Recruitment and Retention - Move It!

Internal job rotation has come of age… ......

Key learnings:

1. The second-generation internal movement systems are more strategic than the first- generation prorammes
2. The second-generation methods shun the legacy system of the past, and are more competitive in nature

Employee retention is one of the most critical concerns of corporate leaders, especially in times when ‘buying talent’ does not appear viable. Organisations are reeling under immense pressure to develop and hone the talent that they already have, opening up internal movement options like job rotation, stretch assignments and taking employees to newer levels.

Economic downturns present a good opportunity to reflect on an organisation’ s employee development and succession planning initiatives. Most organisations are facing talent woes as they have failed to get their retention act together by creating a promising development plan for their staff. However, the present downturn may well be the turning point for organisations working towards employee development and retention. Before organisations incorporate an internal movement strategy in their retention plans, it is important to ascertain the goals.

Objectives

The internal movement strategy can help organisations attain the following objectives:

Enhanced employability:

Internal job movements through job rotations and stretch assignments help increase the employability of workers. These initiatives giver workers the right kind of exposure and expand the scope of their expertise, resulting in both vertical and lateral growth .

Improved morale:

Internal movement makes the job more interesting and challenging, thereby enhancing employee engagement and morale. Employees also feel driven and motivated, as the new jobs test their abilities and help them realise their real potential.

Leadership development:

Job rotation is also used as an instrument for leadership development. When internal movement is planned and employees are moved up the corporate hierarchy, the intention is to develop potential leaders for future organisational requirements.

Better skills:

Internal movement helps employees build on their skills, as job rotation and stretch assignments require them to expand their kitty of skills.

To meet the demands of the new age, the internal movement systems too have undergone change.

The second-generation systems, as they are referred to, are pretty much the same as the first-generation internal movement systems; the difference, however, lies in the strategic component. While the first-generation systems are largely operational, the new generation systems are more strategic. In addition, there are other significant differences too. Understanding these differences will help organisations deploy their resources effectively.

Integration and differentiation

While most second-generation strategies are an improvised version of the earlier strategies, and therefore, are integrated through a common framework, differences lie in the approach and execution. As mentioned above, the second-generation systems are more strategic, as compared to the earlier more operational systems. In addition, they are also:

1. Broader in their approach, and cater to a number of internal movement channels by creating attractive opportunities
2. More proactive in creating opportunities for growth, which is unlike the first generation systems that are largely reactive
3. More competitive, with better opportunities to nurture top talent, as compared to the first-generation programmes that are more of a legacy, lacking in quality

Job shifts can be temporary under the second-generation systems, unlike first-generation systems where job shifts are more like a permanent posting.

Understanding these differences will help HR leaders chart their course carefully. However, it is important to note that internal movements have to be deliberate, as they do not happen naturally.

The reason is simple: Most people hesitate to leave their comfort zones for something they are not sure of. Managers too fear losing their best men to jobs that may not suit them. In addition, HR policies too do not support random job movements. Despite the impediments, experts believe that leaders can leverage the potential of internal movement systems for boosting retention and development efforts.

Ref: TheManageMentor.

Employee Motivation: Top 5 Myths

While motivating employees is a key factor in an economic recovery, many companies are failing to keep their workers fully engaged in their jobs because they share some common myths and beliefs, according to Suzanne Bates, author of "Motivate Like a CEO: Communicate Your Strategic Vision and Inspire People to Act!" (McGraw-Hill 2009).

Employers must re-examine their beliefs about employee engagement if they hope to accelerate their business recovery and retain their top talent, said Bates, president and CEO of Bates Communications (http://www.bates-communications.com/).

In a typical workplace, only 29 percent of employees are actively motivated and engaged in their jobs, while 71 percent are unmotivated and disengaged - either not engaged at all (54 percent) or are actively disengaged (17 percent) - according to the Gallup Management Journal’s Employee Engagement Index.

"While there has been a slight uptick in employee motivation in recent surveys, this may be only temporary because it's based on survival. As the pendulum swings back, employers should watch out - because employees will look at their jobs and their companies differently," said Bates.

"The Top 5 Myths about Motivating Employees" are at work even during an economic boom. However, in a serious recession, everything changes, and employers' misperceptions can be damaging. "If employers don't re-examine their human resource practices and beliefs about motivation," said Bates, "they risk damaging morale, losing top talent, and lengthening their recovery time."

The Top 5 myths about motivating employees, according to Bates and "Motivate Like a CEO," are:

Myth #1: Money is the number one way to motivate employees. "Salaries and bonuses have been the staple of motivation. Most companies relied primarily, even completely, on monetary rewards," said Bates. "Money is only one of many factors in motivation. Yet companies have become lazy about motivating people instead of giving them what they really crave, which is recognition, praise, and the opportunity to learn."

Myth #2: If you want to motivate people, don’t let them in on the bad news. "This is a particularly damaging myth. Bad news always gets out to employees. They hate it when you hide bad news; they consider themselves partners in the company, and they long for a chance to contribute and make a difference, especially in tough times," said Bates. "The surest way to motivate people is to empower them even with terrible news, so they can come to terms with reality, think their way through the crisis, and contribute to creative solutions going forward," said Bates.

Myth #3: Most employees know what motivates them. "Many people are searching for a larger purpose, and they are not finding it in their work," said Bates. "In challenging times, employers can become a powerful source of motivation and pride among talented people. In a downturn, leaders must talk to employees and help them discover who they are and what motivates them. Spend time with them; ask them why they enjoy the work, what they enjoy most, how they want to contribute, and where they see themselves in the future," said Bates.

Myth #4: You simply cannot motivate everyone. "This was true in boom times, when organizations were bloated and some people you hired were marginal. Those days are over," said Bates. "Now that companies have downsized and are arguably leaner and meaner with the best talent, this is a damaging assumption. It is a leader’s responsibility to motivate employees. It’s time to stop blaming employees, and start looking to leaders to ignite the spark," said Bates.

Myth #5: People are just grateful to have a job, and this attitude will survive the downturn. "Top talent will always have a place to go, and while they may have had less mobility during the recession, your competitors are already looking around to see who is unhappy and ready to leave," said Bates. "Employers who keep believing their people are just grateful to have a job will be blindsided when their top talent walks out the door because they don’t have leaders who are engaging them, praising them, recognizing them, and giving them opportunities to grow."

Ref: Suzanne Bates

Boost Morale in Minutes Without Going Broke

Would you like to boost morale without spending a buck? I've interviewed thousands of child care professionals and have learned what motivates them to stay in the profession, what motivates them to excel in the profession, and on the other hand, why they leave their places of employment and sometimes, the profession.Today I'm sharing with you eleven strategies that you can implement immediately to help you boost staff morale (without spending a buck!).

1) Unite your team through establishing a common goal that can be worked on and obtained in the next several months. Set a time frame for this goal and get everyone excited about accomplishing it. Break the goal down into small achievable steps and celebrate when small accomplishments are made.

2) Close all communication gaps. Make sure staff are aware of the things they need to know in order to perform their jobs successfully - such as a co-worker or child calling in sick or a change in procedures.

3) Break down communication barriers (break the gossip chain -- morale will never be high if gossip and other destructive communication patterns persist!).

4) Follow through on your commitments and promises.

5) Be consistent in modeling and enforcing policies and procedures.

6) Visit classrooms and make note of the wonderful things team members are implementing. Save criticisms for one-on-one meetings.

7) Greet staff in the morning.

8) Integrate new staff members effectively. Never let people wonder: who is "this new person?"

9) Appreciate and acknowledge team members when they exhibit the behaviors you would like them to display more often.

10) Train your team on how to resolve conflicts and communicate constructively. Role-play or analyze case scenarios as a team.

11) Facilitate team-building activities at your staff meetings. (And have staff meetings on a consistent basis.)

Ref: Julie Bartkus

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.

HR: No more the 'soft-guys'

It is indeed time for some deep introspection, otherwise, the HR impressions are unlikely to change in any remarkable hurry. And that will be a real tragedy.

Sure, every CEO worth every rupee of his precious sound byte says, “people are my most critical assets”; but beyond that famous lip service, do we really see a genuine long-term commitment to that clichéd phrase? To be brutally honest, the answer is a deafening NO. Which is why the moment that we have even a temporary down-turn, the drawers are suddenly emptied, business forecasts are re-done and the pink slips emerge in a dramatic hurry. Now why would an intelligent professional suddenly drop his supposed “most crucial asset” in such a desperate hurry? The reasons range from short-term focus, an obsession with business numbers, lack of understanding of HR role, down to sheer inability to recognise the human angle. Yet, the principal responsibility for being shafted unceremoniously by the CEO at the slighted pretext lies with the HR professionals themselves. That’s the harsh reality.

What is the bottom line mission of a solid, well-founded HR unit in today’s modern, savvy organisations’ people-driven team? How does it really add real tangible value to business results and overall effectiveness, breaking away from the traditional slot of being payroll masters , doling out salary cheques and minding attendance registers, and receiving unending flak for every trivial human failure.

If you do a basic assessment of the profession of Human Resources compared to that of Marketing or Finance (it’s usual competitors) or even General management, you can begin to see that HR has traditionally chosen the quiet corner voluntarily, retreating almost humbly into the backwaters. While Marketing (along with Sales and Distribution etc.) has always prided on being the bread-winners who create the revenue pipe-line, Finance has the perennial positioning of being the cold-hearted systemic function that does hard number-crunching and talks complex ratios. They are seen as more cerebral et al. From time immemorial, the HR guy, on the other hand, has allowed a perception to float and register that they are the 'soft guys'. Just because they end up often dealing with conflict resolution, employee motivation, counseling sessions, and morale building, the rest of HRs contemporaries treat them as the “feel-good” blokes, who occasionally break the monotony of the boardroom. And bring some mild entertainment along.

It is time for HR professionals to reposition their own stereotype image, and as they say, charity begins at home. It is time for some deep introspection, otherwise, the HR impressions are unlikely to change in any remarkable hurry. And that will be a real tragedy. Because the bottom-line is that HR has every reason to believe that they are, in a services economy and consumer-driven markets in particular, one of the key variables for success. If not, probably the most important one.

HR professionals who are able to look at the company business strategy and identify those internal processes and people-practices that need to be newly created or amended to support the business are poised to make a leapfrog. That’s the only way forward. Change management starts with the HR professionals themselves raising their performance bars. Quite simply, because the entire success story gets scripted by how HR gets the right team going. Not just by recruiting right talent, but getting them to stay. And perform. It is a tall order.

Give me one company’s high-sounding lofty vision or mission statements that do not have the people and employee element in it. Or are some companies presumptuous enough to believe that their business success can be achieved without motivated and quality employee effort? The ability to identify the communication and human interventions that need to take place to support business activity with a vibrant and engaged workforce, is today a required competency of HR practitioners. Employee engagement is no longer just a passing buzzword or a fashionable management fad.

Can we even contemplate the impact of the professional uncertainties and personal struggles world-wide amongst several thousands of employees of the Lehman Brothers-Merrill Lynch –AIG bale-outs and virtual bankruptcy? While the investment banker makes a massive mess (after pocketing million-dollar bonuses), it is the HR person who cleans the stacked-up debris. Who does the tough task of severance, settlements and not-so-golden handshakes, an inevitable fall-out.

The soft guy usually becomes the fall-guy. But it is now time for HR to rise. And shine.

Ref: Sheetal Srivastava