performance

Diagnose, don’t dream

Posted on by Blog

Our ability to influence and to develop the human agenda within organisations depends on our ability to deliver successful solutions in to our businesses. Yet far too often, I see and hear of interventions that start from the solution and not from the diagnosis.

We have the answer before we know the questions.

Part of the reason for this is our eternal fixation with HR best practice and part of it is a need to feel that we are “delivering”. But I also think there is often a fundamental disconnect between our understanding of why we are in an organisation and the real value that we can add.

I’ve written before about the importance of marketing and also thinking about the impact on the end-user. And these have to be underpinned by a robust approach to diagnosis.

What are we trying to achieve?
How do we know that we need to achieve this?
What is the data that informs this?
What would success deliver?

I have a simple belief that in HR our “value add” is to make the organisation perform better. In order to do this we need to observe, sense and understand the areas of tension or friction, we need to relate these to the organisational system that we operate within. Then we need to be clever and creative in finding ways to drive improvement.

The simple benefit of doing this is that we can clearly articulate the need for the specific piece of work that we are doing, we can provide the context within the organisational system and then we can measure the impact. We base the need in the organisation, not in the HR department.

Influence comes from the ability to articulate our value, and that becomes a whole lot easier if we start with the diagnosis and end with the cure rather than just dreaming up need and repeatedly telling people what’s good for them.

Because none of us need that. Do we?

The 9 box model explained

Posted on by Blog

The nine box model exists in most companies. Some have twelve, some have sixteen. Because they’re greedy. You may not know it, but each year you’re being evaluated and put in to a box on a grid. And each box has a definition. Here’s what they say. And what they really mean:

What it’s called:  Enigma

What they say: Individuals with high potential but low performers. They are either wrongly placed or could be working under the wrong supervisors who have not been able to tap their potential. They are totally wasted in an organisation. To help them perform, external intervention is required and open communication and feedback between employees and supervisors might be able to yield good results.

What they mean: We’ve screwed up. So it’s time to outsource the problem. Thankfully there are suckers out there to help us. Coaching anyone?

 

What it’s called: Dilemma

What they say: Individual with average potential but low performance levels. The reasons for this are many but to boost their performance, motivation, inspiration and encouragement, proper opportunities and communication can certainly yield the desired results.

What they mean: Can’t they get a new job? Have a mid-life crisis? Fall down a ditch? Get me the hit men. Or a training course.

 

What it’s called: Under Performer

What they say: Individuals with low potential coupled with low performance levels. Management provides them time to prove themselves but if they still continue to under perform and to not show scope of improvement, they may be asked to leave the organisation.

What they mean: Pond life. Call the undertakers.

 

What it’s called: Growth Employees

What they say: This category has people who show high potential but do not perform up to the mark. Upon motivating, providing challenges, opportunities, and words of encouragement, such employees deliver at a higher level, move forward and often turn into valuable assets for an organization

What they mean: Lazy bas***ds. Bring the bull whip. And the caffeine shots. For the eyeballs….

 

What it’s called: Core Employees

What they say: Just like dilemma category, these individuals have high potential levels and are average performers but can be very promising. They need to be constantly challenged and pushed into giving their best.

What they mean: Cannon fodder. Thank you.

 

What it’s called: Effective

What they say: Individuals with high performance levels but low potential. Such employees have reached their full career potential and need to be engaged and motivated to keep going.

What they mean: Dumb cannon fodder. We don’t even need to thank you.

 

What it’s called: Future Leaders

What they say: Best possible options for succession at senior positions. They score highest on performance and leadership skills. Such employees should be motivated, rewarded for their efforts, promoted and trusted with more roles and responsibilities.

What they mean: Suck-ups. Of the highest order. Avoid at all costs. Or put on an expensive management course to distract.

 

What it’s called: High-impact Performers

What they say: By grooming and motivating, such employees can become future leaders.

What they mean: Deploy mushroom management, these are the enemy my friends. Treat with contempt and caution in equal measure.

 

What it’s called: Trusted Professionals

What they say: People score much higher than the potential because of their capabilities and talent. Such employees should be rewarded and recognized and their capabilities should be used to mentor other upcoming talent in an organization.

What they mean: These guys run the business. At no cost let them know it. Keep them thinking that they’re on the way out and less valuable than you know they are.

 

Notes: Thanks to Wikipedia for the original definitions. The comments here are for fun only, we recognise and understand that the talent review process is actually a highly scientific and complex affair that warrants no humour whatsoever.

Stand and deliver

Posted on by Blog

We all have a friend, or someone we know who is a little bit flaky. They say they’re going to meet you for lunch and then send a text at the last-minute. You invite them for dinner and they arrive 45 minutes late. You need their help and they’re far too busy, despite the fact that you spent the whole of the previous weekend doing something for them.

And we know how much it sucks.

One thing I’ve noticed about HR teams over the years is that they can be the organisational equivalent of that flaky friend. On one hand demanding that the rest of the organisation complies with their timelines and timescales (performance review cycle, anyone?) and at the same time committing and not delivering and being sloppy with turnaround times. It’s a hypocrisy that isn’t lost on other parts of the business.

I don’t think there is one reason why this happens, I think there are multiple causes. HR tends to be the recipient of lots of bitty work. For the employee or manager that “bit” is important, but for the department, adrift in a sea of “bits” it can often get overlooked. Also, HR tends to lack completer-finishers, the people who will go that extra mile to make sure that things are delivered to perfection. And finally, we just tend to do too much “stuff”, mostly unimportant, fabricated, self-serving stuff too.

HR teams that are valued, that add value and are well-respected, analyse, identify, commit and deliver. On the big and the small. They can deliver the really big important initiatives on time and to spec, but they can also handle the million small things that make a difference to the individual employees within the organisation. And they can do it day in and day out.

But most importantly of all, the team needs to value delivery and take pride in making things happen. Too often failure to deliver is blamed on external factors, stakeholder reaction, lack of resource or “too much on”. When the real cause is a lack of focus, attention to detail and pure passion to deliver excellence. It doesn’t always go right and sometimes we need to hold our hands up and accept that, (as one of my team recently said, “we didn’t cover ourselves in glory there”) but realising when things go wrong, means you know what “right” looks like.

Professionalising the HR function and focus on service delivery doesn’t require it to be outsourced to “experts” who will work to a process manual but really don’t give a damn about your organisation or your people, it requires us as professionals to instil the right mindset.

We tolerate the flaky friend because we like them, we might even need them, but we LOVE the friend that is always there when they said and exceeds our expectations. And if HR wants to be taken seriously, it needs to be THAT friend.

Because you’re worth it. Aren’t you?

Posted on by Blog

The nature of my life is such that the topics of conversation can verge from the sublime to the ridiculous, to the completely unexpected. A case in point is that last week I managed to discuss the array of deviant sexual practices and the financial model of HR services within the same 24 hours.

Go figure.

Whilst I’d love to tell you all about felching spoons and the fetishistic objectification of nuns, I’m not sure that would be the best use of your time, please the internet censors, or be particularly wholesome. That said, if you catch me over a glass of wine or two, who knows what could happen….

But that’s not the point. Or maybe it is. But it’s not THIS point.

Most HR teams are set up as cost centres. They’re overheads. Essentially this means that as a user, you get what you’re given. And you pay for it, whether you like it or not. There are advantages to this. Sometimes we have to do things that people don’t want, or don’t know that they want. Sometimes we need to do things a little bit differently to how people want.

But what if we were profit centres? What if we charged for our services and then other departments could buy them? How would that work? And why are companies increasingly looking at this?

I can immediately see some advantages. Instilling a mindset within the HR team to focus on value generation would be helpful. Allowing managers to define the value they want from the HR team could be insightful. And perhaps most of all, reducing the number of pointless and failed initiatives that drive employees and managers up the wall would be a huge benefit.

Still, it can’t counter the unease I have about the whole idea. Firstly it assumes that procurers are experienced, educated and knowledgable. And that isn’t always the case. Secondly, it creates unnecessary internal markets that detracts attention away from the real purpose of the organisation. Finally, and for me most importantly, it suggests HR is there to serve the budget holders and not all employees. Which worries me.

I think HR can gain all the benefits that are derived from this way of operating, without having to change the financial model and incur the associated down sides. It doesn’t seem to me a huge leap of faith or thinking to do that.

Ask yourself, every day, “Would I pay for my service?”

And if that doesn’t work and if things get really bad. Console yourself that what ever might happen, “we’ll always have fisting”.

Yeah. That.