Contextualization and Substantive Composition Key to Successful Practices

When it comes to organizational practices we seem to live in a copy cat world.  Human Resource is one such domain where similar sounding (Yes resoundingly the apt word can only be sounding...) practices abound across the organizations.  There is  strong tendency to look at what others are doing, emulate them, follow what they do and think that we would achieve success. So if you take a dozen processes in an organization you would find they resonate across different organizations in the industry.  However there are two things to keep in mind.   First is about “contextualization” and second is about “Substantive composition”

Contextualization is about understanding the scope and context in which the process, the tool or the framework you have adopted or implemented.   Take for example that most companies have a performance management system.   How much is it contextualized.  What does performance mean in the industry. Do you need a separate framework for sales versus the consultants, or will incentives work.  How much should you bank on deferred compensation.

Second one is about substantive composition. How you implement in your specific organization is more of a cultural thing.  They way your people do performance discussions, the reliance of managers in career development framework,  the coaching tendency of your managerial staff and other leaders,  the way rewards and recognition is valued when delivered all of these are cultural.

I can give my whole process manual for performance management in my organization to a competitor but sadly it can never be implemented the way it was done in my organization. It can be copied but it can't be implemented for the same outcomes.    Our HR practices and systems are not 'freely mobile' for implementation outcomes and if they were so then every industry entity say (in IT for example) would have implemented the same kind of  processes (yes they do have similar looking one's) and would have reaped similar benefits.  But this is far from true as seen over past 2 decades.

In conclusion remember....
"It is not the form that your HR systems and processes take that makes the difference and lets them stand apart --rather it is the substance behind the form that the systems and processes take makes them so". 

Without Bell, Will It Be Another Road Hell !!!

Today's Solution,  Tomorrow's Problem.  

Peculiar are the ways in which organization change things without understanding the real issues, the real problems they are trying to address and then live with a whole new set of problems down the line.  

The same is to come with Big Bell.   The Normal Curve or Bell Curve approach to manage organizations came about for two reasons...

a) Do away with a small fraction of non performers each year and replace them with stars

b) Next year you should have more stars and less non performers and in the long run you don't have any poor or non performers

Oh La, this never happens.  Why? 

The assumption is flawed.  Here is a way to look at it. Your individual performance (of employees) will be randomly distributed (like a bell curve) if you hired them at random from a crowd of talent.  However organizations work on deliberate attempts to source, select and bring on their talent to their turf.  So fundamentally performance cannot be randomly distributed when selection is deliberate attempt to hire people who are good in the population. .

Furthermore if your work was about doing some sorting exercise or widget breaking exercise where everyone is doing same kind of work and same standards apply then you can expect work outcomes to have a normal distribution.  When buckets of work effort are non comparable or when team effort is determining outcomes then what normal are we talking about. 

The problem was GE brought in Bell Curve for axing non performers, good for them. Everyone tried to copy but remember you can never develop sustained advantage from any system unless you understand the substance behind the form.   So many organizations tried to follow and voila....... everyone was using bell curve.

Then came more problems,  people who were paying out rewards found it a good way to easily segregate people and dish out salaries and increments.  But that was also a flawed assumption. They were creating tomorrows problems.  Real pay differentiation should be skill differences (capabilities) and resultant impact created for business.  When you cant' do this you find the easy way out.  Use something else which really does not do its job well   (the bell curve)

Now everyone's talking about Doing Away With the Bell Curve.   This is the seed for tomorrow's problem. The idea behind the bell curve was that you did a fair discussion elaborated to your team why A was different from B, and B was different from C in a convincing manner giving feedback twice in a six month period and finally when outcomes came no one felt he or she was a victim of the system that was unfair.

If companies were really sure their bell curve worked then the best thing to do was to put up on the notice board (intranet that so many have, or the notice board) highlight all the A banders with their achievements.   Who would deny such open culture and when people see what was delivered for an A there would never be a complaint.    Today all agenda's are hidden... Managers dont' want to give feedback.  They just pass it as another HR bungling by bringing in the normal curve and escape the questions they cannot answer.   Don't you remember the most quoted line after the Great Dictator ..... "You were great but ... we have a normal curve so you were pushed down"

Now doing away with Bell has become a fashion because Cisco's and Big Co's Did it but what is that you will do after Bell Curve is abandoned is not even simulated in the mind.  If you really need to give up the bell curve ask the following

a) How will you award increases.   If you think you will leave it to managers of teams to decide you are in for a great .... challenge.  Managers will come back saying give me a spread, or  they will end up playing GOD.   The problem will be attrition due to unfair managers.  If they become socialists distributing increases evenly you will end up losing your best talent to competition as your best performers will become average salaried people within 2 to 3  years.

b) How To Make them Give Better Feedback and Improve Appraisals:   This was always the case, but how will that change happen.  It needs deliberate attempts to understand what is meant by excellent versus what is mediocre in each and every work function.   Then be ready for your compensation teams to start groping in the dark how to distribute merit increase, how to compare jobs and how to make people happy with the rewards system.

c) How will you promote people.   Today it is generally based on High Performance as a lag indicator compared to similar groups.  The down side of doing away with Relative forced Ranking is having  a good way to identify potential that is scientific and predicts performance rather than scuttles performance in the long run.

d) Finally it is about asking What Next on Distributing Annual Increments:   With Bell curve managers were seen as forcing people into buckets without proper reason (Read it as poor feedback giving practice).  Without Bell curve managers will be seen as playing favorites or as being so non-discriminatory that their best performers will have no reason to stay back.

Just a couple of years down the pendulum will swing another way when maybe another CAPCO will start adopting the Bell and Everyone follows... without remembering that the last thing that can make your practice sustainable is the form, however the right substance behind the form is what needs to be understood. 

Performance Management: Don't Miss the Woods for the Trees !!!

Everyone seems to be jumping right onto the band wagon.  Bell curve has become "passe"... So what's the in thing....  That's a million dollar question.

A clear mandate now would be to go back to the basics.  Pressure would now mount on such systems which have done away with Brother Bell to actually motivate performance and no longer manage it.. This is going to mean

a)  Regular and precise goal setting
b) Clarifying understanding and expectations clearly
c) Reviewing periodically and being transparent on the achievement / non achievement
d) Understanding what went wrong and what could be done better.

Over and above is the substantive element that needs to be covered.

One objective of a good performance management framework is to drive the right kind of behaviors within your organization and its various entities.   How does this happen? By Setting Targets and Goals with qualifiers.  It is important to emphasize both "how" and "why" aspects when setting goals and not just the focus on "what".  It has to be a deliberate attempt and should not be left to chance.

Take for example the highest achiever of sales in Pharma Co (name is irrelevant).  Here was Madan the highest grosser on sales.  For eight quarters he clocked over 40% growth each quarter and was the star salesman two years in a row.  About 9 months later when a new drug was launched by the competition the skeletons tumbled out of the cupboard.    Madan used his smooth talking skills and network with stockists to off take and store more than they needed and the inventory went piling up finally leading to zero off take in two quarters when things got tough.
We don’t need to mention the fake invoice generation by “unscrupulous” employees to show higher sales.  This happens in various industries and google your way to “Billing Scams”

So if you are looking for good behaviors aligned to your organizations value system then you need to ensure the “desired behaviors” are brought into focus.

This can be done through combination of the Performance Management and the Competency System.   The PMS should focus on the goals the “how” and “why” along with the “what”.   The managers should ensure that they anticipate how things can “Go Wrong” and discuss these with their teams in the process of setting goals.   

The competency framework should ensure that the behaviors of the competencies (managerial and leadership) do cover behavioral aspects of “how” apart from defining the core job related behaviors of the given role.

Focusing on just numbers,  targets and deliverable s you might end up like the proverbial  missing the woods for the trees.

FIVE THINGS THAT WILL IMPACT HR OF THE FUTURE

We know well that the future cannot be predicted exactly as it would unfold. However a few trends can give you an indication of things to come.   When it comes to organizations the biggest question in the minds of leaders is "What will change and how will the changes affect the work organization". Below are a few changes and the impact it would have on the HR Function.  Organizations that anticipate these and make deliberate attempts to circumvent them will be in a position of strength vis a vis organizations that believe in crossing the bridge when they reach there.  You may not need a bridge for all you know...it may be something else.    

ANTICIPATED CHANGES	WHAT IT MEANS FOR HR
Heavy Automation of basic level HR processes Most employee data will be inputs by employees themselves	Almost all entry level HR jobs will disappear
Regulation and cross border movements will results in a maze of complex employment terms and conditions	Organization will need specialist advisors to help them navigate this complex web of employment benefits administration and cross border movements and virtual configurations
As organizations become more flexible yet complex leading to a duality it would need special skills and deep understanding of employment needs	Shift towards more specialist roles in the HR functions.  The era of generalists will be over
Data will be generated all round in organization both within and across interface of the organization.    Data generated will be more reliable, more robust.	Trajectory of HR professionals, their decisions and judgments will all be determined by insights and analytics from real time data More statistics and big data experts and statistical modelers would be part of the HR department
Too many people will be chasing too few in the talent pool. Curriculum getting specialized, niche skills will emerge.  Career orientation of students will no longer be linear	Having a right Employee Value Proposition and models to engage culturally diverse and remote sets of configurations will be key to surviving the talent war. Shift will be towards building relationships and transitioning talent across boundaries (from campus to coporate) rather than vanilla hiring process. longer term strategic partnerships and tie ups with colleges and universities will be key to talent war tactics

BPS Industry: Creating an Impact

Five Things You can Pursue....An Achievable Wishlist

In today’s world there is an unending quest for happiness.  But what makes you happy does not necessarily make me or another person happy.  In trying to pursue something which I don't want to go after, I am probably living a dream of someone else.

The question is....Is it something difficult to find out what you should pursue.  Is there something we can learn from others experiences.

One way to look at it is from the perspective of terminally ill people.  If you have lived with someone who was in the terminal phases of cancer you would find that they are in a hurry to achieve as many things as possible in the short span of time they have staring ahead at them. They want to do many things and the last days do see some good  progress being made.   They also regret they tried out this so late....Learning something new,  trying out what one never tried out,  meeting others, generally speaking.  All this in the midst of the suffering, the trauma that they go through.   

There was an interesting post that someone put up based on the discussion she had as a nurse with the terminally ill patients she spoke to.    Here's a link to the article.

The five things that most terminally ill people wished they did was

a) Had courage to live a life true to themselves and not living others dreams

b) Wish they did not work so hard... burning themselves and not having time to be happy and enjoy the small joys of life

c) Wish they had courage to express themselves

d) Wish they had stayed in touch with their friends

e) Wish they had let themselves be happier.

These are phenomenal ways in which we can look to in order to make things look and feel different for us.   Anything in hindsight might look simple but to have thought of it that way was the difficult part.  These five are good cues to pursue in our lives.  That would surely make it easier not to regret that we missed out doing these things in a life time.

Light of the Lamp

Here is a story that can be interpreted in various ways.  

In early times in Japan, bamboo-and-paper lanterns were used with candles inside. A blind man, visiting a friend one night, was offered a lantern to carry home with him.

"I do not need a lantern," he said. "Darkness or light is all the same to me."

"I know you do not need a lantern to find your way," his friend replied, "but if you don't have one, someone else may run into you. So you must take it."

The blind man started off with the lantern and before he had walked very far someone ran squarely into him. "Look out where you are going!" he exclaimed to the stranger. "Can't you see this lantern?"

"Your candle has burned out, brother," replied the stranger.

From a human relations perspective you can derive different meanings but the one I want to highlight is....

…if you are oblivious to something does not mean it is irrelevant to others.   What may be important to you may (at the same time) be of no use to the others.   Managers need this realization often in their day to day work.  Someone many think that others see the light of their hard work or action but it is not obvious. 

You may have mastered the art but there are others around you who are at different levels on the learning curve and to each the way ahead will be different.  Apply that yardstick when you decide how to develop people.

Other interpretations I would leave to the discerning readers.