be watchful and alert of a possible conflict breaking out. They should therefore know when to interject if a conversation or discussion seems potentially damaging and diffuse the discussion for better .

Spirituality is integral to human well-being. Every individual has his own personal beliefs that for him define spirituality. It could range from a simple thing like conserving nature to more elaborate ceremonies like pujas and holy rituals. Irrespective of the definition, leaders should respect and acknowledge individual beliefs and master tolerance for the same .This would encourage workers to get their spirituality to work place as , for all of us spirituality is indeed a great stress buster.

Ref: The Manager Mentor

Leadership-Trying to Get the Most or Best From Your People?

Leadership is about inspiring action in others. And beyond that, the most effective leaders inspire not just action, but excellence, in others. Isn't that what we all aspire to do as leaders or managers? However, too often the ways we manage people lead to compliance with standards and not greatness.

One of the biggest factors in undermining excellence is having a lack of focus. So often you see performance appraisals where there is a long laundry list of tasks, each with maybe 5% impact on overall performance. If you were asked to learn 20 different sports and musical instruments all at the same time, could you achieve excellence in any of them? It seems that we are worried that if there isn't a long list of things that our people will either run out of things to do or will slack off quietly in the background. What if you instead gave people a clear focus on just the most high impact areas where they could contribute the most for a year.

The quote, "are you trying to get the most or the best from your people," has become a great wake up call to those who are taking comfort in managing people by long checklist performance appraisals. Performance is driven in those cases more by doing just enough to earn the check mark, not driving hard for excellence on just three things for impact.

Some ideas to get you stared are:

1) select the top 3 actions that will create the biggest impact on results

2) make sure those to 3 things are all areas where your unique skills and capabilities position the ability to deliver with excellence

3) with the 17 or so things that fall off the task list, think about how to invest that time into further accelerating the 3 items and building the skills and capabilites for excellence

Good luck in inspiring excellence in 2009!

What's Worse: Losing a Job... or Keeping

Is it tougher getting laid off or left behind as a survivor when a company starts cutting jobs?

The simple answer is a no-brainer. Losing a job is harsh reality; it can be catastrophic. But there is a problematic shadow that often hangs over survivors of workforce reductions -- on a personal level, as well as on an organizational level. And that's a reality often overlooked.

In "the best" layoff scenarios companies offer employees generous voluntary buyouts, right? Best Buy Co. this month offered packages to almost all 4,000 employees in its corporate offices. The US's largest electronics retailer is hurting and "needs to reduce significant expense" from its payroll. Details of the cuts are unfolding, but soon decisions will be made about who stays and who goes. Desks will be emptied. Payroll will be slashed. Problems solved?

Unh-uh. No way.

Here's what happens when a struggling company offers employees buyouts:

1. Some take the offer. It's often the best performers because they're confident and credentialed to find something else.

2. Some watch others leave and in short order wish they had taken the package themselves.

3. Some fear their jobs will be the next targets for elimination and there won't be any more packages, just pink slips and escorts to the door.

4. Some, often the weakest performers, hunker down hoping no one notices them going back to business as usual.

5.Some get angry.

6. Conversations at the water cooler get darker and longer and productivity suffers.

Reducing costs can be a vital step in saving a company, but it's impossible for a company to cost-cut its way to great success, especially when eliminating people.

Is it tougher getting laid off or left behind as a survivor when a company starts cutting jobs? The not-so-simple answer is it's tough on the victims and those who get to stay. If you're responsible for leading those staying, or if you're responsible only for your own decision to stay, a couple of thoughts for getting through this kind of tough exercise:

1. Acknowledge the pain of the change. Deal with the grief.

2. If you are a leader, get people involved in creating a new reality. Pose the question to your team/yourself: How can we/I make this new reality work? Then act on those ideas.

3. Create/take ownership for the challenge and opportunity to create new success in a tough situation.

Make a Difference.

Corporate Peter Pan - Recruitment & Retention

Most times recruiting managers are battling self-created problems like an ill-fitted recruit.......

Internal talent movement and succession planning are surely better recruiting options considering the cost and fit factor. Internally placed employees are more likely to fit better as compared to an external recruit and therefore the time taken to get to work would be considerably less. Despite the advantages, experts say that these recruiting options may fail to deliver if measures to ascertain their workability are not adhered to.

One size fits all

The beliefs that a star salesman would make an excellent manager and a finance wizard would be an effective finance head have no takers now. Earlier people got carried away by past performances and based promotions on the performance of an individual in a particular job. However , the tales of failed leadership and managerial feat are famous when a junior executive was promoted to the managerial level only on the basis of his performance in his previous job. Most times in such cases the appraiser fails to take into account the difference in job profiles of the two jobs and therefore makes his decision with a short-sighted perspective. This logic has failed enough times to let managers know that the only time a person has performed equally well in two jobs is when the job profiles of the two jobs and the competency and skill level required to execute it are the same. It is very rare to see the same performance output from a worker who gets promoted to the next level without additional inputs in the form of training.

This belief is echoed in the Peter Principle, stated by Dr.Lawrence Peter. According to this principle, a person would continue to rise in the organisational hierarchy unless he reaches a natural level of incompetence. The principle clearly states that every time a person gets promoted to a job that is one step higher in hierarchy, the individual will in all probability fail to deliver the same level of performance as he did in his previous role. The relevance of Peter Principle becomes obvious every time a manger makes a wrong decision and promotes his "go-getter" to a position that does not need a "go-getter" but needs somebody who can manage a bunch of "go-getters"! Thus, with Peter Principle at work every time, leaders and managers need to craft their decisions carefully.

Intuition and bias

Another pitfall in the process of right recruiting is intuition and its evil twin bias. These factors together can play havoc with the science behind recruiting and result in decisions that may be far from logic. Recruiting managers justify this by saying that it is humanly impossible to gauge every little nuance of human behaviour and make inference on its basis. Hence, in such times it is the intuitive powers that come to rescue and help them make decisions. While it is not completely wrong to use intuition in the process of decision- making , it certainly is unfair to make decisions only n the basis of intuition. Similarly, we all have certain mindsets and beliefs (halo/horn effect). We associate a smart looking candidate with professionalism, skill and panache. However, this may not always be true. In fact many times looks can be sadly deceptive and can disappoint beyond reconciliation.

BesIdes the halo and horn effect (the practice of making a decision on the basis of a single good/bad incident), experts believe that casualness in the interview process too can lead to bad decision- making. A study on the conduct of recruiting managers in the interview process revealed that , many times the decisions tend to be based on insignificant aspects. These include the way the candidate talks, his family background , his interests and other unrelated attributes. While these attribute are worth learning, they certainly do not make an impressive decision -making pre-requisite. Hence, recruiting managers should get more professional and focus more on job-specific competencies and skills if they want their "peg" to fit in well.

The funnel effect

As a guide to scale skills and competencies needed for different jobs in different hierarchical levels , experts recommend the "funnel effect". The funnel effect underscores the changing skills and competency levels as one rises up the hierarchy . The rise is depicted by an inverted funnel , that also represents the fact that as one climbs up the hierarchy the skills and competencies get more specific .

Recruiting is a scientific process. Hence taking a mundane approach to it can ruin the entire exercise and result in some very damaging recruiting decisions. When recruiting managers sit across the interview table they have to be aware and alert of the pitfalls in recruiting and use their providence to overcome them.

Ref: TheManageMentor

Boost Engagement in a Financial Crisis: Tell the Truth

The recent turmoil on Wall Street appears to carry more than just financial implication: It may be lowering employee productivity and engagement, as well.

In a new survey by Workplace Options, a work-life consulting and training company, half of respondents said they are experiencing stress because of financial concerns, and nearly the same amount said that stress makes it hard to perform their jobs.

"It's a critical issue because the first reaction is to hunker down, play it safe and try to not stick out," said Jim Haudan, CEO of Root Learning and author of The Art of Engagement: Bridging the Gap Between People and Possibilities.

"When fear, uncertainty and doubt reign supreme, people begin to get on the [anxiety] train," Haudan explained. "They look at turf control, they begin to catastrophize what's going on, and they begin to worry if [they're] next. All of these emotions are very real, and all of these emotions are exactly what you don't need at a time when you want people to unify, align, change and be agile.

"To help get employees back on track and to leverage workers' capabilities to the fullest, Haudan said talent managers should advise leaders to do the following:

1. Convey the reality of the situation.

Above all, leaders must be frank with employees. "People are amazingly resilient and able to deal with the downside, but the unknown is paralyzing," Haudan said. "The leader's job is to bring the facts into focus and create a perspective.

"To do that, leaders must engage in two specific behaviors: tell the truth and show the bigger picture. "[When leaders tell] the truth, people actually becoming more trusting," Haudan said. "It's when you're not thinking you're being told the truth that you become less trusting.

"There's a very emotional connection, too," he explained. "Telling the truth also conveys that we, leaders, understand the predicament our people are in in such an empathetic way it creates a connection [that allows us] to go forward rather than stay where we're at.

"But leaders also should be sure to convey the bigger picture to employees. Haudan said employees often complain they only receive bits of information that can often give them a haphazard view of what's going on, like disparate jigsaw puzzle pieces.

"They said, 'Why don't [executives] just send the cover of the box across to the puzzle, so we can see how it all fits together and then realize that some of these parts that seem to be in conflict may have their appropriate places?' I think more than ever in these turbulent times, getting people to see the 'box top' of the business and the state of the business is absolutely essential to tap into their capability," Haudan said.

2. Communicate the "score.

"When the financial crisis began to unravel, many employees were glued to their computers, constantly clicking for updates."I've never seen so many [people] check the market so many times in one day," Haudan said. "Human beings, in times of turmoil, want to know what the score is. There's never been greater curiosity about the score; use and leverage that curiosity to not only [get employees to] understand the business but to keep everybody in the game. The urgency can either tear us apart or be a catalyst to bring us together."

3. Prioritize.

Employees are likely to feel overwhelmed in turbulent times, and when upper management unwittingly leads them to believe every initiative is urgent or important, they're more apt to just give up. Leaders should focus on keeping things simple and direct to improve engagement.

Ref:Agatha Gilmore

Rebalancing Gender

Women represent the majority of educated talent in today's knowledge economy. From Arkansas to Abu Dhabi, the majority of university graduates are women: 60 percent in the U.S. and Europe, 60 percent in Iran and 70 percent in the United Arab Emirates. Yet, many organizations still treat them as one minority among many, missing the opportunity to leverage women as a potent economic force.

Most companies recognize this. They launch diversity programs but readily acknowledge gender is their top priority. Women represent not just a significant percent of available talent; they make 80 percent of purchasing decisions about consumer goods. Research indicates companies with more women on the board and in key positions are more profitable, making talent, markets and performance three key drivers behind a renewed interest in gender.Companies often approach gender as an intractable problem. For many organizations and managers, it is an issue they have focused on for decades with relatively unsatisfactory results: too few women in senior positions, too few women on the board and too few women in law firm or consulting firm partnerships.

Diversity leaders often repeat and amplify approaches that have had a limited impact in the past. Typically, companies that want to launch initiatives to improve gender balance in management and leadership benchmark to see what peer organizations have done. But no company has really cracked this issue. Only a hard-to-find handful in a few geographies actually has women at the top and a well-stocked pipeline of female talent.

Companies follow others' best practices even when proof of efficacy is not present. They organize women's conferences, create women's networks, offer women leadership training and coaching, get them to work extra hard - usually in their spare time - to prepare recommendations on how to improve the situation. It's Gender 101 in most American companies, and the class is increasingly being exported internationally. In this fix-the-women approach, the underlying - if unexpressed - assumption is women are not making it to the top of the corporate world because they can't, don't have what it takes or don't want to.

Consider a quote from Olivier Marchal, managing director of Bain & Co. in France: "In improving gender balance women may hold the keys, but men still control the locks." Men have been uninvolved in the gender conversation for too long. Without them, progress on rebalancing gender will be stalled for many more years.

Where We're Going: 'Fix the Managers'

To impact gender balance, diversity leaders must ask the right people, the right questions. Rather than ask women why they are not being promoted, ask the people doing the promoting. Rather than get women to devise strategies to improve gender balance, why not get both genders involved in the analysis and implementation of action plans?

Rather than expect women to adopt the current pyramidal business model to move up, why not question the relevance of the model in today's business landscape and get women to help redesign it for a 21st-century world? That requires starting at the top, usually by spending a day with the executive committee.

Most executive committees are neither convinced nor aligned around a business case for gender balance. They are largely unaware of the impressive statistics on women's economic power as employees and customers. And when they are aware, these numbers are not always presented in a convincing way - despite the different degrees of potential impact on the bottom line - or they have been part of more global briefings on diversity that drowns the message.

The (usually male) executive committee members rarely have been asked to debate or analyze the issue, and unless there is some form of experiential buy-in at this level, little progress will be made. Spend a half or a full day with these teams in sessions that can then be rolled out to their direct reports and key executive and managerial populations. Only companies willing to invest in building gender bilingualism among their leaders are in a realistic position to implement the change-management mentality around gender as a business issue that is required to make real, sustainable progress.

The CEO should be involved and challenge group members to air their views honestly. Political correctness can be the death of the gender dialogue. They will chew through the numbers, review their internal realities and debate the issue and its strategic relevance for their organizations. They should get expert input into gender differences and how to manage them. Then craft the action plan, complete with defined objectives, timetables and accountability, and commit to it. If they don't have the time, or decide it's not a priority, don't bother. Nonstrategic gender initiatives do as much harm as good.

Sessions can include men and women but currently are dominated by men in most corporate leadership positions. The gender mix brings added depth to the debate but is not essential to reach the key objective: to get today's leaders to understand the gender issue and to define how significant a priority it is for their businesses. These sessions have three major objectives:

Objective No. 1:

Find out who cares. In most companies, the CEO reaching out for help achieving gender balance is personally convinced of the need to move forward and create impact at the top. The CEO usually is convinced his executive committee team is aligned behind him. But the gender issue often is either mired in political correctness or seen as a minor HR issue, so the real pros and cons of rebalancing gender rarely have been debated at this level. Dissent has never been aired, and alignment among the leadership team often is simply assumed.

Alignment is rarely evident. Wanting to believe everyone agrees on gender balance is a significant barrier to actually implementing the required changes. So the first exercise is to conduct a quick, confidential vote. Ask each executive committee member to write on a Post-It the priority level they would give to the gender issue as a business issue for their company in the next five years on a scale of one to 10. The numbers usually range across the board. Within two minutes of starting, diversity leaders can establish the key reason a company has made little progress on this issue: Its leaders don't agree that it should.

Objective No. 2:

Look at the data. Review the statistics. Do the external ones first: the reality of a shifting talent pool, customer profiles, demographic pressures and differentiated academic achievements. Then do internal ones: Contrast the significant, sometimes revolutionary, external evolutions with a company's internal statistics and progress over time.

Data will tell its own story. The tale is not that of the oft-cited glass ceiling, with its assumption that women make it up through the ranks until a sudden blockage at a senior level. The reality in today's corporate world is the percentage of women drops off at almost every grade level.The glass ceiling metaphor has blinded diversity leaders to a more pervasive problem - what we call "gender asbestos." Behind the metaphors, the reality is companies have not yet adapted their cultures, career paths, processes and promotions to the reality of 21st-century talent and markets. They still are not identifying, retaining and promoting female talent, despite decades spent trying. Most of the members of the executive committee likely have never looked at this data in detail or been asked whether it would impact their business.

So ask them. A simple SWOT exercise is enough. Ask the team to analyze the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of their company in rebalancing gender in leadership. They are likely all familiar with the process. They've just never applied it to gender. And when they do, the experiential part of the learning comes into play.The learning comes not only from the debate among themselves about the data's significance and whether they should care about it. The real learning comes when the mostly male members of the team hear their colleagues' positions on the topic. In a half-hour exercise, it becomes intensely clear and unavoidably visible what each individual thinks of gender, how comfortable they are discussing the issue - let alone leading on it - and which of three typical segments they fall into: progressive, patient or plodding.

Nothing is more impactful for the progressives in the room than to hear a group of plodding colleagues use arguments they thought had disappeared a generation ago. It usually is a strong wake up call for the CEO and goes a long way to explain lack of progress and the reality of the challenge that lies ahead.

Objective No. 3:

Make a plan. The day usually concludes with some form of action planning. The usual reaction is to hand gender-balance initiatives over to the company's most senior woman to lead. But in organizations in which the leadership is dominated by men, it is more effective to appoint a male leader to this topic. After all, the issue moving forward along this approach is to convince men they are part of the change-management process in rebalancing gender.

Once the executive committee has been through this kind of workshop, it likely will agree it needs to be rolled out to executives and managers. The feedback - a combination of awareness building, strategic planning and pragmatic proposals for action - is a potent case for progress.

Rebalancing gender in leadership does not require a decades-long investment in training and coaching women to adopt behaviors more acceptable to the dominant norm. Instead, it invites the dominant norm to better understand why its interests lie in optimizing the talents and opportunities of women and how to manage more "bilingually" across genders. That when real progress can begin.

21st-Century Approaches to Achieve Gender Balance

a) Start by getting the executive committee and CEO to understand the issue.

b) Position it a business issue, not a women's issue.

c) Get top management to design/approve an action plan.

d) Appoint a high-profile senior man to run the gender initiative.

e) Position gender outside of diversity, preferably outside of HR.

f) Think of women as a majority.

g) Train men (and women) how to manage "bilingually" across genders.

Traditional Approaches

a) Position gender as a part of wider diversity initiatives.

b) Call gender initiatives "Women in Leadership," clearly positioning it as women's issue, not a business issue.

c) Think of women as a minority.

d) Appoint a woman to run the gender issue.

e) Create a women's network as the key initiative.

f) Ask women for proposals to improve gender balance.

g) Promote women, as long as they behave as much like men as possible

[About the Author: Avivah Wittenberg-Cox is CEO of 20-first, a European gender consultancy and co-author of Why Women Mean Business: Understanding the Emergence of Our Next Economic Revolution.]

Leadership Vs Management

Management and leadership are different but complementary, and that in a changing world, one cannot function without the other. Managers promote stability while leaders press for change, and only organizations that embrace both sides of that contradiction can thrive in turbulent times.

As per John Kotter- Leaders don't make plans; they don't solve problems; they don't even organize people. What leaders really do is prepare organizations for change and help them cope as they struggle through it

Leadership isn't mystical and mysterious. It has nothing to do with having "charisma" or other exotic personality traits. It is not the province of a chosen few. Nor is leadership necessarily better than management or a replacement for it. Rather, leadership and management are two distinctive and complementary systems of action. Each has its own function and characteristic activities. Both are necessary for success in an increasingly complex and volatile business environment.

Most corporations today are over managed or under led. They need to develop their capacity to exercise leadership. Successful corporations don’t wait for leaders to come along. They actively seek out people with leadership potential and expose them to career experiences designed to develop that

With careful selection, nurturing, and encouragement, dozens of people can play important leadership roles in a business organization. But while improving leadership ability to lead, companies should remember that strong leadership with weak management is no better, and is sometimes actually worse, than the reverse. The real challenge is to combine strong leadership and strong management and use each to balance the other.

Of course, not everyone can be good at both leading and managing. Some people have the capacity to become excellent managers but not strong leaders. Others have great leadership potential but, for a variety of reasons, have great difficulty becoming strong managers. Smart companies value both kinds of people and work hard to make them a part of the team.

But when it comes to preparing people for executive jobs, such companies rightly ignore the recent literature that says people cannot manage and lead. They try to develop leader-managers. Once companies understand the difference between leadership and management, they can begin to groom their top people to provide both The Difference between Management and Leadership Management is about coping with complexity. Its practices and procedures are largely a response to one of the most significant developments of the twentieth century: the emergence of large organizations. Without good management, complex enterprises tend to become chaotic in ways that threaten their very existence. Management is about coping with Complexity. Leadership, by contrast, is about coping with change.

These two different functions–coping with complexity and coping with change, shape the characteristic activities of management and leadership. Each system of action involves deciding what needs to be done, creating networks of people and relationships that can accomplish an agenda, and then trying to ensure that those people actually do the job. But each accomplishes these three tasks in different ways.

Companies manage complexity first by planning and budgeting-settmg targets or goals for the future (typically for the next month or year), establishing detailed steps for achieving those targets, and then allocating resources to accomplish those plans. By contrast, leading an organization to constructive change begins by setting a direction, developing a vision of the future (often the distant future) along with strategies for producing the changes needed to achieve that vision. Management develops the capacity to achieve its plan by organizing and-creating an organizational structure and set of jobs for accomplishing plan requirements, staffing the jobs with qualified individuals, communicating the plan to those people, delegating responsibility for carrying out the plan, and devising systems to monitor implementation. The equivalent leadership activity, however, is aligning people. This means communicating the new direction to those who can create coalitions that understand the vision and are committed to its achievement. Finally, management ensures plan accomplishment by controlling and problem solving, monitoring results versus the plan in some detail, both formally and informally, by means of reports, meetings, and other tools; identifying deviations; and then planning and organizing to solve the problems. But for leadership, achieving a vision requires motivating and inspiring-keeping people moving in the right direction, despite major obstacles to change, by appealing to basic but often untapped human needs, values, and emotions.

A closer examination of each of these activities will help clarify the skills leaders need.

*John Kotter

Aligning Human Resources and Business

Attracting the best and brightest employees, developing them and retaining them is a challenge for any organization. The role of the Human Resources function has changed dramatically over the past few decades and will become increasingly more strategic in nature in the future. With the changing landscape of Human Resources management in the years to come, strategic planning will be the key for HR to meet those needs and to succeed.

It seems that finally CEO’s are willing to give HR Managers a significant role in strategic decisions. To gain a stake as “Strategic Partners”, HR professionals should focus on two major issues- Return & Growth. Hr professionals can create economic value from these sources:

Employee turnover and retention
Revenue Vs Employee Costs
Expenditure on the HR function and related activities

These three factors relate to three important HR goals:

Attracting, developing and retaining staff
Aligning, engaging, measuring and rewarding performance
Controlling or reducing HR costs

HR related measures for growth needs to be handled with care and should be tailored to the organizations' goals. HR measures should be devised keeping in mind increase in performance & profitability. Following can be attributed as growth related HR measures:

Leadership Development
Increased employee engagement
Diversity in work force
Work-Life balance

Key trends in human capital- Perspective 2008

Maximizing the value of organizational resources has never been more challenging as in this phase of turbulent world economy. Evaluation of human capital policies and processes should be directly related to the business performance and financial obejctives of the organization. This is the only way people will be given due recognition and rewards that their efforts deserve changing HR function from "resource Absoring" to " Value Adding " business investment.

There are these four human capital drivers that will have the most significant influence on organization performance. They Constitute:

Leadership
Engagement
Talent management
Learning & Innovation

These drivers are closely interrelated and the inability to excel and compete in any of these drivers will result in failure in all of them. Effective leadership is essential to gain full engagement of employees. Engagement is essential if talent is to be attracted and retained. Learning and skills development will contribute to the development of innovatory breakthrough s to produce essential competitive results.

Leadership driver remains at the op of human capital agenda. In this tig,htened global business environment, demand for enhanced leadership skills is even greater. Leadership has been defined in various ways but its essentially the ability to influence people to work effectively towards the achievement of organization’s goals. Leadership in today’s business environment is increasingly seen as a shared responsibility rather than a domain of an individual. As per PWC report, if leadership of an organization is effective then its comparative positioning against its competitors would be superior.

Employers over recent years have shown increasing interest in engagement of their workforces. Research has shown a link between highly engaged employees and the bottom line results. There is also a close relationship between employee engagement and customer satisfaction.
Managing talent effectively is a competitive necessity. Filling critical roles with competent and committed people at the right time is a major business requirement. It provides a performance edge that is important for sustainable growth. The War for Talent has gained significant momentum.

The ability of an organization to innovate remains one of the major contributors to its continued sustainable economic performance. The ability of an organization to produce the innovation essential to remain competitive depends on the range of other actions its undertaking including its leadership development, its talent bank, engagement of employees, plus the infrastructure it has in place for exploring new customer offerings.

All the above four drivers are critical to human capital’s impact on an organization’s performance. It is possible that different approaches may be needed ; Identification of ‘pivotal employees’ in talent management, the concept of shared leadership, identifying more focused points of engagement for employees and building innovation requirements into all employee roles.