From The RecruitmentBlogs.com
Sixty-two per cent of companies in Singapore have programs to identify their top staff, however more needs to be done with them, according to Mark Busine, managing director of DDI Southeast Asia.
Although many companies claim to have talent identification programs in place, he said, the standards of this process may vary among organisations, with some processes less robust than others.Busine said while Singapore organisations are currently good at pinpointing high-perform ing employees through performance reviews and other similar metrics, many are unable to identify employees with high potential. “Where [the organisations] tend to find it a little bit more difficult is around identifying things such as potential,” he says. “And often what they would do is default to performance as a measure of potential.”However, only 52 per cent out of the 62 per cent say they have a program to accelerate the development of high potentials.“They might be identifying their pool of key talent, but they are not necessarily looking at what they should do once they have them in place,” said Busine.Another possible cause is a lack of understanding about how organisations can work with the identified talent to ensure a maximum amount of return on the company’s investment.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Article from CFO magazine
David McCann posted this interesting article at www.CFO.com I would love to hear your comment on what he is reporting on.......
A professor says most human resources professionals are ill-equipped to carry out value-added workforce planning and transformation.
Addressing a crowd of about 300 financial executives this morning, a professor of human resources soundly denounced the corporate HR profession for being mostly unable to provide analytics that are useful in making workforce decisions that build economic value.
Most companies today spend too little effort on attracting and retaining top strategic talent and too much on satisfying the rest of the employee base, asserted Rutgers University's Richard Beatty, who spoke at a general session during the CFO Rising conference in Orlando. In fact, he claimed that typical human resources activities have no relevance to an organization's success. "HR people try to perpetuate the idea that job satisfaction is critical," Beatty said. "But there is no evidence that engaging employees impacts financial returns."
Beatty based this conclusion on employee surveys done at IBM and other companies that found little relationship between job satisfaction and performance ratings. Not only is employee engagement very expensive, but "how do you know you're not satisfying a lot of people you really wish weren't there?"
To buttress his argument, Beatty presented data from a Gallup survey on the performance of about 4,500 customer service employees at an unnamed major financial firm. The survey results, which were based on customer feedback, showed that the employees who scored in the top quartile had a positive effect on 61 percent of the people they talked to. The next two quartiles registered 40 percent and 27 percent positive responses, respectively, but there were enough neutral responses that the employees' net performance was positive. The lowest quartile, however, scored a net 2 percent negative impact.
"You'd be better off had you paid these people not to come to work," Beatty said. "You'd be a lot better off if you paid them to work for your competitor." The financial firm paid about $30 million in salaries and benefits to the employees in the lowest quartile, whose performance cost the firm as much as $50 million worth of business.
However, Beatty pointed out that this kind of performance variability means there is an opportunity to build a more valuable work force. Usually in such a situation, HR professionals try to figure out what the top performers are doing right, then train the others accordingly. That is faulty thinking, insisted Beatty, who asserted that selection is a more powerful predictor of performance than training. In addition, training may not be the problem - some employees may know what to do, but choose not to do it, opined the professor.
"HR wants to treat most employees the same way, and they spend considerable time trying to defend or fix poor performers, taking on the St. Bernard role," he said. "Low turnover isn't necessarily a good thing. Think about where you might want to disinvest."
Human resources is also behind what Beatty called the "silly" idea that a company should try to be the "employer of choice." If you are the employer of choice, he asked rhetorically, who's going to be applying for your jobs? "Everybody and their dog's brother," he said. "You want people who are excited, enthused, and understand how to contribute to what you do, as opposed to those who simply want to find a good place to hide out."
Beatty said that it is most important to think outside the HR department box when it comes to filling the strategic positions that create the bulk of a company's value. To that end, he suggested that companies might be better off appointing someone from outside the HR department to manage strategic talent. He pointed to Precision Castparts Corp., a $7 billion machine-parts manufacturer, as one company that has bypassed HR in several situations. For one, it reassigned an operations executive who ran a third of the company's 150 plants to take control of scouting for and retaining strategic talent.
Such tactics are warranted because while "the language of organizations is numbers, HR isn't very good at data analytics," Beatty said. "They don't think like business people. Many of them entered human resources because they wanted to help people, which I'm all for, but I'm also for building winning organizations."
It's the CFO's job to make sure that the work of analyzing and, as necessary, reconstituting the work force gets done by someone qualified to do the job, added Beatty, and there has never been more at stake than there is now.
"The labor market is in a position to provide you with better talent than you have ever had," said Beatty, co-author of the new book, The Differentiated Workforce. "If you don't emerge from this market with better talent in the roles that really make a difference, I don't think you're trying."
A professor says most human resources professionals are ill-equipped to carry out value-added workforce planning and transformation.
Addressing a crowd of about 300 financial executives this morning, a professor of human resources soundly denounced the corporate HR profession for being mostly unable to provide analytics that are useful in making workforce decisions that build economic value.
Most companies today spend too little effort on attracting and retaining top strategic talent and too much on satisfying the rest of the employee base, asserted Rutgers University's Richard Beatty, who spoke at a general session during the CFO Rising conference in Orlando. In fact, he claimed that typical human resources activities have no relevance to an organization's success. "HR people try to perpetuate the idea that job satisfaction is critical," Beatty said. "But there is no evidence that engaging employees impacts financial returns."
Beatty based this conclusion on employee surveys done at IBM and other companies that found little relationship between job satisfaction and performance ratings. Not only is employee engagement very expensive, but "how do you know you're not satisfying a lot of people you really wish weren't there?"
To buttress his argument, Beatty presented data from a Gallup survey on the performance of about 4,500 customer service employees at an unnamed major financial firm. The survey results, which were based on customer feedback, showed that the employees who scored in the top quartile had a positive effect on 61 percent of the people they talked to. The next two quartiles registered 40 percent and 27 percent positive responses, respectively, but there were enough neutral responses that the employees' net performance was positive. The lowest quartile, however, scored a net 2 percent negative impact.
"You'd be better off had you paid these people not to come to work," Beatty said. "You'd be a lot better off if you paid them to work for your competitor." The financial firm paid about $30 million in salaries and benefits to the employees in the lowest quartile, whose performance cost the firm as much as $50 million worth of business.
However, Beatty pointed out that this kind of performance variability means there is an opportunity to build a more valuable work force. Usually in such a situation, HR professionals try to figure out what the top performers are doing right, then train the others accordingly. That is faulty thinking, insisted Beatty, who asserted that selection is a more powerful predictor of performance than training. In addition, training may not be the problem - some employees may know what to do, but choose not to do it, opined the professor.
"HR wants to treat most employees the same way, and they spend considerable time trying to defend or fix poor performers, taking on the St. Bernard role," he said. "Low turnover isn't necessarily a good thing. Think about where you might want to disinvest."
Human resources is also behind what Beatty called the "silly" idea that a company should try to be the "employer of choice." If you are the employer of choice, he asked rhetorically, who's going to be applying for your jobs? "Everybody and their dog's brother," he said. "You want people who are excited, enthused, and understand how to contribute to what you do, as opposed to those who simply want to find a good place to hide out."
Beatty said that it is most important to think outside the HR department box when it comes to filling the strategic positions that create the bulk of a company's value. To that end, he suggested that companies might be better off appointing someone from outside the HR department to manage strategic talent. He pointed to Precision Castparts Corp., a $7 billion machine-parts manufacturer, as one company that has bypassed HR in several situations. For one, it reassigned an operations executive who ran a third of the company's 150 plants to take control of scouting for and retaining strategic talent.
Such tactics are warranted because while "the language of organizations is numbers, HR isn't very good at data analytics," Beatty said. "They don't think like business people. Many of them entered human resources because they wanted to help people, which I'm all for, but I'm also for building winning organizations."
It's the CFO's job to make sure that the work of analyzing and, as necessary, reconstituting the work force gets done by someone qualified to do the job, added Beatty, and there has never been more at stake than there is now.
"The labor market is in a position to provide you with better talent than you have ever had," said Beatty, co-author of the new book, The Differentiated Workforce. "If you don't emerge from this market with better talent in the roles that really make a difference, I don't think you're trying."
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The 4 Factors of Success for SMEs
This blog highlights what’s right with small business and non-profits. So often, attention in the news and in business books is pointed at Fortune 500 and large publicly known companies. In Canada, Statistics Canada reports that 5.1 million employees (48 per cent of the total private labour force) work for small enterprises with fewer than 100 employees. 16 per cent work in medium-sized enterprises (100-499 employees). In total, SMEs employ just over 64% of all employees in the private sector. In the US, the numbers are roughly the same with small business representing 63 per cent of sales and they own 61 percent of the business assets.
It seems that success for small businesses and nonprofits is a function of organization, a system, planning/marketing and the leader's actions that have been developed and maintained. These winners make a conscious effort to ingrain a culture of success, which lasts for a lifetime. From 0ur observations, here are four factors that make SMEs successful;
Good People Who Fit. Top performing organizations have recognized the value of the four aspects of fit, fit with the manager, fit with the job, fit with the team and fit with the organization. They have used this information at all levels of their people development beginning in recruitment and following through with orientation, coaching/mentoring and succession planning.
A System. Success smaller-sized organizations have clean internal systems with little waste. Because of factor #1, they have a team that all follows the system. They have tools that everyone uses not allowing individuals to create their own versions. These systems are simple and uncomplicated. The leaders who succeed have an organization that depends on a system. Not an organization that is dependent on certain people to know how to run the system.
Planning/Marketing. These organizations have put together a strategic operating and marketing plan on paper. They us their systems (#2) to communicate with their people (#1) about the details of the plans and marketing using this as a tool to keep the dialogue open between the leader and the employees. The good ones recogonize they have to get the facts, create a database of knowledge and take time to create steps to future growth.
Leader’s Actions. Leaders are the glue that holds everything together. They are totally committed to the mission of the business and through their actions gain the commitment of the rest of the team. They hold people accountable for their actions, celebrate the success together while balancing their own personal responsibility to their employees.
It seems that success for small businesses and nonprofits is a function of organization, a system, planning/marketing and the leader's actions that have been developed and maintained. These winners make a conscious effort to ingrain a culture of success, which lasts for a lifetime. From 0ur observations, here are four factors that make SMEs successful;
Good People Who Fit. Top performing organizations have recognized the value of the four aspects of fit, fit with the manager, fit with the job, fit with the team and fit with the organization. They have used this information at all levels of their people development beginning in recruitment and following through with orientation, coaching/mentoring and succession planning.
A System. Success smaller-sized organizations have clean internal systems with little waste. Because of factor #1, they have a team that all follows the system. They have tools that everyone uses not allowing individuals to create their own versions. These systems are simple and uncomplicated. The leaders who succeed have an organization that depends on a system. Not an organization that is dependent on certain people to know how to run the system.
Planning/Marketing. These organizations have put together a strategic operating and marketing plan on paper. They us their systems (#2) to communicate with their people (#1) about the details of the plans and marketing using this as a tool to keep the dialogue open between the leader and the employees. The good ones recogonize they have to get the facts, create a database of knowledge and take time to create steps to future growth.
Leader’s Actions. Leaders are the glue that holds everything together. They are totally committed to the mission of the business and through their actions gain the commitment of the rest of the team. They hold people accountable for their actions, celebrate the success together while balancing their own personal responsibility to their employees.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Downsizing Not Effective, Survey Says
This article was forwarded to us by our friends at Profiles Australia. An interesting look at how downsizing may not be the answer.
As published in the Sydney Morning Herald...
Downsizing by employers is leading to a dive in staff morale and is failing to increase productivity, a survey has found.
A survey of 6,300 employees and managers who have experienced downsizing in their workplace found 40 per cent of staff became less motivated afterwards, while productivity improved in just 21 per cent of cases.
The survey, carried out by human resources firm Drake International, also showed 45 per cent of employers re-employed staff within six months in roles that had been eliminated in the downsizing.
Drake strategic manager David Edwards said employers were doing themselves long-term damage by not managing downsizing effectively.
"Only one year ago employers were investing heavily to attract new staff to deal with critical skills shortages," he said in a statement on Monday.
"Today the same employers are not only losing critical skills, which will be hard to replace once the upturn occurs, but they are also damaging their hard-won reputations as employers of choice."
Mr Edwards said downsizing should be an opportunity to improve productivity and reduce waste, not just a cost-cutting exercise.
"Organisational restructure should be about working smarter by changing processes and redesigning job roles," he said.
"However, this survey reveals that most employers expected to achieve downsizing benefits by asking staff to work harder."
The survey found that although many employers were changing processes and job roles, productivity increased in only 21 per cent of cases.
Mr Edwards said the main cause was the lack of investment in retraining with only 14 per cent of employees receiving training after the restructure.
He said many employers undertook downsizing without appropriate planning, resulting in chronic underperformance.
"The survey revealed that within the first six months after downsizing 45 per cent of employers re-employed permanent or temporary staff in roles that had previously been eliminated in the downsizing," he said.
The survey also found 41 per cent of remaining staff lost their respect for their employer and 46 per cent were less likely to recommend their organisation to a job seeker after downsizing.
© 2009 AAP
As published in the Sydney Morning Herald...
Downsizing by employers is leading to a dive in staff morale and is failing to increase productivity, a survey has found.
A survey of 6,300 employees and managers who have experienced downsizing in their workplace found 40 per cent of staff became less motivated afterwards, while productivity improved in just 21 per cent of cases.
The survey, carried out by human resources firm Drake International, also showed 45 per cent of employers re-employed staff within six months in roles that had been eliminated in the downsizing.
Drake strategic manager David Edwards said employers were doing themselves long-term damage by not managing downsizing effectively.
"Only one year ago employers were investing heavily to attract new staff to deal with critical skills shortages," he said in a statement on Monday.
"Today the same employers are not only losing critical skills, which will be hard to replace once the upturn occurs, but they are also damaging their hard-won reputations as employers of choice."
Mr Edwards said downsizing should be an opportunity to improve productivity and reduce waste, not just a cost-cutting exercise.
"Organisational restructure should be about working smarter by changing processes and redesigning job roles," he said.
"However, this survey reveals that most employers expected to achieve downsizing benefits by asking staff to work harder."
The survey found that although many employers were changing processes and job roles, productivity increased in only 21 per cent of cases.
Mr Edwards said the main cause was the lack of investment in retraining with only 14 per cent of employees receiving training after the restructure.
He said many employers undertook downsizing without appropriate planning, resulting in chronic underperformance.
"The survey revealed that within the first six months after downsizing 45 per cent of employers re-employed permanent or temporary staff in roles that had previously been eliminated in the downsizing," he said.
The survey also found 41 per cent of remaining staff lost their respect for their employer and 46 per cent were less likely to recommend their organisation to a job seeker after downsizing.
© 2009 AAP
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
