hr strategy - Blogs - DPG Community
2024-03-19T10:20:26Z
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/feed/tag/hr+strategy
How do you view change?
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/how-do-you-view-change
2017-02-02T14:38:15.000Z
2017-02-02T14:38:15.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217162?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Change is an integral part of life. So much so that we are often completely unaware of it. We simply wake up one day to the realization that something familiar isn’t quite the same as we thought it was.</p><p>We experienced a good example of this over the Christmas holidays, visiting our young grandchildren for almost a month. As you would expect, the children we met on the first day were very different from the young children we had last seen. More surprising, however, was how much they changed <em>during</em> our time with them. It wasn’t only that, even after a couple of weeks, they were so proficient at things they couldn’t do when we arrived. Nor was it just the delicious festive food that made them feel heavier. We were sure that they also grew physically!</p><p>The fact is change is continuous. In the 21<sup>st</sup> Century, however, we are perhaps more aware of it than ever, and the fact that – due to the massive technological advances – the pace seems to be faster and the demands on us more urgent. So much so, that ‘change management’ has not only become part of the lexicon, but a recognized skill and much sought after competency. But are we being misguided?</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak"/>The term ‘change management’ suggests that change is specific and implies that it happens at a specific point in time and can therefore be manipulated. This doesn’t jell with the concept of change being ongoing. The ongoing nature of change makes it more evolutionary, and thus far more difficult to manage. It also reinforces the need to make your organisation more organic – as I described <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/business-leaders-step-up-your-role-pioneer-bay-jordan?trk=mp-author-card" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Business Leaders as Pioneers">last week</a>. </p><p>In his book Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari writes, <em>“Every point in history is a crossroad. A single travelled road leads from the past to the present, but myriad paths fork off into the future.” </em>In other words, history is actually the outcome of decisions made in the continuum that is time. This makes it less deterministic and more haphazard than you might think. After all, no one can control events for every moment of the day. And the same is true in business.</p><p>Substitute the word ‘business’ for ‘history’ and you can just as easily say “Every point in business is a crossroad.” This emphasises the point. Like history, business performance is an outcome. But it is the outcome of a myriad of possibilities. To be successful you need to be able to respond to any one of those. And managing change is more often than not a case of focussing on one in particular.</p><p>All too often, things only work until they don’t. By the time you realise that they are no longer working it is too late. You end up scrambling to identify a new solution and stuck on the change management treadmill trying to introduce it. Trying to manage change is a mug’s game, and success will always be less than you intended. You will do far better to create an organic culture that responds to change as it happens. You will be less likely to find yourself scrambling for a solution and trying to create and direct a change because it might have already evolved. </p><p>Recently popular management blogger Seth Godin wrote, <em>“Intentional action is the hallmark of a professional</em>.” The <a href="http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2017/02/but-when-will-you-abandon-it.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Not if, but when">context</a> of this statement is the need to replace conventional systems that he implies are already obsolete, but which still prevail. As such it may seem like another call for more effective change management. Hopefully, you won’t fall into that trap.</p><p>Of course it goes without saying that you need to think before you act. But your business depends on the way your people act. Your people are the ones who create that myriad of possibilities. Therefore every individual matters and your intention needs to be on creating an organic environment and a culture where actions are shaped by a common purpose that makes people more adaptable and responsive to change. That is how you ensure that change evolves naturally rather than as a top down – and often too late – requirement.</p></div>
HR still hasn’t woken up to its pioneering role
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/hr-still-hasn-t-woken-up-to-its-pioneering-role
2017-01-26T16:53:35.000Z
2017-01-26T16:53:35.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217151?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=338"></div><div><p>We are all aware of the pace of change. But business leaders struggling to compete and survive in today’s global market are at the forefront. They face the challenges every working hour; perhaps every waking hour and possibly even in their sleep. And, while they thrive on challenge there must be times when they feel like an early explorer and question why they ever embarked on the journey.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357939?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357939?profile=RESIZE_480x480" width="320" class="align-left"></a>Those intrepid sailors must have had doubts in the face of severe storms miles away from anything familiar. A manager’s situation is not dissimilar. They may not have left the shore, but are just as much pioneers, trying to map out routes for others to follow. No-one has ever before had to meet their challenges, on the scale, or with the consequences they face. Arguably, the risks are no less significant now than they were then. </p>
<p>The problem is, they have never considered their role in this light. And, as specialist in dealing with people, it is incumbent on HR to make them aware of this and – even more importantly – to play the scouts’ role and help them through it. </p>
<p>The fact is that all the change we are experiencing is the unavoidable effect of the Information Revolution, which launched “The Knowledge Age.” Universally acknowledged, this can be readily identified by the increasingly common:</p>
<ul>
<li>Pursuit of continuous improvement;</li>
<li>Use of the term “Learning Organisation”;</li>
<li>Recognition of employees as “knowledge workers”; and, perhaps less obviously,</li>
<li>Use of the term “human capital”. </li>
</ul>
<p>All these, as I suggested previously, point to the fact that management theory and practice is <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/management-evolution-where-do-you-stand-bay-jordan?trk=hp-feed-article-title-comment">evolving</a>: something you would expect following a revolution. After all, any revolution results in a change in models, systems and behaviours. Managing this evolution is what makes a manager a pioneer. To be a successful pioneer and secure the future you have to shape those changes.</p>
<p>The key to doing so is implicit in the term “human capital.” More than anything else, this not only acknowledges the contribution of people, but builds on the concept of employees as knowledge workers and so recognises the value they add to the organisation. It moves employees beyond being “resources” and implicitly recognises them as the assets they are so frequently described as, but never managed as! </p>
<p>This gives the HR industry a golden opportunity to redress its historic failings. Recognising employees as human capital inevitably creates greater expectations. It means that you:</p>
<ul>
<li>Can no longer consider them as “hired hands” but rather as a vital cog in the running of the organisation. </li>
<li>Have to ensure they have the knowledge they need.</li>
<li>Have to enable them to use their intelligence and apply their knowledge for the ultimate good of the organisation.</li>
</ul>
<p>This is why you need to move away from the traditional (industrial age) hierarchical model and create a more organic model that allows people to interact more on an as-needed basis and thus be more responsive and adaptive.</p>
<p>With its predetermined lines of communication, the hierarchical model inevitably and unavoidably slows down or prevents proper communication, slowing service and stunting development. The hierarchical model not only fails to recognise the evolution of management, but also completely fails to recognise the constantly evolving nature of the organisation itself. Every change alters the dynamics of the organisation itself. </p>
<p>This inevitably brings you back to the three basic drivers of motivation identified by people like Daniel Pink – Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose – all of which are inextricably tied to the individual. All are also essential for an organisation to become more organic, simply because the focus on the people. Thus, to be an effective pioneer you have to find a way to bring these into play and make your business more organic.</p>
<p>All this should be bread and butter to the HR profession. So, how well you are doing? Only you can answer that question. I would, however, wager that you are not doing as well as you would like. If that is the case, then I can offer you some relief. My ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model offers you an ideal way to shape your environment so your managers can accelerate their progress, steal a march on the competition and ensure their success as pioneers. </p>
<p></p></div>
11 Predictions to Guide Your Talent Strategy in 2017
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/11-predictions-to-guide-your-talent-strategy-in-2017
2016-12-16T11:02:22.000Z
2016-12-16T11:02:22.000Z
Mike Collins
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/MikeCollins
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217128?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>The need to “be digital” is prompting organizations to completely rethink ways to manage, engage, lead, and develop people. We have observed 11 rapid technological, structural and cultural changes that we expect to reshape the world of work in 2017.</p>
<p>In a new report by Bersin by Deloitte, <em>Predictions for 2017: Everything Is Becoming Digital</em>, they explain how these developments and insights can help guide your HR, learning and talent strategies in the new year. Among the predictions:</p>
<ul>
<li>Organizational design will be challenged everywhere</li>
<li>Culture and engagement will remain top priorities</li>
<li>Real-time feedback and analytics will boom</li>
</ul>
<p>This report is available on a complimentary basis for a limited time. </p>
<p><a href="http://marketing.bersin.com/predictions-for-2017.html" target="_blank">Download the Report here</a></p>
</div>
Cats, Caterpillars and Business
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/cats-caterpillars-and-business
2016-12-08T11:36:43.000Z
2016-12-08T11:36:43.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217132?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Have you ever noticed how sensitive a cat’s fur is? Barely touch a sleeping cat and it will twitch where you touch it. It’s purely reflex, I know, but it is something I love doing and always makes me smile. But it provides a useful lesson.</p>
<p><img class="mce-pagebreak">Perhaps I have been watching too much Planet Earth, but when it happened this week while our cat slept on my lap, I couldn’t help thinking about the role of hair in nature. My balding pate suggests hair is not an essential but, on these cold autumn mornings, I certainly wish I still had all mine! Slightly envious, I began to think about all the different types of hair and the other non-insulation purposes they serve. </p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357865?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357865?profile=original" width="450" class="align-left"></a>For instance, in the case of cats, they seem to act as an early-warning indicator, alerting the animal to potential danger. Yet you can safely stoke a cat and even find it a pleasurable experience. But it’s not the same with a caterpillar, as you know if you have ever tried to stroke one. Here the hairs act like miniscule porcupine quills and make life pretty uncomfortable. They also serve to deter potential predators from making a meal of them.</p>
<p>Nor is it just creatures. The wise gardener wears gloves because so many plants adopt the same strategy and tactics. Yet you also find hairs on the roots of plants and trees, where they serve a completely different purpose. Here the hairs act as a storage device or a capillary tube to collect and store moisture to nourish the plant and ensure its survival.</p>
<p>And there may well be other uses that I have missed. Most, however, play an essential role in safeguarding and sustaining life. Thus, while apparently insignificant, hairs are an integral part of the nervous system. So they provide a pretty good “for-the-want-of-a-nail” analogy for the role of people in business, and for considering your organisation as an organism. Just as the survival of an animal or plant depends on hairs fulfilling their function, so too the success of your organisation depends on your people.</p>
<p>Imagine a grand slam tennis tournament without the ball boys and ball girls. Or a football match where the groundsman had failed to mow the grass. It may not be appropriate to call your organisation a team, because it is simply too big and too complex and people may work without any knowledge of a huge number of their colleagues. But it can only operate effectively if everyone does their job properly. Every individual who fails to do the best they are capable of under the circumstances diminishes the performance of the whole organisation.</p>
<p>That is why you need to start thinking of your organisation as an organism too. A traditional hierarchical model is inherently inefficient. The diagram below gives an insight into why this is. It shows the effect of hierarchy on headcount assuming that each level has 7 direct reports.</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8ba14dd970b-pi"><img alt="Hierarchy and headcount" border="0" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8ba14dd970b image-full img-responsive align-center" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8ba14dd970b-800wi" title="Hierarchy and headcount"></a></p>
<p>It is no wonder that executing strategy becomes such a difficult proposition in larger organisations! But is isn’t just strategy that is made more difficult. Day-to-day management is also harder! This is because each level has accountability for <strong><em>all</em></strong> the levels below. This increases concern and the desire for control. In turn this increases both the amount of regulation and interference in how subordinates are allowed to do their work. Demotivating in the extreme, this negatively impacts on performance, productivity and engagement. It also increases the risk of poor decision making either because employees are likely to become more risk averse and pass the decision back up the line, slowing procedures down, or else make the <em>expected </em>rather than the <em>appropriate </em>decision for the situation.</p>
<p>Formulaic or shirked decision making will ultimately always harm your organisation in the long run. You need people who deal with issues on a daily basis, to be able to make the appropriate decision on the spot. That means you need to eliminate hierarchy and make your organisation more organic. As you can see from the diagram, eliminating hierarchy could, potentially, reduce your headcount from the total headcount to the incremental headcount. That, however, doesn’t mean simply making your organisation flatter. That’s still hierarchy. Rather it entails giving your people the ability to be the best they can be. That is essential for creating an organic business and is ultimately what ‘Every Individual Matters’ means.</p>
<p>So, if you want your organisation to be “the cat’s whiskers”, you need to understand that ‘Every Individual Matters’.</p></div>
When will we learn?
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/when-will-we-learn
2016-12-01T13:22:10.000Z
2016-12-01T13:22:10.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217123?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=378"></div><div><p>When will we learn, or, as Bob Dylan put it, “When will we <em>ever</em> learn?” That is the question I found myself pondering after reading two very different articles this week.</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak"/>The first was actually a very constructive piece, “<a href="http://www.catalystconsulting.co.uk/cultivating-continuous-improvement/?utm_source=Training+Enquiries&utm_campaign=51b7a88a93-November+2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c1436fc43-51b7a88a93-315665213" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Cultivating Continuous Improvement</a>”. The word “cultivating” in the headline suggests that Continuous Improvement (CI) is an ongoing process, and what follows reinforces that idea. Several points worth highlighting are:</p><ul><li>CI is not just another programme. Making it about tools and techniques has that effect and ultimately leads to failure.</li><li>CI is a culture. Seeing it as such, as being about “principles and behaviours”, links naturally to the idea of its being something to cultivate. </li><li>CI is about achieving better outcomes through people.</li></ul><p>This last point is critical and worth repeating. <strong><em>“CI is about achieving better outcomes through people.”</em></strong> That means, as the article also points out, <em>“Sustainable continuous improvement is enabled by a culture of setting standards (for all processes), exposing problems, raising issues to management, being curious, learning through failure and empowering front-line staff. … </em><em> </em><em>It is built on the foundations of respect, humility and trust.”</em> So why does business generally consider people last?</p><p><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb0959dba7970d-pi"><img alt="When 123rf.com_50995252_s" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb0959dba7970d img-responsive align-right" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb0959dba7970d-320wi" title="When 123rf.com_50995252_s"/></a>If you doubt that last point, the the second article ought to convince you. The headline, "<a href="http://chiefexecutive.net/business-hails-1-billion-victory-judge-blocks-obama-overtime-rule/?utm_source=ecn5.com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=11/28/16&utm_campaign=ceobriefing&eid=330684274&bid=1598196" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Overtime ruling">A Win for CEOs as Judge Blocks Obama's Overtime Rule</a>" alone gives an inkling. But, it is this response from the US Chamber of Commerce spokesperson that rams the point home. <em>"If the overtime rule had taken effect, it would have resulted in significant new costs - more than $1 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office - and it would have caused many disruptions in how work gets done."</em></p><p>Now, of course, I understand the need for businesses to keep their costs down. Nevertheless that assessment seems to be a reflex reaction that highlights management’s attitude towards employees. You can have no clearer evidence of what I have previously described as “<a href="http://blog.zealise.com/zealise_blog/2016/01/the-paradox-of-management-and-how-to-remedy-it.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Great Management Paradox</a>” – referring to people as assets but regarding them exclusively as costs. </p><p>In a workforce where an increasingly large proportion is described as “Just About Managing” and has not seen real income rises for decades, this is inhumane. Especially when – by definition – overtime is employees’ own, personal time. It also clearly illustrates the divide between economics and commerce, and management’s lack of understanding of the connection. The Chamber of Commerce (or at the very least its spokesperson) appears to have forgotten the lessons of Henry Ford.</p><p>When such attitudes prevail it is hardly surprising that employee engagement is such an issue. In fact it seems absurd that businesses should spend so much time and effort on employee engagement initiatives when built on such foundations. They are likely to be as effective as a chocolate teapot. Changing “how work gets done” is <em>precisely</em> what is needed. So here you have an enormous missed opportunity. </p><p>For many roles, time-based employment contracts are an anachronism: an agricultural era relic. Dig deeper and you will see it is rooted in the divide between organisation and individual. This is the root of all industrial conflict and is corrosive and counter-productive. And redressing this demands fresh thinking.</p><p>The mutual self-interest around overtime means no solution can ever be found without a totally different approach. And, one that aligns the interests of both parties. For the organisation this means employees who regard the business as <em>their</em> business, while for the individual, it means the employer recognising that employees are investing their lives in the business, and acknowledging the value of that investment. This is what I call understanding that ‘Every Individual Matters.’</p><p>This can only happen when there is work-life integrity. And the catalyst for this is to adopt a system where people earn according to the value of their contribution to the efforts of the organisation. This would enable people to manage themselves and take greater pride in – and responsibility for – their work. They will find ways to be more efficient and effective rather than fitting the work to the allotted time; ultimately to the benefit of both. That’s why ‘Every Individual Matters’.</p><p>When will we learn? </p></div>
Securing the Successful Future of Your Organisation
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/securing-the-successful-future-of-your-organisation
2016-11-10T14:03:57.000Z
2016-11-10T14:03:57.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217079?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Less than 3% of leadership time is spent on collectively building a view of the future. At least, so said Gary Hamel and CK Prahalad in their book “Competing for the Future.” You might find some comfort in the fact that shocking statistic is over two decades old. But, even if things have improved subsequently, it is cause for concern.</p>
<p>Both the pace of change, and the fact that 70% of change initiatives, <a rel="nofollow" href="https://hbr.org/2013/04/change-management-needs-to-cha" target="_blank">reportedly</a>, fail to achieve their objectives, suggest that proportion should be significantly higher. This implies a need to take action to improve matters. Before identifying how to do that, however, you might ask, “Why, given the rate of change, do leaders not spend more time on this?” After all, safeguarding the future is surely a primary leadership responsibility. </p>
<p><img class="mce-pagebreak">Any answer to that question is likely to be subjective. The way to find a more objective answer would be to research how executives spend their time. After all, by virtue of who they are, how leaders spend their time must indicate what they consider to be more important. Furthermore, if their judgement is sound, the percentage of time they spend on shaping the future is unlikely to change, meaning efforts to increase it could be both fruitless and counter-productive.</p>
<p>Lacking the resources to research how executives do spend their time, my only option was to turn to our 21<sup>st</sup> century oracle, Google. Searching “How do executives spend their time?” threw up some pretty mixed results, with many referring to CEOs only, which I ignored as “leaders” includes more than CEOs.</p>
<p>The first result was this generic 2014 <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/236853" target="_blank">infographic</a>. The only other relevant item on the first page of the results was another 2014 article, highlighting the results of a global <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.strategyand.pwc.com/global/home/press/displays/what-executives-spend-time-on" target="_blank">Strategy& survey</a> on whether executives spent their time on the <em>right</em> things. Interestingly the results show that executives themselves do not think so! Not only is this scary, but it arguably indicates:</p>
<ul>
<li>Executives need to manage their time better;</li>
<li>As initially assumed, executives <em>do</em> need to spend more time on shaping the future;</li>
<li>It will be difficult to increase the proportion of time spent on this;</li>
<li>Any or all of the above.</li>
</ul>
<p>The next page of results only revealed more of the same. It appears that much of the questioning revolved around strategy and also indicated that executives felt they did not spend enough time on this. Whether or not you agree that strategy and shaping the future are synonymous, this suggests that executives are failing to optimise (their own and their organisation’s) performance; to safeguard the sustainability of the organisation, and to prepare properly for the future. </p>
<p>Possibly this is because they are too pre-occupied with performance measurement. The growth of “big data” and the creation of ever more systems and controls to regulate and review everything, keep informed and prevent surprises, demanding more meetings, more preparation and more follow-up than ever before and has them on an unwitting treadmill. </p>
<p>This is a result of not trusting, valuing and developing employees properly. When you recognise that people are the life-blood of your organisation, and that organisational success depends on each person optimising their own capabilities, being more aligned, and fulfilling their own potential, you can redirect your efforts. This entails recognising that ‘Every Individual Matters’ and creating an organic structure where, through common purpose and a clear understanding of their role, people can self-manage without constant supervision.</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357847?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357847?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-left"></a>Recognising that ‘Every Individual Matters’ empowers your employees and engages them more. It makes them more responsive and adaptable, and is by far the best way to anticipate, identify and react to external factors and thus to shape the future. This is the ultimate win-win because it internalises and integrates change, reducing both your responsibility for, and the amount of time you spend, instigating it. But it all begins with recognising that ‘Every Individual Matters.’</p></div>
Turbo-Charge Performance Improvement by Moving Beyond ESOPs
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/turbo-charge-performance-improvement-by-moving-beyond-esops
2016-11-03T11:25:38.000Z
2016-11-03T11:25:38.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217074?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>It is encouraging to know that employee ownership is becoming increasingly popular and more widespread. According to <a rel="nofollow" href="http://chiefexecutive.net/%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8Bwhat-employee-centered-employee-owned-firms-can-offer-business-leaders/?utm_source=KnowledgeMarketing&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=10312016&utm_content=This%20Week%E2%80%99s%20CEO%20Briefing:%20Avoiding%20Bad%20Partnerships,%20Trends%20in%20R&D%20Spending,%20The%20Benefits%20of%20ESOPs,%20Protecting%20Your%20Intellectual%20Property%20and%20More&utm_campaign=CEOBriefing&eid=330684274&bid=1573086">Chief Executive Magazine</a> the number of worker-owned businesses in the US is growing around 6% per year and such businesses now account for 12% of the private sector workforce. Apparently, this is due to initiatives “<i>to empower their workforce employees by selling their stock to an ESOP or similar worker-owned arrangement</i>” and/or “<i>from founders wishing to reward employees while cashing out of their business.</i>” </p><p>Yet, notwithstanding such developments, difficulties remain. The article identifies 2 major dilemmas:</p><ol><li>Private companies lack the public trading capability that listed companies use to motivate employees;</li><li>Governance “challenges” if subsequent owners are unwilling to continue running the business.</li></ol><p>Then, presumably as solutions to these dilemmas, the article offers two case studies. The first describes the transformation effected by a shared compensation system at Johnsonville Sausages; and the second reveals how, over 30 years, Burns and McDonnell, grew from 600 to 5,500 employees (816%) and increased revenues from $40 million to $2.6 billion (6400%) as the result of an ESOP. Then, despite this example of extraordinary growth that most organisations can only dream about, the article simply concludes by identifying the upside and downside of ESOPs. So let me add to the subject.</p><p>The idea that greater ability to trade shares motivates employees is tenuous at best, especially at the lower levels. When I worked for a company that listed, we expected most of the staff would immediately sell or “stag” their shares and built this into the listing price and our forecasts proved to be correct. Only those well enough off to not regard shares or share options as a potential cash windfall will consider them as an investment and elect to hold on to them. Thus, if motivating employees means encouraging them to think like owners, giving them all shares is a busted flush – a dog that doesn’t hunt.</p><p>Equally, expecting employees to buy shares, is also unrealistically optimistic. Both approaches make it likely that the bulk of employee shares will end up in the hands of top management. This may well accentuate management focus on “increasing shareholder value.” And we all know how that pursuit, and the failure to recognise the other stakeholders, has been discredited by recent history.</p><p>ESOPs unquestionably offer a convenient exit strategy for entrepreneurs and small business owners. Yet introducing them solely for this purpose can make them seem expedient and cynical, and I suspect that is when “governance challenges” arise. Not least because it typifies the extent to which employee interests are otherwise generally ignored. Employee ownership does entail a different organisational culture and, consequently, trying to introduce it solely for such purposes will create issues. As the case study illustrates, the benefits from an ESOP are remarkable. It therefore seems ridiculous not to introduce them as a permanent feature and a better way to structure your organisation. </p><p>Yet there is an even better way. The thread running through both dilemmas is equity, and the assumption that everything revolves around share ownership. That doesn’t have to be the case. If, as the ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model does, you offer your employees “ownership” without shares, simply by virtue of employing them, you can offer any and all of the benefits of ESOPs without any of these dilemmas. Furthermore, the model is universal and offers:</p><ul><li>The same benefits to <i>all</i> your employees</li><li>The same benefits to <i>any</i> organisation– rather than just the private sector the article’s statistics highlight</li><li>A shared compensation model that matches – and could even exceed – the benefits of both case studies. </li></ul><p>So, if you are looking for transformation that will turbo-charge your organisational performance and deliver the scale of improvement described in the article, and without the degree of difficulty it cites, you need to explore how the ‘Every Individual Matters ‘ Model will help. </p></div>
No Mas! It’s Time to Make an End!
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/no-mas-it-s-time-to-make-an-end
2016-10-27T11:37:07.000Z
2016-10-27T11:37:07.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217068?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>You could count all the words of Spanish I know on one hand, but “No Mas!” is a phrase I remember well (thanks to an historical boxing match last century.) But it took on a new relevance this past week.</p><p>This stemmed from a TED talk, “<a rel="nofollow" href="https://youtu.be/F6Qo8IDsVNg" target="_blank" title="Salvation from bad meetings">How to Save the World (or at Least Yourself) from Bad Meetings</a>” in which David Grady coins the phrase “Mindless Acceptance Syndrome” or “MAS.” As you might expect from the talk title, he is referring here to an unthinking acceptance of attendance at meetings, something he definitely sees as needing to stop. If, like most people, your life is plagued by meetings, you will find it worth the less than 7 minutes investment of your time. For me, though, it had a deeper significance than just meetings.</p><p>There were two primary, ultimately inextricably linked, reasons for this.</p><ol><li>MAS seems a clever synonym for conventional wisdom, and the blind deference we all too often give it.</li><li>The statement “<em>I wish I had those two hours back</em>” and the recognition that this unproductive time is actually “<em>stealing.</em>” </li></ol><p>Attendance at meetings is just one of any number of examples of both. Even if you have ever considered the organisational value of the time your people spend in meetings, you are unlikely to have ever considered the personal value of that time. That’s because the oversight is rooted in a classic MAS: that of seeing your people as just a resource. You can hardly be blamed for that, for management and accounting tradition compel you to treat your people as costs. Yet, ultimately this is innately counter-productive.</p><p>You need only consider the extent to which investment decisions are justified by reducing employee numbers, to see this. How dehumanising is that? People are the life-blood of your organisation: what keeps it functioning. Your employee engagement, continuous improvement and enhanced productivity initiatives all confirm you know this. They entail recognising and respecting the contribution of your people. So any actions which send a different message undermine those efforts and everything else you are striving for. Thus, while it’s undoubtedly true to say you cannot you expect your people to be more productive if you fail to recognise the negative personal impact that meetings can have, there is much more to it than that.</p><p>That is why it is time to pause and consider what this and other MAS are costing your organisation, and, like Roberto Duran, to say “No MAS!” But, for you, the consequences will be far more positive. You might start, as Grady suggests, by reviewing the nature of meetings in your organisation, but that is diving into the detail. I suggest, rather, that you start by recognising that your people are investing their lives in working for you.</p><p>When you do, you will understand that ‘Every Individual Matters.’ Perhaps then, you will be ready to explore how my ‘Every Individual Matters ‘ Model will help. </p></div>
How The People Paradox Negates Employee Engagement Efforts
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/how-the-people-paradox-negates-employee-engagement-efforts
2016-09-22T11:27:42.000Z
2016-09-22T11:27:42.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217028?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=395"></div><div><p>Have you ever heard of The People Paradox? I hadn’t either, although I was well aware of Lord Acton’s famous quote that, “<em>Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.</em>” Well, apparently that’s not just a bon mot: power does corrupt. Certainly according to research cited in the HBR.</p><p>In an October 2016 HBR article entitled <a rel="nofollow" href="https://hbr.org/2016/10/dont-let-power-corrupt-you%E2%80%A6" target="_blank">Don’t Let Power Corrupt You</a> Dacher Kilter describes how twenty years of research has shown him how, in all types of work environments, <em>“people rise on the basis of their good qualities, but their behaviour grows increasingly worse as they move up the ladder.</em>” That's 'The People Paradox.' I am sure you can think of instances in your own experience that support this. I still haven’t forgotten the CEO who completely ignored me when I was introduced to him by my Vice-President manager and added insult to injury by proceeding to question him about me as if I wasn’t there!</p><p>The fact that such behaviour seems objectionable makes the paradox credible. And, arguably, underpins the thinking behind employee engagement efforts. Yet, objectionable though it seems, one has to question why such “bad” behaviour is so pervasive and widespread. Is it possible that this behaviour is “built-into” our DNA as social animals? After all, it is not unique to humans: the consequences for any creature that strays from the clear pecking order of its group can be swift and severe. The fact is, any sort of community almost invariably necessitates some kind of hierarchy. And the hierarchy needs to be sustained.</p><p>The consequences of this are profound, because it would mean that the “paradox” is not in fact a paradox. Rather it is an entirely natural phenomenon, which means that this “corruption” is in fact anything but. This, in turn, makes it a lot harder to eliminate than one might envisage, and may well explain why, despite all the efforts to improve employee engagement, the results seem to be negligible.</p><p>Good as the remedies identified in <a rel="nofollow" href="https://hbr.org/2016/10/dont-let-power-corrupt-you%E2%80%A6" target="_blank">the article</a> may seem, because they appear to be looking at the problem the wrong way, they are highly unlikely to provide any meaningful, lasting solution. Finding this necessitates:</p><ol start="1"><li>Establishing whether this “corruption” is really a problem; and – if it is:</li><li>Finding a way to rewire our thinking to change our patterns of behaviour.</li></ol><p>On the face of it, the idea that power has a corrupting effect, suggests there is a problem. This is endorsed by the article’s remedies, which indicate that more considerate behaviour elicits improved performance and more positive results. And, if that is not enough, the prevalence of efforts to build employee engagement point to a widespread acknowledgement that all is not well.</p><p>If, however, the behaviour is innate, the remedy becomes more of a challenge, as the general failure of efforts to increase employee engagement substantiates. You need to ask yourself. “How do I address this and avoid the prevailing mistakes? Will the benefits justify the effort?” It’s your decision but one thing is for sure: if this behaviour is replicated at every level in your organisation, the potential benefits will be enormous, making the effort highly desirable. </p><p>The good news is that achieving those benefits does not have to be proportionally enormous. If the “corrupted” behaviour <em>is</em> hard-wired due to the need to survive in hierarchies, the best way to re-programme our thinking has to be to eliminate hierarchy in our organisations. Effectively this means shifting from an organisational structure to an organic structure. This makes the organisation more responsive, more adaptable and more change efficient. There are organisations that have done this and achieved – and sustained – significant success as a result. What's stopping you becoming one? </p></div>
The Power of Remarkable
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/the-power-of-remarkable
2016-08-31T10:29:17.000Z
2016-08-31T10:29:17.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217013?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><div class="entry-body font-entrybody"><p>It could hardly have been better timed. After writing last week about <a rel="nofollow" href="http://blog.zealise.com/zealise_blog/2016/08/achieving-the-remarkable.html" target="_blank" title="Achieving the Remarkable">achieving the remarkable</a>, I received a newsletter from Charles Bennett, Partner and Thought Leader at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.thefocusgroup.co.uk/" target="_blank">The Focus Group</a>, illustrating what achieving the remarkable means when it comes to customer service. In it he tells a powerful story from his experience. Like any good story it inspires and demands retelling, so it is with great pleasure that I share it with you. Here it is in Charles’ own words, exactly as I received it.</p><p><em><strong>My personal example</strong></em></p></div><div class="entry-more font-entrybody"><em>Let me tell you my story because it’s a great example. I fly regularly - 40 countries in the last 4 years- and at times I have been flying up to 10 times per month. When people ask about my favourite airlines, I talk about companies like Emirates who are quite deservedly up there as first choice status for many travellers. However, when I thought about which airline impressed me more than any other for going the extra mile - my answer was <a class="zem_slink" href="http://www.jetblue.com/" rel="homepage" target="_blank" title="JetBlue Airways">Jet Blue</a>. Many US readers will not be massively surprised by this as Jet Blue have regularly topped the US domestic carrier polls for a while now. That said, what Jet Blue did in my situation was exemplary and it hardly cost them a cent!</em><br/><br/><em>I had completed a sequence of workshops and consulting assignments, firstly with Nielsen in New York then Microsoft in Seattle. My return from Seattle to London was via New York with Delta and then a scheduled BA flight for the final leg to London. Check-in, passport control and security procedures in Seattle were all uneventful and I settled down to talk to one of my favourite customers who were seeking ideas on a problem that they were struggling to solve. It turned out to be great call and we made a lot of progress, interestingly using the techniques I speak about in my workshops (but that is not the point of this story!!). I was busy patting myself on the back when I spotted the Delta I was supposed to be on, taxiing slowly down the runway. </em><br/><br/><em><br/><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c88b0f40970b-pi"><img alt="Belittlement 14317684_s" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c88b0f40970b img-responsive" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c88b0f40970b-320wi" title="Belittlement 14317684_s"/></a>Cursing my brainless stupidity, I hobbled over to Delta information (I was on 2 sticks as I'd picked up a foot infection previously in Saudi Arabia) but they told me there were no flights on Delta until the following day. BA in New York (where my original London - New York - London flight was issued) did not even answer their phones, even though I called during normal working hours. I then called the ticketing company who handled my original booking. They were able to get me a flight with BA a day later, but BA informed them the ticket change would incur a 2,000 GBP surcharge (even though I was flying with them business class and there was plenty of availability). I needed to find another option otherwise it was a day’s delay and a stupid level of extra cost.</em><br/><br/><em>It was then I spotted the Jet Blue desk, went over to talk to them and my luck changed! Jet Blue not only had a flight but it was the best price of any carrier by a country mile, not even charging disproportionately for buying a single. They were able to get me to New York in time for my connecting BA flight but there was only 75 mins connection time. The situation was more difficult in that a) the Jet Blue arrived at a different terminal to where my luggage arrived (it had managed to catch the Delta flight without me) b) the BA flight was in a different terminal again c) I could only move slowly with sticks and 1 foot off the ground.</em><br/><br/><em>Jet Blue ticketing could have simply sold me a ticket and left it at that, but they didn’t! They looked at every option to get me through the airport. They managed to get through to BA in New York who were not able to help me even though I had purchased a premium ticket almost 10 times more expensive than the single Jet Blue fare. Apart from having no suggestions BA also told me it was very unlikely I would make the connecting flight.</em><br/><br/><em><strong>Jet Blue however said they could do it. </strong><strong><br/></strong></em><br/><em><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c88b127c970b-pi"><img alt="JetBlue 3" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c88b127c970b img-responsive" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c88b127c970b-320wi" title="JetBlue 3"/></a>They seated me right at the front of the plane in the aisle so I would be the first to get off. They also made special arrangements for the fittest of the porters to be available with a wheel chair prepared for exactly where I needed to go. I have never been in a wheel chair in my life and in truth did not want this to be a first, but Jet Blue assured me if I swallowed my pride this was going to be my best chance.</em><br/><br/><em><strong>The transit was incredible. The plane arrived early and the Jet Blue stewardess allowed me to get off the plane first. The porter literally sprinted between the Jet Blue terminal to the Delta terminal (baggage) to the BA terminal in record time. They got me to the front of all the queues whilst another porter followed along at almost the same pace with my baggage. The whole process was completed from exiting the plane to picking up baggage in another terminal to the BA check in in just over 25 minutes. There was no charge for any of this although of course I gave a very generous tip to the people who so kindly went out of their way to help me.</strong><strong><br/></strong></em><br/><em>Jet Blue could have easily said once they had got me to New York their job was done - but they did not. </em><br/><em>They understood enough about the customer experience to extend where the process started and stopped. The Jet Blue Service Agents who helped me understood customer obsession well enough and made an incredible difference to me and my journey. I could not fault BA once I was aboard but in truth they saw their job as based around operating an airline and offered nothing outside what they traditionally saw as their job. Jet Blue understood enough about the customer experience to realise the start and end point to the customer process was considerably wider and went out of their way to make it happen</em><br/><br/><em><strong>Result? I talk about Jet Blue when I speak at workshops and conferences. I recommend Jet Blue to all my friends. I write about them in my blogs. I would actively seek them out again when next travelling in the States. The cost to the airline? Almost zero! Did I deserve that level of service? Not really – it was my fault I had missed the flight but one company found a solution when everybody else said NO!</strong><strong><br/></strong></em><p>Achieving the remarkable inevitably results in a story – in fact it guarantees it. This example proves that guarantee. It does so because it resonates. We would all like to have customer experiences like this, while every organisation would, ideally, like to provide them. As Charles points out, the benefits far exceed the costs and effort expended. But, more importantly, his story answers the key question, “How do you achieve this?” It offers lessons that can help you to create an organisational culture that makes it possible.</p><p><strong>Lessons</strong></p><p>There is no indication of whether Charles’ experience was an almost miraculous one-off, or typical of Jetblue service, but their reputation seems to suggest this is a standard that the company aspires to, and with some success. This means that Jetblue seems to have effectively crossed the divide that is the bane of any executive’s life and been able to turn strategy into effective execution and implementation. But, while that’s impressive, it still doesn’t answer the “How did they do that?” question.</p><p>It seems to me the answer lies in a clearer vision or sense of purpose. While the other airlines in the story looked only at the passenger’s <em>flight</em> needs, Jetblue looked at his <em>journey</em> needs. In other words, they focused on what Charles was trying to achieve, rather than seeing him as only needing a flight between Point A and Point B. This fundamental difference is implicit at several different junctures in the story. For instance:</p><ul><li>It is unclear what effort Delta made to locate Charles, but he would have checked in already, they must have been aware of his not being on board.</li><li>The Delta flight departing with his luggage but without him. This amazes me because I cannot tell you how often I have experienced departure delays while luggage has been removed for a passenger who has not made the flight. (I understand it is against IATA rules – to say nothing of the security risk – to fly with unaccompanied baggage; a requirement that makes the previous point more puzzling.)</li><li>Both BA and Delta seemed to be more interested in making additional sales from Charles’ mistake, than sorting out his problem. Neither explored any other option for him to get to New York, and BA were unable to help when presented with a solution and asked to do so. </li></ul><p>Now I am by no means belittling the complexity of ensuring the on-time departure of an aircraft containing 200-300 people or the impact that one ‘delinquent’ passenger can have. The airline industry may be one of the more complicated fields to be in, but this story shows that it is possible to differentiate and move away from rigid adherence to conventional performance measures. Whatever industry you are in, you will have processes with steps along the way that can cause problems and disruption. But, you can more readily iron them out when:</p><p><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d214c21f970c-pi"><img alt="Awesomeness 6158841_s" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d214c21f970c img-responsive align-right" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d214c21f970c-320wi" title="Awesomeness 6158841_s"/></a></p><ul><li>You have a clear vision;</li><li>It is universally understood; and</li><li>People care.</li></ul><p style="text-align: center;"><span>But, as I described <a rel="nofollow" href="http://blog.zealise.com/zealise_blog/2016/08/achieving-the-remarkable.html" target="_blank" title="Achieving the Remarkable">last week</a>, all demand that you recognise that ‘Every Individual Matters.’ </span></p></div></div>
Achieving the Remarkable
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/achieving-the-remarkable
2016-08-18T14:12:34.000Z
2016-08-18T14:12:34.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217016?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Like millions of people all around the world, I have been enjoying the spectacle of the Olympic Games. Watching top performers at the peak of their abilities is always good but the Olympics are special. They offer a unique combination of competition and camaraderie that creates a WOW! that uplifts athlete and spectator alike.</p><p>There can be no doubt about the intensity of the competition. Every athlete is striving to stretch beyond anything they have ever achieved before and prepared to endure massive physical discomfort in the process, which is what makes it such compelling viewing. Nevertheless, the competition somehow still, ultimately, seems to become secondary. Goodwill and good sportsmanship is manifested in a way it isn’t in any other sporting arena.</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak" alt=""/>Perhaps – and I can only surmise – this is due to the recognition that the Games have brought together people at the very top of their field. This, compounded by the fact that they only come around every four years creates a mutual respect and a unique bond that isn’t repeated in any other sports competition. This unites rather than divides and may be why just taking part is enough for all but the very elite.</p><p>For example, there were 9 or 10 heats just for the men’s 100 metre athletics. That is 80-90 sprinters. And there are only three medals (two if you exclude Usain Bolt!) Consequently for most athletes it ultimately comes down to competing against themselves – to doing their very best. So, for them the measure of success is simply achieving a “Personal Best” (PB). For them that is remarkable. However, their endeavour, and the chance of the unexpected, is what gives the Games their distinctive character and what makes them such a pleasure to watch.</p><p>There is an important lesson here for any business leader. To achieve the remarkable you need to create an enabling culture that promotes PBs. You need an environment that encourages, recognises and rewards PBs. Only when you create a distinctive employer brand that offers a superior customer experience and gives you a competitive edge, will you achieve the remarkable and make people want to do business with you. </p><p><span>If you doubt this, you just have to listen to the interviews of the medal-winning athletes. In so many cases the first thing they do is thank their others without whom, they acknowledge, their achievement would not have been possible. The fact is that great personal achievement is seldom, if ever, the result only of the individual’s own effort.</span></p><p>One of the most remarkable and inspiring examples of this was the Great Britain cycle team. It completely dominated the cycling events to such an extent that:</p><ul><li>It won most of the medals</li><li>Every single competing athlete won a medal</li><li>Almost all its members are looking forward to getting back to their training!</li></ul><p><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d21224eb970c-pi"><img class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d21224eb970c img-responsive align-center" title="WOW 123rf 21532194_s" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d21224eb970c-320wi" alt="WOW 123rf 21532194_s"/></a></p><p>They were so successful that all the other teams are questioning how they did it, and even voicing suspicions of illegal tactics, which they cannot substantiate and which, in a sport recently ravaged by doping scandal, seems highly unlikely and, hopefully, totally unfounded. Rather than every single rider expressing their gratitude to their support team, most interesting here was the numbers of people and size and functions of those teams: family, coaches, personal trainers, nutritionists, mechanics, physiotherapists, etc. </p><p>Being awesome and achieving the remarkable is truly a team effort, for both an individual and an organisation. It depends on every member of the team doing their best, personally and collectively. You could say it is the result of a number of PBs. So if you want an organisation that achieves the remarkable and creates WOW! you need to recognise that ‘Every Individual Matters.’</p></div>
How to Effectively Align Your Performance and Rewards
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/how-to-effectively-align-your-performance-and-rewards
2016-07-28T11:20:49.000Z
2016-07-28T11:20:49.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216968?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=350"></div><div><p>As someone who aims to be an effective organisational leader, do your ever wonder why you have a performance related pay/incentive remuneration scheme? Certainly, if you are one of the nearly 15 million people who have watched "<a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc" target="_blank" title="The surprising truth about what motivates us">The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us</a>" that is a question you ought to have been asking yourself. Or is it something you haven’t dared asked yourself, simply because performance related pay is virtually ubiquitous? When nearly every organisation – regardless of type or nature of business – has such a scheme, you would be bucking the trend and possibly damaging your employer brand if you didn’t. </p><p>If that is the case there are still a number of criteria that you should be looking at to ensure that you have performance measures and remuneration and reward structures that optimise organisational performance. When it comes to effective performance measures and rewards you naturally need to ask yourself 3 questions.</p><ol><li>Do I have the right performance measures?</li><li>Are the rewards for achieving those performance measures appropriate?</li><li>Does the combination of performance measures and reward ensure behaviours that consistently produce the best overall results for the organisation?</li></ol><p>So, how good are your answers? Can you be sure that you are optimising your people, their capabilities and their collective effectiveness? Chances are that you cannot do so with any degree of confidence.</p><p>Earlier in my career I worked for a financial services company that paid sales people for generating new business. Unfortunately, the definitions of new business and the boundaries between the different departments were not sufficiently clearly delineated. Thus money transferred from deposit accounts to mutual funds and vice versa was treated as new business. Consequently sales commissions were paid when there was in fact no benefit to the company and money was regularly ‘churned.’ The sale people did well out of the arrangement, but the company didn’t! This was a factor in the company ultimately going bankrupt.</p><p>Now, you might think this is an extreme example (and hopefully it is) but you need to be sure your organisation is not also prey to manipulation or abuse of your performance versus reward systems. As this <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.blackbox-consulting.com/blog/2016/07/performance-mis-management-part-1?utm_content=33692188&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin" target="_blank" title="Article of performance management">article on performance management </a>illustrates, ways in which incentives can be manipulated and undermine organisational effectiveness are virtually infinite. This makes finding examples in any organisation, including yours, highly likely. The only way to eliminate the risk is to remove the link between personal performance and reward.</p><p>Removing that link may seem like a step too far in today’s workplace and, even contemplating it, organisational suicide but it isn’t. Pervasive incentive remuneration across all walks of life is a recent phenomenon and its inherent flaws makes it inevitable the pendulum will swing back. You can precipitate that by adopting my ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model and its key elements that ensure remuneration and rewards cannot be manipulated and are equitable across the board. The key principles are:</p><ul><li>Performance is not ranked, but is assessed purely against the role requirements.</li><li>Remuneration is linked exclusively to the role and the going market rate for the role.</li><li>Pay increases are awarded only to reflect increases in living costs and are applied universally and uniformly throughout the organisation. Otherwise remuneration only changes as a result of personal development and its effects on the role or career development.</li><li>Additional earnings (effectively recognising the life-investment the employee is making) are possible but are distributed based solely on total organisational results and universally shared on a dividend basis as a fixed percentage of the individual’s ‘human asset value.’ </li></ul><p>This not only overcomes the inherent weaknesses of conventional performance-related pay schemes, but offers you the strategic alignment and synergy that will ensure your ongoing success. </p></div>
Mastering “The Paradox of Being Human”
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/mastering-the-paradox-of-being-human
2016-06-16T12:47:59.000Z
2016-06-16T12:47:59.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216926?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p></p><p>The whole conundrum around the struggle between selfishness and selflessness, with its biological roots – or what Simon Sinek calls “The Paradox of Being Human” – gives us so much more to ponder than just the innate conflict between individual and organisational objectives for which I proposed a solution <a rel="nofollow" href="http://blog.zealise.com/zealise_blog/2016/06/the-paradox-of-being-human-and-its-implications-in-organisations-.html">last week</a>. The biology – summarised again in the table below – is also significant because it suggests happiness or satisfaction is situational and is therefore transient, which implies that “the pursuit of happiness” is a futile exercise: at best a fleeting goal. </p><p><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d1f86682970c-pi"><img class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d1f86682970c image-full img-responsive align-center" title="Biological Underpinnings of the Human Paradox" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b8d1f86682970c-800wi" alt="Biological Underpinnings of the Human Paradox" border="0"/></a></p><p>Nor am I alone in drawing this conclusion. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi states <em>“The foremost reason that happiness is so hard to achieve is that the universe was not designed with the comfort of human beings in mind. … If human goals and desires are taken as the starting point, there is irreconcilable disorder in the cosmos. … How we feel about ourselves, the joy we get from living, ultimately depend directly on how the mind filters and interprets everyday experiences. Whether we are happy depends on inner harmony, not on the controls we are able to exert over the great forces of the universe.</em>”</p><p>That is why Csikszentmihalyi prefers to talk about “flow” which he describes as “<em>The state in which people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter; the experience itself is so enjoyable that people will do it even at great cost, for the sheer sake of doing it.<strong>”</strong></em></p><p>This is particularly relevant when it comes to work. The fact is that, assuming a 40 hour working week, we generally spend around 35% of our waking time at work, which makes achieving “flow” more likely at work than anywhere else: something Csikszentmihalyi’s research confirms is the case in practice. Yet his research also shows that, despite this, people keep wishing for more leisure. He calls this “the paradox of work” and attributes it to two things:</p><ul><li>People not heeding the evidence of their senses based on their stereotype of what work is supposed to be like; and</li><li>The sense that the time invested in achieving other people’s goals is time subtracted from their own lives. </li></ul><p>While employee ownership actually offers the solution to both these problems, it more obviously provides the answer to the second than the first. The former is more clearly a perception issue and, I would posit, has its roots in the fact that, all too often, the interests of the organisation take priority. And, if that <em>is</em> what gives rise to the stereotypical perception of work, the only way to change it, is to recognise individual needs and collaborate more with the individual to address them.</p><p>The ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model offers you that capability. In addition to enabling employee ownership it recognises the reciprocity of need, with the organisational need providing the <strong><em>context </em></strong>for personal growth and the fulfilled individual providing the <strong><em>capability</em></strong> for organisational delivery. This provides the framework allows both parties to benefit from the synergistic outcomes of mutually enhanced performance. </p><p>Understanding the biology of the human paradox reveals that happiness, or employee engagement if you are looking at things from a totally organisational perspective, is:</p><ol><li>An attitude;</li><li>Personal; </li><li>In a constant state of flux, varying according to the situation or circumstances.</li></ol><p>Consequently there is no way of guaranteeing constancy. The best you can do is create an environment that irons out the wrinkles and ensures that any conflict is temporary and can be readily overcome. The ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model offers you that.</p></div>
“The Paradox of Being Human” and Its Implications in Organisations
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/the-paradox-of-being-human-and-its-implications-in-organisations
2016-06-09T13:10:09.000Z
2016-06-09T13:10:09.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216937?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=392"></div><div><p>“The Paradox of Being Human” is how Simon Sinek describes life’s constant conflict between selfishness and selflessness: between “me” and “we.” We spend our lives vacillating between the two perspectives; zigging towards our own wants and zagging towards pleasing others. Yet our survival depends on our ability to juggle these opposite, apparently mutually-exclusive, demands. And always has.</p>
<p>So much so that, as I wrote <a rel="nofollow" href="http://blog.zealise.com/zealise_blog/2016/06/why-employee-engagement-efforts-arent-more-effective-.html">last week</a>, humans are biologically programmed for it. The table below illustrates the paradox and provides a succinct summary of this biological balancing.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357814?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357814?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750"></a></p>
<p>Yet, the fact it is biological is significant from a management and an HR perspective. It demands a fresh approach to organisational design and development because it indicates:</p>
<ul>
<li>Physical and psychological factors are inextricably linked. This necessitates a more holistic approach to addressing employee well-being.</li>
<li>Getting a balance is a continuous ongoing exercise and therefore ‘equilibrium’ is at best transient.</li>
<li>As a result, and because the over-production of any of the chemicals is unhealthy – for both the individual and the organisation – you need to be alert to, and prevent or monitor, situations that could cause it.</li>
</ul>
<p>Being a paradox can imply that there is unlikely to be any universal panacea. This is not good news, for most of us work in or for organisations. Thus, by definition, work invokes a situation where we need to balance our own interests with those of the organisation. Consequently it places us in a position where such conflict is practically permanent. The term "work-life balance" epitomizes this. The fault-line is, ultimately, the dichotomy between individual and organisation. As long as there is a difference in their respective aspirations, goals or objectives, the paradox applies and appears to have no viable solution.</p>
<p>But what if you were to eliminate the difference between individual and organisational goals?</p>
<p>Clearly this would seal the fault-line and lay the foundation for a more effective organisation through greater synergy, greater collaboration and greater satisfaction. Naturally, because the biological factors are situation responsive, you will still always be susceptible to the cracks reappearing, but efficient processes, procedures and systems ought to provide the ‘seismological’ warnings to prevent that happening.</p>
<p>So how do you achieve this?</p>
<p>The answer is surprisingly simple: <b>employee ownership</b>.</p>
<p>There is no better way to align individual and organisation than to give employees a “stake in the game.” And the ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model offers you the capability to create universal employee ownership, with every employee having a stake in the business and in its performance, at no cost to either employer or employee.</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bayjordan.com/books/the-democracy-delusion/"> </a></p></div>
Why Employee Engagement Efforts Aren’t More Effective
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/why-employee-engagement-efforts-aren-t-more-effective
2016-06-02T11:59:31.000Z
2016-06-02T11:59:31.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216906?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>In his book, “Leaders Eat Last,” Simon Sinek expounds on how the human species has been biologically programmed for survival. He describes the chemical stimulants that the body produces under different circumstances. He identifies 6 different chemical reactions and the situations in which they are produced. These are, briefly, as follows:</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak align-center" alt=""/><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb090af5af970d-pi"><img class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb090af5af970d image-full img-responsive align-center" title="Biological Chemical Survival Mechanisms" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb090af5af970d-800wi" alt="Biological Chemical Survival Mechanisms" border="0"/></a></p><p>However, having just <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.benzinga.com/pressreleases/16/05/p8022769/the-starr-conspiracy-intelligence-units-2016-employee-engagement-vendor#/ixzz49bUMmuvW" target="_blank" title="Expenditure of employee engagement">read</a> that expenditure on employee engagement exceeds $74 billion I cannot help wondering if this also explains why there has been so little improvement in employee engagement generally with levels of disengagement continuing to hover around the 70% mark.</p><p>Why would I think this?</p><p>Well, having long maintained that employee engagement is an umbrella concept that covers many issues, not least the fact that people are all different, I may well be prejudiced towards doing so. Nevertheless, I feel this provides other sound reasons for thinking this. </p><p>Firstly, engagement is an attitude or state of mind. This, inevitably, makes it entirely subjective. It also suggests that it is likely to be susceptible to circumstances, which would make engagement more mood-like, and – as a consequence – more likely to fluctuate and hence be a transient condition. The biological science that Sinek describes reinforces that logic and, by confirming that our responses are chemically induced, proves that susceptibility. All of which makes measuring employee engagement a moving target and a questionable exercise.</p><p>And, while logic may suggest otherwise, the consistent levels of employee engagement may bear this out and could simply be the result of attempting to homogenise the classification of people. Ultimately this inherently runs counter to the concept of recognising an employee’s individuality. When people want to feel that they “make a difference” and to be recognised and appreciated for their contribution this is counter-productive. It completely fails to recognise and address what Dan Pink identifies as the three drivers of motivation – autonomy, mastery and purpose – and does nothing to give employees any sense of that.</p><p>Consider Oxytocin for starters. It produces trust, and if you continue to run an environment in which command and control are the order of the day, where people are judged by the amount of time they spend at their desks or by their ability to achieve ever more “stretch” targets you will never build the trust you need to gain the engagement you are looking for.</p><p><span>Similarly, an environment in which there is a constant threat of losing one’s job, or the justification for most new technology or change initiatives, is how many jobs it will ‘save’, means that people will continue to be paranoid and produce the cortisol which is the ultimate cause of stress and ill-health. This is likely to be a significant factor in your sick days lost and/or absenteeism. In such an environment how can you ever expect your people to be engaged?</span></p><p>I am sure there are many other examples that would reinforce the point. The question you need to ask yourself, however, is how much do your employees trust you? Even if you have given them assurances that their jobs are secure, how do they know that you mean it and that their jobs will be not be in jeopardy the moment there is a deterioration in your trading conditions? If you haven't earned that trust you haven’t a snowball's chance in hell of ever securing greater employee engagement, no matter how much money you throw at the project. </p><p>Next time I will share more about how you can achieve your employee engagement objectives more effectively, but if you don’t want to wait you can always contact me directly.</p></div>
Human Capital Reporting: Breaking the Impasse
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/human-capital-reporting-breaking-the-impasse
2016-05-26T14:15:41.000Z
2016-05-26T14:15:41.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216897?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p><strong><em>A third of FTSE 100 companies</em></strong><em> are withholding vital workforce related information from their annual reports, including skills challenges and employee turnover. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.valuingyourtalent.com/research-insight/vyt-research/reporting-human-capital/index" target="_blank"><strong>New research from the Valuing your Talent partnership</strong></a> finds that this failure to adequately communicate the value of people to business is creating a clear risk to users of these company reports, such as investors.</em></p>
<p>That was the opening paragraph to a broadcast email I received from the CIPD this morning. Feeling a flicker of hope, I downloaded the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.valuingyourtalent.com/media/Reporting-Human-Capital-Exec-summary_tcm1044-7503.pdf" target="_blank">executive summary</a> immediately. Alas, the phrase, “Including skills challenges and employee turnover” should have warned me of the kind of narrow constraints that would dash my hopes. I cannot help feel the report avoids the real issues.</p>
<p><img class="mce-pagebreak" alt="">More than two years ago I completed a comprehensive analysis of the annual reports of one of the world’s largest companies for my book <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bayjordan.com/books/the-democracy-delusion/" target="_blank" title="The Democracy Delusion How to Restore True Democracy and Stop Being Duped">“The Democracy Delusion.”</a> This analysis showed that over the ten year period:</p>
<ul>
<li>Employee numbers had reduced by more than 110,000 people. (39%)</li>
<li>Savings in employee costs (2.014 billion) were nearly 136% of profit growth (1.487 billion)</li>
</ul>
<p>For me there is no clearer proof of what I call “<a rel="nofollow" href="http://blog.zealise.com/zealise_blog/2016/01/the-paradox-of-management-and-how-to-remedy-it.html" target="_blank" title="The Great Management Paradox">The Great Management Paradox</a>” than this. The practice of managing people exclusively as costs rather than as assets is so pervasive that it may even threaten the ultimate viability of the market. After all, who will be able to buy the goods if large numbers of people are unable to find work security and/or face little prospect of real income growth? There was nothing indicated in the report to suggest these issues had even been looked at, which I find disturbing at a time when there is great debate about the “living wage.”</p>
<p>The research was apparently broken into five distinct areas.</p>
<ul>
<li>Knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA)</li>
<li>Human Resource Development (HRD)</li>
<li>Employee welfare</li>
<li>Employee equity</li>
<li>Workforce risk</li>
</ul>
<p>Unfortunately these were not defined and the reader is left to deduce what each one means from the content of the report. And what is included in each is not necessarily self-evident. So while KSA includes innovation, entrepreneurship and flexibility which you may expect (or not); employee welfare included ethics along with well-being and employee engagement; and employee equity, which you might envisage covering employee ownership, in fact included equality, diversity and human rights. Workforce risk apparently comprised key terms from the other categories and included talent management, succession planning and ethics. </p>
<p>Equally unfortunately the report seemed to focus on the extent to which reporting on these issues had increased or decreased over the comparative period, rather than identifying the method of reporting and its relative quality.</p>
<p>This inevitably makes the report disappointing. In fact, despite the study showing an increase in HC reporting, the finding that, “<em>It is debatable whether investors or other stakeholders will be able to make informed decisions</em>” it is downright depressing. Apart from anything else, it certainly suggests that our current direction of travel is inappropriate and the pace too slow.</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357789?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357789?profile=original" width="347" class="align-right"></a>If you don’t also think that, just consider this. The report itself states, “<em>People are the only part of a business that can improve itself and they are fundamental in increasing value in it.</em>” It continues later, “<em>Hiring difficulties are becoming more commonplace and what are termed as ‘hard-to-fill’ vacancies are also on the rise in most economic sectors.</em>” The need is clearly urgent. And it cannot be addressed from a mind set that persists in regarding people solely as costs.</p>
<p>It is thus extremely ironic that a body called Valuing Your Talent can imply this – as it does in the title of the report – without recognising, or effectively addressing it. Fortunately the ‘Every Individual Matters’ model does so. It offers you the way to both speed up your efforts and to create new standards for accounting for, managing and treating your people and building a more effective, humane working environment.</p>
<p>________________________________________________</p></div>
Meeting the Most Pressing Human Capital Needs
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/meeting-the-most-pressing-human-capital-needs
2016-05-19T10:19:25.000Z
2016-05-19T10:19:25.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216902?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>What are executives’ major concerns these days? I was grateful to get a fresh insight recently when I obtained a copy of the Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends 2016 <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/human-capital/articles/introduction-human-capital-trends.html" target="_blank" title="Deloitte Human Capital Trends 2016">report</a>. This gave me a wonderful opportunity to identify the trends and ascertain:</p>
<ol>
<li>What <strong><em>are</em></strong> executive management’s most pressing concerns?</li>
<li>To what extent my ‘Every Individual Matters’ model meets those concerns?</li>
</ol>
<p>And I am happy to report that the answers were extremely satisfying. The trends are a clear barometer of the way that organisations are changing. There was nothing surprising about them or the concerns that are driving them. They are clearly long-term changes and, as such, will reshape the organisation of the future. And my ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model goes a long way to addressing nearly <strong><em>all </em></strong>of them. Let me explain why I feel so positive about this.</p>
<p><img class="mce-pagebreak" alt="" />Naturally you will first need to know what the trends are. The following chart from the report summarises them neatly.</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb09029360970d-pi"><img class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb09029360970d image-full img-responsive" title="2016-05-18 Deloitte global survey findings" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb09029360970d-800wi" alt="2016-05-18 Deloitte global survey findings" border="0" /></a></p>
<p>As the report indicates, these trends are a direct response to the need to reshape the organisation itself, largely as a result of the changing nature of business and the need to keep on top of operations to respond rapidly and appropriately to market forces. Knowing the trends, however, does not automatically make the actions any easier to take.  Especially, if you try to address them in isolation.</p>
<p>Fortunately the ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model provides a more integrated solution that offers you the capability of addressing many of these issues simultaneously. This is also best illustrated graphically and the following chart sums up why this is the case.</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb090294b9970d-pi"><img class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb090294b9970d image-full img-responsive" title="Global Human Capital Trends and EIM" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301bb090294b9970d-800wi" alt="Global Human Capital Trends and EIM" border="0" /></a></p>
<p>It is clear then: in the modern business world, every individual matters and the ‘Every Individual Matters’ model offers you a definite solution for meeting these most pressing human capital needs.</p>
</div>
Evolution, Not Revolution, Powers Innovation and Change
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/evolution-not-revolution-powers-innovation-and-change
2016-05-05T08:49:13.000Z
2016-05-05T08:49:13.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216991?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p><span><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357775?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357775?profile=original" width="347" class="align-right"></a>Having long championed the idea of organisations as organisms – as living entities rather than as machines – I have lately become increasingly aware that this is the key to eliminating hierarchy and burying command and control. It also demands a fresh approach to change and is essential for the innovation so vital for commercial – and economic – success. Because organisms only change through evolutionary process.</span></p>
<p><span>In fact, if you accept revolutionary change to be any non-evolutionary change, historically, most effective change has happened through evolution rather than revolution. Even the agricultural and industrial revolutions were more evolutionary changes than revolutionary. Most revolutions that can be identified as occurring at a specific time – e.g. the French and Russian Revolutions – could be said to be revolts against a very unsatisfactory status quo rather than specific efforts to introduce pre-designed, and tested, new models. </span></p>
<p><span>Consequently it seems logical that embracing change as an evolutionary process will enhance change management initiatives and help any organisation survive and thrive in our fast-changing world. It is, therefore, encouraging to find so many others are thinking along the same lines. But HR will need to step up to the plate.</span></p>
<p><span>The words of economist Eric D Beinhocker are particularly pertinent at a time when innovation is becoming a key strategic objective<i>; “Evolution is an algorithm; it is an all-purpose formula for innovation … that, through its special brand of trial and error, creates new designs and solves difficult problems.”</i> More than that, though, he also calls for its application in business; <i>“The key to doing better is to ‘bring evolution inside’ and get the wheels of differentiation, selection and amplification spinning within a company’s four walls.”</i> ‘Bringing evolution inside’ certainly implies the need for a new business paradigm. </span></p>
<p><span>This is something long advocated by management guru Gary Hamel, who makes the point that, <i>“The most powerful managers are the ones furthest from the frontline realities. All too often decisions made on an Olympian peak prove to be unworkable on the ground.”</i> You could say that is a statement of the obvious, yet organisations of all sizes and descriptions persist in pursuing such revolutionary change – change initiatives and re-engineering programmes intended to bring about organisational change. And keep employees and consultants alike busy investigating why over 70% of them fail!</span></p>
<p><span>That is not all either. In pursuing these efforts, managers also ignore their leadership role and fail to recognise their effect on their employees. Those ‘frontline’ people who are facing the day to day realities end up doubly frustrated, because they know what the correct action ought to have been but have to spend their time, effort and energy on the wrong thing. And HR then spends further resources trying to repair employee engagement! HR can spare itself a huge amount of effort if it focuses on this more pre-emptive process.</span></p>
<p><span>In organisms, each and every cell, both individually and as part of a larger organ, is a self-managing entity. This, with the concomitant capability to respond, adapt and change, is what enables the whole organism to survive and thrive. Every cell matters. It therefore seems abundantly clear that, for organisations to become more organic, the people need to be seen as cells and to be self-managing. The minute any individual becomes frustrated due to problems carrying out their work and the inability to address such problems, the effectiveness of the organisation itself is impaired. This inevitably has a compounding effect, inhibiting organisational performance even further.</span></p>
<p><span>Every individual matters.</span></p></div>
Why you should care!
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/why-you-should-care
2016-04-07T12:32:53.000Z
2016-04-07T12:32:53.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216945?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>It didn’t look special or anything out of the ordinary. Just another piece of internal mail. But it turned out to be very different<a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357760?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357760?profile=RESIZE_480x480" width="320" class="align-right"></a>.</p>
<p><img class="mce-pagebreak" alt="">“It” was a letter signed by the CEO, thanking me for all my hard work and inviting me to enjoy an evening out with my girl-friend at any restaurant of my choice, at the company’s expense. The effect was to immediately dispel any sense of fatigue I was feeling after several months’ of 14-16 hour days and give me a sense of well-being.</p>
<p>We ended up having a fantastic meal at a leading city restaurant and a thoroughly enjoyable evening. Now, more than thirty years later, I can hardly recall anything specific about the occasion. Yet, the whole experience remains a shining beacon in my career.</p>
<p>This seems ridiculous if you think about it. After all, a dinner for two – even an expensive dinner – would have had very little effect on a company like IBM. Certainly it was a very low cost alternative to paying me for the countless hours of over-time I had racked up. In fact a cynic would say that it was nothing more than a gesture. Yet that ‘gesture’ made me feel that my efforts had been recognised and were appreciated and valued. It not only re-energised and re-engaged me, but it gave me a good feeling that persists to this day, if only because it was so unique in my career.</p>
<p>But please don’t think I am playing the victim here and am looking for sympathy! I certainly don’t think I have had a uniquely lousy career. In fact I think am extremely fortunate to have had such an experience. I have little doubt that there are people who have never had such an experience in their careers. And that is such a shame.</p>
<p><span>And it comes at a cost. As I read about all the efforts to create greater employee engagement I cannot help thinking they would not be necessary if such basic principles of human behaviour were better addressed. Ultimately, every individual matters. After all any organisation is only as effective as its people and the way in which they interact.</span></p>
<p>You do not, however, have to take my word for it. This 2004 <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.strategy-business.com/article/04212?gko=8cb4f" target="_blank" title="Why every individual matters">interview</a> with Herb Kelleher makes the point far more eloquently and effectively than I could. It also provides the business case for my argument. </p>
<p>Ultimately, <strong>employee engagement is about caring</strong>. But it is a two-way street. <strong>If you want your employees to care, then you first have to show them that you care.</strong> That is why every individual matters. </p></div>
Leadership: Do Our Leaders Really Know What It Is?
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/leadership-do-our-leaders-really-know-what-it-is
2016-03-31T09:31:25.000Z
2016-03-31T09:31:25.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216823?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357759?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357759?profile=original" width="450" class="align-right"></a>You would think most people recognise the difference between management and leadership. After all they are two entirely separate things. Yet I find myself questioning whether they do. Even worse, I wonder if it is our organisational leaders themselves who are most guilty of confusing the two.</p>
<p>This line of thinking was precipitated by reading the results of the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.borderless.net/the-results-are-in-borderless-leadership-development-survey-2016/">Borderless “2016 Survey on Leadership Development.”</a> As I did I found myself substituting “leadership” for “liberty” in Madame Roland’s lament for liberty en-route to the guillotine; <i>“Oh Liberty! What crimes are committed in your name?”</i> And the link is perhaps not as far-fetched as it may seem.</p>
<p><b>The paramount quality of a leader is that they care.</b> While their initial motivation may be for a particular purpose or objective, leaders are distinguished by the way they:-</p>
<ul>
<li>Inspire other people to pursue the same purpose; and</li>
<li>Include, acknowledge and appreciate those people</li>
</ul>
<p>This goes beyond merely involving them, or even recognising them as being essential to making that purpose a reality. It entails giving them the autonomy and tools and skills they need to perform. That is <i>empowerment</i>. And <b>true empowerment is the manifestation of genuine care.</b></p>
<p>Now, if genuine care is the paramount quality of leadership, it logically follows that <b>empowerment is the embodiment of leadership</b>. Furthermore, if, as just indicated, autonomy, mastery and purpose equate with empowerment and – as commonly agreed – they are the intrinsic drivers of employee engagement, then it is also logical that <b>leadership drives employee engagement</b>. Thus the fact that only around 30% of the workforce is engaged is already evidence of the fact that organisational leaders don’t care and hence of the lack of organisational leadership.</p>
<p>I would posit that this lack of leadership is the direct result of the over-emphasis of performance measures which is itself the consequence of the focus on management rather than leadership. And <b>management regulates while leadership liberates</b>. This survey underscores this. You just have to look at the nature of the challenges identified in the key findings to see this.</p>
<ul>
<li>Being able to adapt to changes and having enough leaders to do so.</li>
<li>Leadership development is the main driver of business results.</li>
<li>Managing change and innovation; ensuring personal accountability, and breaking down silo thinking.</li>
<li>Lack of leadership development investment.</li>
<li>Poor and ineffective leadership development.</li>
<li>Unawareness of any kind of leadership coaching or mentoring program.</li>
<li>Top management support as a critical success factor in effective leadership development.</li>
</ul>
<p>When you take into account that 35% of survey respondents were in corporate strategy, general management and HR and that 68% were in organisations larger than 1,000 people, and you remember this is a survey about <i>leadership development,</i> you cannot help reaching the same conclusion and thinking this is a sad indictment of their own lack of leadership. Actually, the identification of the need for top management support alone implies this, while implicitly corroborating my definition of leaders as people who care. </p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357780?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357780?profile=original" width="450" class="align-left"></a>All of which reinforces what I said previously about the need for <a rel="nofollow" href="http://blog.zealise.com/zealise_blog/2016/03/love-at-work-a-practical-recipe-.html">love at work</a>. If leaders are people who care, they will inevitably generate loyal followers who also care. And this is more than just a nice to have. In today’s rapidly changing world it is an imperative, as the survey results clearly show. Organisational leaders are too far removed from the day-to-day operations to be able to make the quick decisions necessary to respond to change. In fact they are too far removed to even identify the changes as they happen. In such a workplace even strategy can quickly become inappropriate or outdated. This make leadership vital at every level.</p>
<p>Consequently true leadership isn’t about antiquated ideas of traditional leadership or leadership development, but about ensuring that you create a culture and environment in which everyone cares: in which everyone is a leader. That is why every individual matters and why my ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model provides the catalyst that will help you create an environment where everyone cares – where <i>the</i> business becomes <i>our</i> business. </p></div>
Love at Work
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/love-at-work
2016-03-10T11:13:33.000Z
2016-03-10T11:13:33.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216804?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>You might see the unpunctuated phrase love at work as a simple statement. Or as a question. Or you might perhaps see it as an exclamation or even a headline in a salacious newspaper or magazine. I cannot predict how you will interpret it, but I hope that, whatever your reaction, it intrigued you enough to keep reading.</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357750?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357750?profile=original" width="450" class="align-right"></a>In actual fact it is an answer! The answer not so much to a question as to a challenge. It arose from a catch-up conversation with Traci Fenton at <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.worldblu.com/" target="_blank" title="Worldblu">Worldblu</a>. After I had explained my ‘Every Individual Matters Model to her, she responded, “I get it but others might not. You need to find a way to explain it more simply: in only a few words that will give them something they can understand, remember and share with others.” I was stunned but it certainly gave me plenty to think about.</p>
<p>Afterwards, as I struggled, I thought about Traci’s own proposition “Freedom at Work,” and our mutual friend, Alex Kjerulf’s, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://woohooinc.com/happiness-at-work/" target="_blank" title="Happiness at Work">“Happiness at Work”</a> and came up with “Love at Work.” After some initial concerns that it might be ‘too abstract’ or ‘too much’ or ‘too unbusiness-like’ and a complete failure to come up with anything else, I remembered Kahlil Gibran’s inspired and inspiring statement <em>“Work is love made visible”</em> and I became far more comfortable with it. Even better, it fits perfectly with my vision.</p>
<p>As I realised this, I also recognised that the time had come for me to publish my vision and stop seeing it as a personal purpose statement for my own eyes only, to help me shape my own path. So here goes.</p>
<p><strong>I have a vision!</strong></p>
<p><em>I see a day when all people of all nations will rise up and live their life to their fullest potential.</em></p>
<p><em>I see a time when people will no longer allow work to be a four-letter word, something to balance with life, but instead will value it as a vital, integral part of their life.</em></p>
<p><em>I see a world where work is not a bind but an opportunity for every person to celebrate the uniqueness of their being and the means to express who they are.</em></p>
<p><em>I see each and every person recognising their work as their contribution to humankind; making it a focal point of their lives, striving to maximise what they give and, in the process, optimising who they are.</em></p>
<p><em>I see that, as they recognise work as part of life and not an adjunct to it, people will regard their work as their business and do everything in their power to make it a successful business that blesses all it serves, as well as themselves.</em></p>
<p><em>I see people treating work as part and parcel of what they have to do, not out of compulsion, but deep desire to be the best they can possibly be; in order that, when their time is up, they can look back with pride.</em></p>
<p><em>And I envisage workplaces that recognise people for who they are; that sustain, nurture, encourage and enable them to be their best.</em></p>
<p><em>I see workplaces that cease to manage people as a resource and instead improve efficiency by encouraging, enabling and endorsing self-management. I see workplaces that acknowledge people for the assets they are; that give people back their independence and pride; and that bask in the better results this brings.</em></p>
<p><em>I see workplaces where command is dead and control is a collective responsibility rather than an imposition: where organisations pursue purpose rather than profits at any price.</em></p>
<p><em>I see workplaces operating as teams, where people do not compete, but support one another for the common good; of individual, of organisation and of the wider world. </em></p>
<p><em>I see this new outlook bringing a new enthusiasm and creating a zeal that makes all a joy. I see reduced conflict and greater co-operation that makes the world a better place and that enhances its chances of survival.</em></p>
<p><em>I see you helping to make it happen!</em></p>
<p style="text-align: right;">(© Bay Jordan with acknowledgement to Martin Luther King)</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357852?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357852?profile=RESIZE_480x480" width="320" class="align-left"></a></p>
<p>There you have it. Perhaps not such an unbusiness-like proposition but rather an extremely business-like one. What do you think? </p>
<p></p></div>
The Need is for More Effective Personal Reviews
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/the-need-is-for-more-effective-personal-reviews
2016-02-25T12:25:25.000Z
2016-02-25T12:25:25.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216825?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>There is an increasing tendency to do away with annual performance reviews and it is interesting to learn that IBM is another global organisation going down that path. That is as it should be, for performance assessment should be an ongoing activity. It is also one that is most honestly done by the employee when the pressures of measurement and its consequences are removed, including the link to remuneration.</p>
<p>Career development, however, is a different matter. This is not something the person can address unilaterally: it calls for a conversation. Managers still need to sit down with employees and ascertain to what extent they are growing and developing as people, how their work is contributing to that, and what needs to be done to provide and sustain that self-development. You have to wonder to what extent this is being addressed, and whether this new trend will improve the situation or make things worse.</p>
<p>The inherent flaw of nearly all HR and OD initiatives: is that they start from the organisational perspective. And how can you look at an employee’s career profile without addressing the employee’s personal aims and aspirations? </p>
<p>Any employment relationship begins with the mutual assessment of two fundamental elements, depicted in the chart below.</p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357752?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357752?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-full"></a></p>
<p>Inherently 2 dimensional, this still fails to adequately address the individual’s career. This is because:</p>
<ul>
<li>A career is a journey and not a point in time;</li>
<li>The individual and the organisation are two entirely different entities whose aims and aspirations are not necessarily aligned. </li>
<li>The employee is currently filling a role which is part of that journey and is looking at these elements with a longer term lens. On the other hand the employer is usually looking at them in the context of their current role and more specifically as a basis for assessing their performance in that specific role rather than the context of their career. </li>
</ul>
<p>Despite being <i>more</i> personal this still has a predominantly organisational bias from the employer perspective and that is what ultimately shapes the relationship. Over time a third dimension comes into play: application. This is where the rubber hits the road and attitude and ability combine. This then becomes the dominant factor in performance appraisals, but still the organisational perspective dominates. It is hardly any wonder then that performance reviews, which have generally been little more than an unpleasant bureaucratic exercise for employees, are increasingly being seen as futile by employers too. </p>
<p>Yet the shortcoming has only been in the different perspectives of both parties. Attitude, Ability and Application are <b><i>the</i></b> 3 essential elements of personal assessment for both and key to the Zealise Triple A performance methodology which is an integral part of the ‘Every Individual Matters Model. ’ They provide the core for individual development and personal growth and so underpin career development.</p>
<p>To be effective, however, you only need to stop viewing things from a totally organisational viewpoint. This requires a mechanism for aligning the individual, their personal and career development and the organisation. And that is the other facet of the ‘Every Individual Matters Model.’ It provides the catalyst for common purpose and a longer term framework that aligns individual development with organisational strategy to create a win-win for both parties.</p>
<p>The conversation described earlier should no longer be a performance review but rather a personal review. The focus is on the individual, with the organisation providing the context. This makes it more all-embracing and compels both parties to recognise and address the work-life integrity of the individual, both immediately and in the longer term. This cements a collaborative effort – a partnership – that inevitably benefits both parties. </p></div>
How HR Should Transform to Take the Lead in Putting People First
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/how-hr-should-transform-to-take-the-lead-in-putting-people-first
2016-02-11T13:33:27.000Z
2016-02-11T13:33:27.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216743?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>You likely heard the news late last week that the Shell share price rose 7% in response to the news that the company was cutting 10,000 jobs. So, what was your reaction?</p><p>I wager it hardly made any impression on you. Yet that report encapsulates the pervasive attitude that people are simply a resource, and reinforces my case that the HR profession needs to change its approach. Let’s take a look how it could go about this.</p><p>Stalin is reputed to have said, <i>“The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.”</i> Whether he did or not, it is a profound statement and one that now seems to be as apt for the loss of livelihoods as it is for the loss of lives. We have become inured to and blasé about redundancies; to the point of accepting them as an inevitable part of running a business. Of course there may be times when there is no other option, but business leaders do seem too over-rely on layoffs.</p><p>This is what Simon Sinek is alluding to in “Leaders Eat Last”, when he writes about increasing scale making things more abstract. Business leaders of large organisations become too removed from their employees to consider them as anything more than a statistic. They would find redundancies much more difficult if they knew the people they were dispensing with, and might then be far less likely to do so. And HR has been complicit in allowing this to happen. </p><p>The issue here is not one of socialism vs capitalism but rather one of economics. Studies show that organisations that take more care of their people outperform all their competitors by a considerable margin. South Western Airlines has been the only airline to have been consistently profitable since it was founded and Sinek opens eyes with his comparison between Costco and GE. The former, where founder James Sinegal made people his priority yielded a return of nearly 1200% between being listed in 1986 and October 2013 while GE, more famous for its “rank-and-yank” approach yielded a return of 600% over the same period. (Note: This period <i>included</i> the difficult trading conditions following The Great Recession.)</p><p>As the market response to the Shell announcement indicates, a key factor here is that analysts – and hence the markets they help shape – are fixated on results and consequently short-term rather than longer term action. This ultimately isn’t in the best interests of anybody, least of all the poor souls who lose their livelihoods and the families affected. And, if HR has been complicit in allowing this to happen, it is imperative that it takes a lead in ending it.</p><p>Unsurprisingly, this begins with creating and implementing a culture that puts people first; built on the principle that “<i>Customers will never love a company until the employees love it first</i>” (Simon Sinek) – a message that should be easy to sell to the Board. Once that is done the next steps are to:</p><ul><li>Reduce the addictive, dopamine-releasing policies that encourage self-interest;</li><li>Introduce more serotonin and oxytocin releasing policies that ensure a more collaborative environment in which trust is integral and employees look out for one another and the business.</li><li>Introduce policies that reduce stress and the production of anxiety-producing cortisol. </li></ul><p>The first of these can be relatively easily achieved by reducing the number and importance of personal performance measures and the imperative of achieving them at all costs. The second is not quite so easy, but can be relatively simply achieved by creating a common purpose and a culture that shares and celebrates success. The third is largely a by-product of the first two but can be specifically addressed by reducing the threat of job-losses for anything but criminal or wilful negligence.</p><p>Ideally these will all be part and parcel of your ongoing employee engagement efforts. If not, it is unlikely that those efforts will deliver the results you are aiming for. You need to incorporate them specifically. If you are still unclear or unsure how to go about this, please contact me, because my ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model provides a catalyst for achieving all these objectives. </p></div>
Turn “Human Resources” into “Humane Resources”
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/turn-human-resources-into-humane-resources
2016-02-04T11:51:21.000Z
2016-02-04T11:51:21.000Z
Bay Jordan
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216727?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>The <a rel="nofollow" href="http://blog.zealise.com/zealise_blog/2016/01/the-strange-dichotomy-of-organisations-and-how-to-bridge-it.html" target="_blank">strange dichotomy</a> in organisations: their dependency on people while generally failing to take any account of the intrinsic drivers of human behaviour, can largely be attributed to an ingrained management attitude of considering people as job-fillers and numbers. Yet it is worth considering the extent to which the HR profession has been guilty of perpetuating this pervasive attitude.</p><p>For me its guilt in this regard is implicit in its change from “Personnel” to “Human Resources” (which, if you have journeyed around the sun as often as I have, you may remember!) Arguably, this had two significant consequences:</p><ul><li>A shift in focus away from people, and the humanity of considering them as individuals, and instead turning the role into a more bureaucratic one, concerned more with compliance and numbers.</li><li>The resultant (and ironic) diminution in the profession’s role and the consequent struggle to earn its proper place in the executive suite. </li></ul><p>Whether you agree or not, that is all in the past; relevant only as history. Far more important are the lessons learned. Is the profession changing, and, if so, to what extent and is it ready to meet today’s challenges?</p><p>On the surface there are some good signs. Efforts to play a more strategic role and increasing focus on employee engagement, wellness or well-being, and mindfulness, all suggest that the profession is attempting to step up to the plate. One still, however, has to question the overarching mindset. Has the profession really moved beyond the idea of people as resources? Undoubtedly time will tell, but I am not convinced it has, and it will never fulfil its proper role until it does.</p><p>My doubts reside in the other side of the dichotomy: the consideration of the drivers of human behaviour and, specifically, the intrinsic physiological and psychological forces. I have seen little to suggest that the underlying principles that Sinek, Csikszentmihalyi and Pink have written about so eloquently have been understood, let alone embraced. </p><p>After all, if actions are driven by the biological release of chemical stimulants, what is being done to ensure environments that encourage the release of the positive stimulants and prevent the release of the negative stimulants and ensure a happy environment? If employee engagement is the result of a sense of belonging and of the trust that derives from being able to rely on colleagues to also look out for your interests, what are you doing to develop such environments and the stimulants that ensure it?</p><p>And the opposite – if stress results in the release of negative chemicals and is the root cause of health problems, what are you doing to reduce stress and immunise the organisation from its effects? </p><p>If you are not actively considering these questions and endeavouring to address them, you are perpetuating the historical failures of the profession. You are embalming the philosophy of people as resources rather than human beings. Humane Resources (or Personnel – if you prefer to turn back the clock) demands looking out for the people in the organisation – the physiological and psychological needs of every one of them. After all, that is what “winning hearts and mind” really means. (And isn’t that why you embraced the profession in the first place?)</p><p>So, to meet your own such needs, you must realise the intrinsic leader in you and resist the approach that considers people in the abstract – as numbers – and look out for the people who depend on you. Doing so, you will ensure sustained organisational success, enhance your value and earn the trust, respect and rewards you deserve. </p></div>
10 areas HR professionals should focus on in 2016
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/10-areas-hr-professionals-should-focus-on-in-2016
2016-01-14T14:48:42.000Z
2016-01-14T14:48:42.000Z
Mike Collins
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/MikeCollins
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216729?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>The close of one year and beginning of another is always a good time to reflect on what has been and what is to come. HR professionals need to use this opportunity to prepare themselves for 2016.</p>
<p>It almost goes without saying that 2016 is going to be a year of further change for the profession, with new disruptions, innovations and ways of working. A lot of HR teams are still playing catch up with all the change that took place in 2015, so there is no scope for complacency.</p>
<p>To help you, we have come up with a list of the top 10 areas that we think HR professionals need to be focusing on in 2016:</p>
<p><strong>1.</strong> Technology. Technology is behind a lot of the change that has been and will be occurring. HR needs to embrace the possibilities of technology, but without being swept along with the latest fad or piece of kit. Look at the technology you have already got – is it doing what it needs to do? Is it user friendly? Does it enable your business to be agile? Huge amounts of change are predicted in this space for HR in 2016. According to research by <a href="http://www.bersin.com/Blog/post/HR-Technology-For-2016-Ten-Disruptions-On-The-Horizon.aspx" target="_blank">Bersin</a>, more than 40% of all companies are replacing or planning to replace their core HRMS systems. LMS markets are also being hugely disrupted by new video-based learning solutions. Plus there’s video, mobile, etc to think about.</p>
<p><strong>2.</strong> Be employee-centric. Think of employees as consumers. With regards to L&D, for example, how do they learn currently? How do they want to learn? How can you best deliver the type of learning they want, when they want it, on the device they want to use? Employees have become self-directed learners so if L&D doesn’t want to share that journey, they will be left behind.</p>
<p><strong>3.</strong> Business alignment. This is something HR and business leaders have been talking about for a long time, but still needs improving. HR has to be aligned to the business. It needs to really understand business drivers and objectives and its role in achieving them. Talk the language of business. The benchmarking organisation <a href="http://www.towardsmaturity.org/article/2014/10/30/modernising-learning-forward-dr-chai-Patel-HC-One/" target="_blank">Towards Maturity</a> has talked extensively about the need for HR to focus on business outputs, rather than learning inputs.</p>
<p><strong>4.</strong> Data. It’s all about data these days, whether you work in HR, finance or marketing. Want to implement a new training module – where’s the data to support why it is needed and what the results will be. This ties in with talking the language of business and again, this is something that<a href="http://www.towardsmaturity.org/article/2015/05/12/data-optimising-ld-performance/" target="_blank">Towards Maturity</a> has made a big play of.</p>
<p><strong>5.</strong> Skills. What skills does your organisation really need now and in the future? Do you have them? How can you get them, internally or externally? HR needs to keep one eye constantly on the horizon.</p>
<p><strong>6.</strong> Learning culture. Organisations need to really foster and encourage a learning culture, enabling employees to keep learning and learn as part of the workflow. Facilitate collaborative learning and sharing, be it through peer to peer networks, community portals, special projects….</p>
<p><strong>7.</strong> Talent. Do you have the talent you need? Are you retaining your top talent? How can you retain your top talent? With the jobs market continuing its recovery and an ageing workforce who will start retiring, it’s rapidly becoming a candidate’s market.</p>
<p><strong>8.</strong> Mental health and wellbeing. There is so much research that shows that workplace stress levels are high, working hours are long and a culture of <a href="https://www.dpgplc.co.uk/2015/10/presenteeism/" target="_blank">presenteeism</a> exists. The mental health and wellbeing of the workforce is a really important business issue, as Professor Cary Cooper, the new president at the CIPD, made clear at his opening speech at the recent <a href="https://www.dpgplc.co.uk/2015/11/well-being-in-the-workplace/" target="_blank">CIPD conference</a>.</p>
<p><strong>9.</strong> Working patterns. As we know, the workplace is no longer a 9-5, Monday-Friday, office based set up. Increasing numbers of people want to work flexibly, whether it’s flexible hours, flexible location or flexible roles. There’s also increasing numbers of freelance workers. Organisations need to accept and facilitate these different working patterns if they are to hire and retain the best talent. Flexible working arrangements can be highly beneficial to employers as well, when considered properly.</p>
<p><strong>10.</strong> Your own self development. It’s very easy for HR professionals to spend all their time on the career development of others and neglect their own career development. Needless to say, your career and skills development is just as important, particularly as the profession is going through so much change and you have to change with it.</p>
</div>
10 skills that will make you an outstanding HR Professional
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/10-skills-that-will-make-you-an-outstanding-hr-professional
2015-10-01T11:18:44.000Z
2015-10-01T11:18:44.000Z
Mike Collins
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/MikeCollins
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216609?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p></p>
<p>Following on from last week's Top Story on <a href="http://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/what-is-good-hr-practice" target="_self">What is Good HR Practice</a> we're now looking at specific skills that contribute to being not just a run of the mill but an OUTSTANDING HR Professional.</p>
<p>We all know that HR professionals need to be good at dealing with people. That much is a given. But there is so much more to be being an HR professional than just that. The modern HR professional has to be a business thinker, a strategist, an influencer, and a great communicator. That’s just for starters. They also need to ‘get’ technology – they need to understand the benefits of technology and how best to leverage it to suit individual and organizational needs.</p>
<p>We’ve outlined below what we think are the 10 top skills that make an outstanding HR professional.</p>
<p>1. <strong>People skills.</strong> HR spends so much time dealing with people and people issues, so good people management skills are essential. Say no more.</p>
<p>2. <strong>Communication, negotiation and influencing.</strong> These three skills are linked and critical to the success of any HR function. HR professionals need to have them in abundance.</p>
<p>3. <strong>Business nous.</strong> Today’s HR professional really needs to know the business inside out, know its drivers and objectives and how to meet them. Yet, many plough on without considering the business. Research by benchmarking company Towards Maturity found that only 55% of HR professionals analyse a business problem before recommending a solution.<a href="http://www.towardsmaturity.org/article/2014/05/01/Towards-Maturity-aligning-learning-business-2014/">(http://www.towardsmaturity.org/article/2014/05/01/Towards-Maturity-aligning-learning-business-2014/</a>)</p>
<p>4. <strong>Industry awareness.</strong> To understand your business, you need to understand the industry it operates in. HR professionals need to know what’s going on in the industry, what’s trending and the skills that are needed now and in the future. Unfortunately, a lot of HR pros fall short on this too. According to research by the Learning Performance Institute, 49% of the 2,000 plus professionals who have completed its Capability Map think industry awareness is part of their job<a href="http://%28https//www.learningandperformanceinstitute.com/capabilitymap.htm">(https://www.learningandperformanceinstitute.com/capabilitymap.htm</a>). Furthermore, only 12% consider themselves experts at industry awareness.</p>
<p>5. <strong>Strategic awareness.</strong> If HR wants to have any credibility within the business, it needs to operate strategically. We must understand our business strategy and everything we do should be aligned to this.</p>
<p>6. <strong>Tech savvy.</strong> HR has to get to grips with what tech has to offer. Learners are using technology to the max – HR needs to catch up. Analytics is huge, yet according to the CIPD’s HR Outlook Survey 2014-2015, HR is still lagging behind most other business functions. Fewer than half of respondents to the survey said their HR function draws insight from data and communicates it to stakeholders to help drive competitive advantage.</p>
<p>7. <strong>Change management</strong>. Organisations are in a continuous state of change. HR needs to be at the forefront of making those changes happen. Change management skills are critical. Yet, managing change and cultural transformation are current priorities for only 24% of the CIPD survey respondents.</p>
<p>8. <strong>Problem solving and conflict management.</strong> HR has to deal with a lot of grey areas – say two senior leaders have hit an impasse and HR needs to help them move forward. HR has to be able to address conflicts, diffuse them and find workable solutions.</p>
<p>9. <strong>Results driven.</strong> There is a lot of fluff in HR and the profession is often accused of being swayed by fads. HR needs to overcome this by focusing on results and demonstrating it. Want a new training module or engagement initiative – what results will it give?</p>
<p>10. <strong>Discrete and ethical.</strong> HR has to be confidential, ethical and follow best practice in everything it does. It has to help the business be the same.</p>
<p>So those are our top 10 skills we believe will help make you an outstanding HR Professional (as well of course as a DPG CIPD Qualification ;)</p>
<p>Do you agree with the list?</p>
<p>Are there any other skills we've not mentioned that aren't included that you think should be?</p>
<p>We'd love to hear from you</p>
<p></p>
</div>
What is good HR Practice?
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/what-is-good-hr-practice
2015-09-25T10:39:50.000Z
2015-09-25T10:39:50.000Z
Mike Collins
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/MikeCollins
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216607?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>HR needs to be the arbiter of good practice in business. That is one of its many roles. In order to do it effectively and with credibility, HR has to ensure its own function is in great order, as well as overseeing good practice in the organisation as a whole.</p>
<p>What does it mean to follow good HR practice? The <a href="http://www.cipd.co.uk/cipd-hr-profession/profession-map/" target="_blank">CIPD’s HR profession map</a> is a very useful resource and guide on what makes a good HR professional. It has many guiding principles that lead to best practice HR.</p>
<p>Essentially, it comes down to good HR. So let’s start with the business side:</p>
<ul>
<li>A best practice HR function maintains a key focus on business needs</li>
<li>What does the business want and need now? What does it want and need in the future?</li>
<li>How can HR support it to achieve those goals? HR has to align itself to the business</li>
<li>In order to do this, HR needs to be thoroughly enmeshed in the business, working alongside the business.</li>
<li>There is no room for the silo mentality that HR has been criticized for in the past.</li>
</ul>
<p>According to a report by research and advisory organisation, <a href="http://www.bersin.com/Practice/Detail.aspx?id=103313602" target="_blank">Bersin by Deloitte</a>, 39% of HR professionals rated structured governance and business case development as the most important skills related to good HR practice. Called ‘The High-Impact HR Organisation: Top 10 Best Practices on the Road to Excellence’, the report highlighted the need for HR to have a really strong business focus and the ability to get business buy-in and support.</p>
<p>The whole of workforce planning – recruitment, talent management, skills development – these are all key activities that when done well, make for successful HR. Effective HR professionals take good care of their talent. The employ the right people, retain the right people and develop the right people. They ensure they know what skills are needed, where any gaps are and how to fill them. Workforce analytics are now so important and should form a central part of any HR strategy.</p>
<p>HR needs to make sure practices are relevant, up to date and ethical. That goes for HR and the entire organisation. HR is a key player when it comes to setting the right culture and practices across the organisation and it has a major role to play in helping managers in particular to follow best practice.</p>
<p>That’s some of the exciting stuff. Then there’s admin. Good practice HR reduces the administrative burden for its business partners and for employees. Whether this is done in-house or outsourced, the aim is to make day to day life easier for the workforce.</p>
<p>Employee-facing HR systems also need to be carefully designed. This is a big growth area and HR teams can have a lot of fun and bring a lot of benefit by creating great community-building and self service areas – knowledge sharing portals, community portals, web-based recruitment tools, management dashboards.</p>
<p>HR as a whole needs to really get to grips with technology. It needs to use metrics to make strategic decisions and communicate those decisions and results to the business.</p>
<p>Good HR practice is based on compelling data.</p>
<p>There is no room for fads or fluffy HR anymore.</p>
<p><em><strong>What do you think to this article - what are your thoughts on what good HR practice is?</strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong>Do you agree with this post - is anything missing?</strong></em></p>
<p><strong>Would welcome your thoughts in comments below</strong></p>
</div>
The Rise of HR - Free Ebook
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/the-rise-of-hr-free-ebook
2015-04-23T10:21:21.000Z
2015-04-23T10:21:21.000Z
Mike Collins
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/MikeCollins
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216456?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Hi everyone,</p>
<p>This free ebook has been compiled by Dr.DaveUlrich, Dr.Bill Schiemann,GPHR, and Libby Sartain, SPHR.</p>
<p>It contains thoughts and experiences from over 73 HR leaders across the world covering the following topics.</p>
<ul>
<li>Context to Strategy </li>
<li>Organisation</li>
<li>Talent Supply</li>
<li>Talent Optimisation</li>
<li>Information and Analytics</li>
<li>HR Governance</li>
<li>HR Professionals</li>
<li>Now what - implications?</li>
</ul>
<p>We're sure you'll find this useful and whilst it's a large ebook we have put it in an ebook format to help you navigate your way through and find things or specific interest to you</p>
<p>You can access the ebook using the link below </p>
<p><a href="http://ebooks.dpgplc.co.uk/Theriseofhr" target="_blank">The Rise of HR</a></p>
<p>You can also download the ebook for free and watch videos from each of the contributors <a href="http://hrleadsbusiness.org/rise-of-hr-e-book" target="_blank">here</a></p>
<p>Be great to hear any thoughts on what's been shared and what stands out.</p>
<p></p>
</div>
The Future Workplace
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/the-future-workplace
2014-11-24T16:51:28.000Z
2014-11-24T16:51:28.000Z
Mike Collins
https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/MikeCollins
<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216340?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>In this fascinating report <a href="http://unum.co.uk/" target="_blank">Unum</a> and <a href="http://thefuturelaboratory.com/uk/" target="_blank">Future laboratory</a> have teamed up to provide some insight in to <strong>The Future Workplace.</strong></p>
<p>Mark Beaston - Chief Economist at CIPD states: </p>
<p>"The CIPD's strategic purpose is to champion better work and working lives and this report highlights some intriguing possibilities for the future of work that could potentially make work more productive and more meaningful. No doubt some of the trends will take off, some will not, because they depend on the interplay of many different factors as well as on the choices made by employers and employees themselves. But they provide the basis for a dialogue about how we build the workplace of the future."</p>
<p>So there it is </p>
<p><strong>How do we build the workplace of the future?</strong></p>
<p>There are many things to consider and the report breaks in to 4 different areas that highlights things to be aware of and the impact these trends are having on our employees and in our organisations.</p>
<p>The four areas are</p>
<ul>
<li>The Ageless Workforce </li>
<li>The Mindful Workforce </li>
<li>The Collaborative Workforce</li>
<li>The Intuitive Workforce</li>
</ul>
<p>As HR and L&D professionals we have a huge responsibility to drive and support the change needed to make our working lives better and more meaningful.</p>
<p>You can download the full report here and we'd be very interested in what you think to the report and how it can help you with your strategies for creating a workplace that is ready for the here and now - not just the future as the future is already here.....</p>
<p><a href="http://resources.unum.co.uk/downloads/future-workplace.pdf?31e84bb4-a91e-7b79-8700-496d32f138ca" target="_blank">Download the report</a></p>
</div>