Organisational Behaviour:Futuristic Commenting!!!

Supporting feedback with feedforward…

• At times even the most constructive feedback miscarries
• What might work then is ‘feedfoward’

The art of constructive feedback evolved to lessen the blow of criticism. But, even constructive feedback can miscarry at times, with employees becoming highly defensive. Since sharing feedback, even that bordering on criticism, is essential to employee development, there must be a way of doing it without hurting sentiments.

According to a team of experts, a new approach does exist, where comments are not shared after an action or behaviour, but before they happen. Christened as ‘feedforward’, this new approach is not a substitute for feedback sharing, but only a way of supporting the existing mechanism of commenting on employee performance and behaviour.

Feedback flop show

Contrary to popular belief, a huge percentage of feedback miscarries, not because it is untimely or disruptive, but because employees feel that harping on past performance doesn’t help much. They prefer the “Do it this way” approach to “You should have done it this way” line. Furthermore, employees often perform or indulge in one-time tasks and behaviours. Feedback about them, even though timely and constructive, does not make sense. As one expert says, “Feedback focusses on the past and is often stressful for recipients to hear and apply.”

In some cases, resistance to feedback is more as employees have to figure out ways to implement suggested measures without much guidance. In contrast, ‘feedforward’, as the word suggests, focusses on future actions and behaviours, thereby giving employees the opportunity to perform well right from the word go. Here is how this forward-looking approach works.

Surging ahead

The first step to implementing feedforward is to select the action or behaviour that needs to be addressed. Step two involves inviting suggestions on how it can be done. Since the focus is on a future action, a huge advantage of this forward-looking discussion is the absence of pre-conceived notions and blame. The discussion brings up a number of possibilities, and deciding on the best alternative is then left to the employees, if they are old-hands. For the newer lot, short-listed choices are recommended.

For instance, a manager wants to improve the frequency of informal communication within a work team.

In using feedforward, he first asks for suggestions on how this issue can be addressed. Suggestion can be invited from across the organisation. In fact, the more the number of suggestion-givers, the higher the number of workable solutions. Also, suggestion-givers are free to quote their own examples, share what they have heard or read somewhere, and even put forward their creative ideas. An important consideration at this stage is to accept suggestions without judgment. But irrelevant and improbable ideas can be eliminated after thanking the suggestion-giver.

“Unconditional gratitude is an important part of making feedforward work,” says an expert. Since the basis and success of feedforward is in the number of suggestions generated, employees must volunteer enthusiastically to share their ideas. Berating someone’s unconventional ideas in public would therefore be counter-productive.

Well collected

Once managers have a repertoire of suggestions, it is their job to match the ones that best fit the person involved and the situation. Here is when, in addition to using their discretion, managers should consult with their counterparts to understand the worth of each suggestion. The ones that are short-listed can then be shared with those who have to implement the feedforward. An employee, when given the opportunity to select the course of action from a pre-decided list, is more likely to implement it.

But, how is feedforward different from giving directions on how to perform tasks? From the looks of it, feedforward appears no different, but it is. Here is how it differs from typical how-to-perform guidelines:

• In addition to addressing performance improvement, feedforward comments on the kind of conduct or disposition an employee needs to maintain on a task. Guidelines seldom mention behavioural standards.
• Feedforward is a subjective approach, where suggestions, at times, are a byproduct of someone’s active imagination. On the other hand, guidelines put down operational and procedural requirements.
• Implementing feedforward is optional, whereas applying guidelines is mandatory.
  The quality of feedforward depends on inputs, since it is based on ideas shared by employees. With guidelines, there are no such concerns.
• Managers will have some apprehensions about delivering feedforwards, but not in the case of guidelines.

And the most important difference of all is that feedforwards supplement feedback-sharing and can be included as part of performance appraisals. Guidelines have no such importance.

Building a case

As important as feedback is, at times, even the most well-intentioned feedback miscarries, sullying manager-employee relationship. Feedforward, in itself, does not have much merit, but coupled with feedback, ensures that employees understand what is expected of them better. Not as a substitute for feedback sharing, but as a pre-cursor to it, feedforward can certainly carve a niche of its own.

Reference:
The ManageMentor

Few of my Favourite Books

Here is a collection of my favourite books that I have read, re-read and admired. These books have helped me change my outlook and transformed me as an individual. The reviews will help you to get an overview and in case you want to read it, I have provided an additional link for you to get it.

Happy Reading!!!

Book: The Google Story
Author: David A Vise

I read Google Story four months back and was impressed by the inside story and how Larry and Sergey (Co-founders of Google) started their own company which has today become indispensable for all of us. With its colorful, childlike logo set against a pure white background, Google’s magical ability to produce speedy, relevant responses to queries hundreds of millions of times daily has changed the way people find information and stay abreast of the news. Million of people use it daily and have come to regard Google and internet as one.

During the electronic revolution, Google sprang about as the most indispensable search engine almost overnight. If there is anybody on the face of this planet who hasn't heard of Google, I think he must have been from the Stone Age.

Google Story by David A Vise reveals the hidden secrets behind what went in the creation of Google and what challenges were faced by its founders right from its inception.

Google runs the largest computer system in the world, which is the reason behind all quality searches and providing a competitive strength to the company. To me Google is an advertising company, which generates money through highly targeted text ads that searchers click when looking for information.

One bright idea that led Google to its present day success was the idealism of its founders. During the heyday of the dot com companies, Sergey and Larry preferred to keep the company private as long as they possibly could because they wanted to build the best search engine; the money they could gain by making the company public was not so important.

The soul of Google m/c is rapid innovation, where all technologists think of solving problems first rather than devising ways of making money and creating products. Google fosters on word of mouth publicity and is not involved in any marketing or advertising activities.

The Google Story is in hardcover with 326 pages. In the front of the book, a contents page showing its 26 chapters is followed by an Introduction, and at the end of the book, are the appendices such as Google Search Tips, Google Labs Aptitude Test, and Google's Financial Scorecard, plus A Note on Sources, Acknowledgments, Photo Credits and Index. A few black and white photos in the middle of the book add to its enjoyment as well as the variety of anecdotes inside it. This book is also available as an abridged audio CD, an abridged downloadable audiobook, and a trade paperback.

For me, this was an enjoyable read with one tale after another. Although the information in it has been in the news media before, seeing it in one piece was a treat.

Click on the link below to Buy Google Story Now:

Book: Rich Dad Poor Dad

Author: Robert Kiyosaki and Sharon Lechter

Rich Dad Poor Dad is Robert Kiyosaki's and Sharon Lechter's first best-selling book. It advocates financial independence through investing, real estate, owning businesses, and the use of finance protection tactics.

Mr. Kiyosaki is a fourth generation Japanese-American. After serving in the Marine Corps as a helicopter gunship pilot during the Vietnam War, he took a job with the Xerox Corporation as a salesman. This is when he started to invest in real estate and other commodities and eventually started a company that introduced nylon and Velcro wallets (designed for surfers) into the market. Mr. Kiyosaki now runs a business and investment education company, Cashflow Technologies, Inc.

The book is largely based on Kiyosaki's upbringing and education in Hawaii, although the degree of fictionalization in his anecdotes is disputed. Because of the heavy use of allegory, some readers believe that Kiyosaki created the Rich Dad character as an author surrogate (a literary device), discussed further in the criticism section below. The book highlights the different attitudes to money, work and life of these two men, and how they in turn influenced key decisions in Kiyosaki's life.

Among some of the book's topics are:

• the value of financial intelligence
• that corporations spend first, then pay taxes, while individuals must pay taxes first
• that corporations are artificial entities that anyone can use, but the poor usually don't know how

According to Kiyosaki and Lechter, wealth is measured as the number of days the income from your assets will sustain you, and financial independence is achieved when your monthly income from assets exceeds your monthly expenses. Each dad had a different way of teaching his son....

The book is very well written and, surprisingly for a book on the subject of finance, not at all dry or long-winded. Mr. Kiyosaki uses a lot of anecdotes to illustrate his ideas. The constant comparison between the wealth management strategies of “Rich Dad” and “Poor Dad” serves to reinforce the need to change middle-class mindsets about money.

Click on the link below to Buy Rich Dad Poor Dad Now:

Strategy for Learning Leaders.

Tough times require tough decisions about learning resources. Yet, many learning units lack a strategy. Without it, how do you decide what to do?

Most learning people do not do strategy. We do transactions. We schedule classes. We build programs. We track compliance. Order taking and delivery has been tolerated in good times, but these are not good times.

While the financial crisis adds urgency, strategy is nothing new to learning leaders. "Allison, they want me to sync my strategy to the larger organizational strategy. Can you help?" An old friend howled in voice mail: "My new senior VP said we must cut costs immediately. She wants me to use strategy to cope with hard decisions."

A chief learning officer sent an e-mail: "I asked my learning managers to report about their strategy. One wants to make podcasts; another is eager to revamp the learning portal. I'm not against their ideas, but they aren't strategy. Right?"

Right. Many otherwise savvy learning leaders stumble over strategy.

Strategy Defined

Strategy tells everybody who you are and what you intend to accomplish. Michael Porter, an expert on the topic, said strategy is a defining position that delivers competitive advantage.

Sun Tzu spoke about strategy in the fifth century B.C.: "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat." Sun Tzu, who could be viewed as one of the first known learning executives, was challenged by the King of Wu to prove himself by training his 360 concubines. While Sun Tzu's existence is questioned by historians, the importance of shared purpose is not - not for the development of concubines and not for us in our endeavors.

Here is a typical attempt at strategy: 50 percent of our training will move to the Web by the end of the year. While it has measurability, it is not a strategy. It is a tactic for achieving a strategy that probably involves delivering lessons closer to work or providing more accessible programs for an increasingly mobile workforce. Strategy and tactics are not the same.

Why Seek Strategy?

Should we add a person who specializes in evaluation? What about podcasts to enhance sales training? How do we respond to an executive seeking three increasingly unpleasant budget scenarios, at minus 8, 12 and 15 percent?

There is no way to decide without strategy. With a nod to Sun Tzu, how do you separate meaning from noise without articulated direction?

There are three reasons for establishing a strategy:

1. A great strategy synchronizes the learning organization with the enterprise.
Ingersoll Rand's Rita Smith invites leaders from across the organization into scheduled, purposeful and visible conversations. Terry Bickham, national leader for learning and development services at Deloitte, also welcomes executives into decisions about company strategies.

"We held learning strategy summits with both high-performing employees and key executives to help them understand what leading-edge talent development looked like, compared that to how we currently fared, and then agreed on where we wanted to be in the near future," Bickham said. "We then had champions in leadership who supported the strategy all along its journey to the Board of Directors for approval. I think learning executives too often short cut the strategy-creation process by not letting their clients play a primary role in developing it."

2. A great strategy defines the unit.
When asked if she thought her learning organization required a strategy, Laura Handrick, vice president for innovation at The Maids International, said, "You bet! How else do we convey our priorities to the rest of the organization for input, feedback and alignment?" Strategy also clarifies priorities for those expected to act on it. A chief learning officer can discern what to protect and what to expose. Instructional designers can select the development experiences most likely to enable them to contribute.

3. A great strategy offers a promise that can be examined.
A chief learning officer in a financial services company put it this way: "Look at where we are in my industry at the end of 2008. We are being asked to justify our budgets, cut costs and do more with fewer resources. No kidding. When I speak to executives, they are not interested in tactics. Why do I need 38 people? Naming courses or pointing to podcasts won't cut it. They want to know my strategy and how it will align with the enterprise. They want to hear how I will make sure that we are adding value and how we will measure and report."

How Do You Find Strategy?

After a briefing, an executive acknowledged that she would like her organization to have a strategy, but resisted all that might be involved in generating one, wondering whether it's a top-down or bottom-up effort.

She gets to decide. The process boils down to who will be involved and with how much gusto their opinions will be sought and incorporated. San Diego State University's Frank Nguyen and James Frazee described three models for finding strategy: authoritative, consultative and consensual.

The authoritative approach yields strategy that springs from the leader. The process is speedy, but can be perceived as rash by those who must act on it. Here is what an authoritative process might look like. The CLO, working with three direct reports and an outside consultant, sets about articulating strategy for the organization:

1. They examine internal strategy documents, looking at what the enterprise is promising.

2. The consultant leads the group in readings and discussions about best practices and competitive strategy options. Together, they attend a conference to look at emerging trends in learning, performance and technology.

3. They examine internal strengths, seeking to build on what they do exceptionally well.

4. They review descriptions of competitive pressures and opportunities in their business.

5. They meet to generate a strategy that will propel the group forward through contributions to clients and customers. At that meeting, they determine how best to communicate this strategy.

The CLO took less than three weeks to settle on this strategy.

At the other extreme is a consensus process, benefited and burdened by painstaking interactions with constituencies.

The learning executive director (LED), working with five managers, creates a list of key groups and individuals important to the strategy process. There are 14 groups, including learning delivery, requirements and development, plus supplier, client and customer units. The LED is committed to maximum involvement. She then works with two managers to:

1. Welcome everyone to a virtual classroom session to define strategy, examine related internal documents and explain the process to come.

2. Review existing organizational strategy statements.

3. Meet with groups to solicit their views on a proper strategy for the organization.

4. Use a shared Web site to present what she is learning as she tours the 14 groups and to solicit comments on the associated blog.

5. Hold open office hours to discuss strategy with interested parties.

6. Throughout, three training managers review the literature and best practices.

7. The LED and managers meet to see what has been learned through the focus group meetings and literature review and to create alternative strategy scenarios.

8. These alternatives are then posted online with an online survey that solicits opinions on the value, resonance and risk associated with these options.

9. The LED and her managers review results and create a strategy based on the feedback.

10. The LED meets with key executives to share the strategy and process, assuring alignment. They prepare to roll out this strategy at a major event.

This effort was completed in 13 weeks.

Balance between speed and participation characterizes the consultative model. A brand new talent and development leader (TADL) seeks strategy to guide decisions, giving many good ideas and few resources.

1. TADL reviews related internal documents, focusing on the larger organizational strategy, results and evaluations of past efforts by his or her learning organization.

2. TADL meets with each group in the learning enterprise to talk about its strengths, focusing on documented successes.

3. TADL works with an external consultant to discuss promising strategies in other organizations and how those organizations executed on their strategies.

4. TADL and the consultant create a document that explains why a strategy is valuable and what makes for a good strategy, highlighting three strategy options appropriate to the organization.

5. TADL distributes that document and seeks suggestions and prioritization.

6. TADL then invites interested parties to meetings to discuss the options.

7. TADL and consultant, based on interactions and feedback, refine options and select one. TADL brings it forward at an all-hands meeting. The question: Given this strategy, how would your program and choices be different next year?

This effort was completed in six weeks.

Which approach is right for your organization? John Kotter and Leonard Schlesinger, in a Harvard Business Review article, said that the amount of involvement depends on how quickly you must move, how much resistance you anticipate and how much trust and influence you enjoy.

Where Do You Find Strategy?

Leaders look in two directions for inspiration: inside and outside.

It is natural for organizations to seek their strategies in their strengths. Two familiar ideas provide examples: appreciative inquiry and core competence. In her book The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry, Sue Hammond wrote, "Appreciative inquiry suggests that we look for what works in an organization. The tangible result of the inquiry process is a series of statements that describe where the organization wants to be, based on the high moments of where they have been. Because the statement are grounded in real experience and history, people know how to repeat their success."

C. K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel also favor finding strategy inside, in the core competencies shared by people and units in an organization. Their influential Harvard Business Review article made a case for strategy derived from existing exceptional expertise. Examples include Sony, which found its strategy in miniaturization, or Honda, whose deep expertise in engines led it to lawn movers and motorcycles.

On the other hand, Porter pressed leaders to look outside for strategy. BP's Lord John Browne is an example of attention to context. In 1997, he directed BP corporate strategy beyond petroleum because he perceived increasing demand and dwindling natural resources.

How far outside should the learning unit look for strategy? Not far, at least not to begin with. The learning organization should align with the enterprise. Consider Sony's internal learning unit. Sony's commitment to small mobile devices should influence its learning unit to deliver similarly.

Select a strategy that is finely tuned to the enterprise, making it impractical for an outsider to compete. The new U.S. administration promised a military strategy that is more dependent on soft power. How will military training respond and advance the new strategy?

Porter would say we must extend beyond comfort zones. How might technology bring lessons, messages and support where they need to be? How can business acumen shape a strategy that delivers cost leadership or unusually efficient processes?

There is a tug between those who prefer to find their strategies outside and those who would rather look inside the organization. Here is what I remember of such an interaction:

Caleb: I was thinking that a strategy for us might be developing 21st-century skills through partnerships. My people will resonate to that because we do a good job there today.

Allison: But will that strategy differentiate your unit? Will it help you decide what programs to advance? Will it push you to think about things in new ways, to establish a position that sets you apart and is seen as strikingly valuable?

Caleb: Developing 21st-century skills through partnerships, it's a good fit for us.

Allison: Too good a fit, I fear - too close to what you already do. Fit matters, of course. Another consideration is stretch. Would that strategy stretch your group? Would it press you to tackle challenges in superior ways? Would an impartial source see your group as appreciably better than others at partnerships for the 21st century? Caleb, you described a dire budget situation. If you must choose between fit and stretch, and you do want to weigh both, your strategy should come significantly from extending beyond the familiar.

What Is Good Strategy?

Dana and Jim Robinson, in the new edition of their book Performance Consulting, dive into strategy. They described what makes a good one:

a) The focus is broad, on a distinguishing direction for the entire enterprise or unit.

b) It is long-term in view, not focused on this quarter or next month.

c) It is linked to one or more business goals or to a pressing need in the organization.

d) It is solution neutral in its early stages. It is not about classrooms, the Web or instructors, not at first.

e) It requires many tactics to implement. Isolated solutions do not yield strategic results.

But there is even more to a good strategy:

a) It speaks to what we will do and also admits to what we will not do.

b) It is cognizant of the world outside, including the structure of the industry, customer needs and competitive forces.

c) It is cognizant of current strengths, without allowing the familiar to limit possibilities.

d) It comes from hard and comparative questions about whether those strengths do, in fact, distinguish people and groups in the organization.

e) It is understandable beyond the "in" group.

f) It is measurable.

g) It is difficult to copy or supplant.

h) It enables decision making about what to do now and next.

i) It inspires.

After the Hard Part Comes the Hard Part

Fast forward. You have arrived at a strategy. But hold the ovations.

"There is a significant delta between strategy and execution," said Rebecca Ray, senior vice president of global talent management and development for MasterCard Worldwide. "And research tells us that most strategies fail. If this is true, it is because those who are expected to execute the strategy do not understand it or feel disconnected from it.

"And if they do not understand it or embrace it, it is because those who have hatched the strategy have failed to take a brief respite from basking in the glow of their own brilliance to deign to talk about what it will take to plan, execute and sustain what the strategy purports to accomplish with those who are tasked with making the brilliant idea a reality."

How do you move from words to actions?

Listen up. Those who do not favor the strategy will pick up on the risks associated with it. Are we aligned with the organization or off on our own toot? Is our technology platform ready for what we will ask of it? Are our instructors ready? How will our people learn about our culture if we move online?

You should also worry if your strategy is greeted with whoops and cheers. When a strategy is applauded by all, it is probably too general, too familiar or too comprehensive. I saw one that had endless bullet points and included many worthy ideas, from diversity to accessibility to speed to customer focus. Everyone praised it and then ignored it, since it embraced everything and required no hard choices.

Speak up. A good strategy statement is short and sweet. It raises questions that must be answered through a strategy communication, perhaps conveyed through conversation, presentation, memo, briefing, white paper, video or podcasts.

a) How will people behave differently now? More of what? Less of what? What stays the same?

b) What will customers experience?

c) What methods were used to find this strategy?

d) How does it reflect business acumen?

e) Why is this strategy for us? For these times? How does it align with organizational priorities?

f) How will it be resourced and measured?

Stand up. Strategy often fails because leaders do not stand up for it. How will you demonstrate commitment to the strategy? Conferences, T-shirts and posters are nice, but not sufficient. Better are the decisions that require bravery. A learning leader could make painful decisions about reductions in force with strategy in mind. Another could fund new programs if he or she is keeping with the strategy. Yet a third could alter performance measures to reflect the strategy.

Follow up. Create a list of indicators that would satisfy you and stakeholders that the strategy is succeeding. Hold people accountable for the indicators. Hold meetings to talk about it. Make heroes of those who act on it. Post an anonymous online survey that solicits views about the effort. Welcome others into a social network focused on it. What differences are seen? Do they matter? Measure and improve, and then do it again. If the learning executive does little with the strategy, it will contribute cynicism, not value.

Linda van der Loo, managing executive of people effectiveness technologies for The LR Group in South Africa, uses conversations about strategy to concentrate her clients' attention. She talks to them about American Olympian Michael Phelps.

"Did he possess a strategy in order to win eight gold medals in the pool at Beijing?" she asked. "I am sure he did - not only a strategy but also a deep, detailed plan of how he was going to achieve his dream."

In hard times, learning leaders will be called upon to make agonizing choices and deliver prized results. That will require pulling together and moving as one toward somewhere that matters, toward strategy. Do you have one?

Reference:
Allison Rossett, Ed.D.
[About the Author: Allison Rossett, Ed.D. is the Professor of Educational Technology at San Diego State University. Dr. Rossett is also a consultant in training and technology-based performance, a member of the ASTD International Board of Directors and the HRD Hall of Fame, and the author of several books on e-learning.]

Training and Development: Touchy Matters

Modern learners are no longer enamoured with socialising virtually.

• Knowledge era individuals have different, but reasonable expectations
• Organisations will have to realign their focus to meet those expectations

In addition to keeping pace with rapidly evolving business and market demands, organisations must respond to the needs of an ever contracting and expanding workforce. These challenges alone put tremendous strain on those in-charge of knowledge management. Added now is the task of adopting different knowledge management practices as what has been done until now is nearing expiry date. Is there a new approach to enable organisations compete with these diverse and dynamic demands? Or, is it that organisations will buckle under the pressure and fail to meet the expectations of the knowledge era and its workers?

Status quo

A while ago, employees could and would update and upskill themselves by reading a few documents. But, as one learning expert says, “The reality of knowledge management today is that people need tacit knowledge and know-how directly from the source.” This requirement is not of knowledge workers alone. Modern employees expect:

• Direct interaction with those who have excelled
• First-hand information on what went right and what went wrong
• To hear success stories from the horse’s mouth
• Support from those who have ‘been there and done that’
• Guidance from experienced hands while on the job

These expectations highlight the need for human interaction. Although modern employees can ‘work the world’ from their cubicles, they no longer want to be lone learners. Although well-connected virtually, they want their online connections to translate into face-to-face interactions, especially while learning. Affirming this is a recent a survey of 1,300 participants, who were asked to rank the effectiveness of different learning opportunities. A whooping 88 percent chose interpersonal interactive opportunities over e-learning. The survey further highlighted the importance employees place on human interaction in gauging training effectiveness. “Relational interaction is now more important to learners than documents, data and facts,” says the survey. So, how can organisations adapt their learning opportunities to these new requirements?

The execution

Knowledge managers must refocus their efforts on the following areas to cater to the new requirements:

• Identify knowledge sources
• Review and measure knowledge flows
• Ensure the flow is free and fast
• Provide knowledge guardians
• Tapping sources

Frequent layoffs, mergers and acquisitions have tampered with existing knowledge flows, making it difficult to identify and access knowledge sources. A learning expert comments, “The stream of information and knowledge has been interrupted and people are floundering to find footing.” As typical knowledge agents disappear or become hard to find, organisations will have to tap into less obvious knowledge sources.

According to knowledge management gurus, excellent knowledge sources are available among the working class. These are individuals who have gained valuable exposure and experience over a period of time and have been sharing it with their colleagues in the form of advice, suggestions and other on-the-job interventions. Without expecting recognition for their contribution, these individuals become valuable components of knowledge flow.

By offering support to those who need the most, and at a time when it is required the most, they make critical contributions to knowledge transfer. Organisations do these individuals great disservice when they fail to recognise the roles they play. “Leveraging them (grassroots knowledge champions) for greater visibility and use is the first step towards realigning the focus of learning,” says an expert.

Social mapping

In the same direction is the merging practice of ‘social mapping’, also referred to as ‘social network analysis. This analysis reveals whom people approach for information and help. Is it that they follow the chain of command or do they get in touch with old hands on a need basis? By answering such questions, the analysis reveals internal trends in knowledge seeking and sharing. With the popular and active sources of knowledge transfer identified, organisations can leverage them better in their knowledge initiatives.

A better understanding of how knowledge is transferred is essential to create a smoother and more egalitarian process for knowledge sharing. Therefore, the analysis also answers the following questions to determine the health of existing knowledge flows:

• Does information get stuck at any level or is an individual becoming a bottleneck in the flow of information?
• Is information lost or distorted at any level during the flow?
• Is the flow smooth between departments, peers and colleagues?

Acknowledging the importance of the role grassroots knowledge champions play in knowledge management and acceding to the fact that individuals should be encouraged to reach out to their colleagues freely will improve both the learning environment and the quality of learning.

With knowledge sources identified, the next few efforts include measuring knowledge flows, making them smoother and providing knowledge guardians. A description of these efforts will be discussed in part two of this two-mailer series.

Reference:
The ManageMentor

Slash the Clash: Organizational Behaviour

• Conflict management must be handled well to save work teams from slipping into chaos
• An effective way to address conflicts is to identify and treat typical dysfunctions

For team leaders, supervisors and managers, the most disliked of words is ‘conflict’. And, overcoming this dislike is not an option, but a necessity. Though conflict management is considered the bane of managers, it must be handled well to save work teams from slipping into chaos. A team of experts now recommends a simpler and quicker way to address conflicts—identify and then treat the dysfunctions that ail work teams. In a bid to help managements create healthy work teams, this week’s mailer lists a few typical dysfunctions and discusses how to manage them.

Poor team work

Those in-charge of a few top performers assume automatically that they have the best team on hand. This assumption blinds them to the fact that efficient teams consist of individuals who work in collaboration. Studies show that top performers are not necessarily the best of team players, and require constant and close direction on how to align their accomplishments with that of their teams. Top performers are also more likely to create conflict-like situations. Therefore, letting go of one’s guard when top performers are more in number in a team is not a good idea. In fact, one must be more cautious.

Combat-ready

Willingness to seek and implement feedback should be encouraged amongst team members. But not all employees accept negative feedback, however constructive it may be, so easily. The most common tendency is to retaliate. Managers should let their wards know that unwillingness to accept feedback will be construed as unwillingness to improve. Although a part of most appraisals is assessing how much an employee followed the feedback given to him, they must also include marking how an employee received negative feedback. Employees who are non-defensive about what was said should be given brownie points.

When words and meanings differ

Employees who have the habit of saying, “But that was not what I meant when I said…”, will have to be weaned off it. Ambiguity and non-transparency in communication can lead to trouble if left unchecked. Managers should single out such employees and have them state their intentions in clear and explicit terms. When checked a couple of times, an employee will become mindful of what he says.

Poor commitment

Dissent is both necessary and healthy to team functioning. Dissent is also important to ensure that decisions taken are unbiased and holistic. But dissent after a decision has been taken and is being implemented hampers team functioning and becomes more than an obstacle. Team decisions are seldom unanimous, but those who are against a particular decision should be made to understand that they cannot continue their disagreement once a decision has been taken. They must exhibit the same kind of commitment to implementing it as those who were for it at the decision-making stage.

Chaotically yours

As one expert rightly says, “Pot stirring is a violation of principles and a threat to productivity.” Some employees have an inherent affiliation with chaos and rebellion. They enjoy championing inconsequential causes, cribbing over insignificant things and raking up sensitive issues. There actions must be nipped in the bud. An effective way to do so is making employees aware of the consequences of indulging in such conduct. Quoting examples of what happened to those who instigated trouble is an indirect way of cautioning employees to steer clear of improper conduct.

The ‘not me’ syndrome

No one likes to be blamed, but when things end up in a mess, those who are responsible for the tasks will have to share the burden of the mess. Here too, the typical tendency is to play the blame game and deflect responsibility. Managers should let employees know that transferring blame is the same as transferring responsibility. Equally important is to make them understand that once an employee takes on a responsibility, he alone is answerable for the outcome, either good or bad.

The ‘I was not told’ syndrome

Information flows within teams should be transparent, democratic and free. Ensuring such flows is the management’s responsibility, but holding managers responsible for every bit of internal communication like emails and memos is unfair. Employees should be held responsible for staying ‘in the loop’. Reading emails, newsletters and memos regularly should be a part of employee responsibilities, while making them available to all is the task of a manager. Ignorance of internal communication is not an excuse for not performing a duty!

It can grow big!

Perceptions and tolerance levels differ. This is why one can never guess issues that can flare up into full-fledged conflicts. Therefore, managers should treat no issue as too small. Addressing differences however petty and getting employees to reconcile immediately should be right on top of a manager’s agenda.

Heading successful teams is what all managers aspire to do. But a more reasonable goal is to head functional teams, where individuals tolerate each other, are watchful of their conduct and comply with group norms and decisions. Such functional teams are a possibility only when what is dysfunctional in them is identified and eliminated.

Reference:
The ManageMentor

Performance Management: Untamed Goals!

Goal setting can leave employees directionless...

• Goal setting can hamper employee performance by shifting focus away from other areas of concern
• If over done, goal setting can also hamper staff learning and cooperation among colleagues

Goal setting is one of the core functions of corporate performance management. Managers have been assigned the task of setting goals that are workable, mutually agreeable and value-adding. The importance of setting goals that help achieve larger organisational objectives has never been underplayed, but only over done. Advocates of the goal setting have always had a say in the corporate compensation strategy. However, a recent study by professors at the Harvard Business School reviewed the over emphasis on goal setting, and challenged its validity. The study also brought out an interesting finding that over-prescription of goals could in fact result in harmful side effects, and therefore, goal setting needs to be practised with restrain and control.

The following are the key findings of the study:

• Goal setting can narrow focus, resulting in an oversight of non-goal functions
• Goal setting can result in a drastic rise in unethical behaviour
• Goal setting can deplete organisational values and create a self-centred employee attitude
• Over-prescription may lead to employees taking uncalculated risks
• Goal setting could also lower intrinsic motivation levels

Thus, managers need to heed to the warning and do goal setting with a lot of restraint and deliberation. When managers let their goals go wild, they unleash a huge amount of negative energy that can sabotage the very purpose of goal setting. Goal setting is good when the employees are clear about the goals, committed to them and have the ability to achieve them, without running into a conflict of goals. In such cases, the equation between goal difficulty and performance is fairly simple. But in most cases, managers tend to go overboard with their goal setting agenda, resulting in a backlash.

In the wilderness

Traditional wisdom has it that goals have to be specific and challenging to be able to enhance individual performance. Specific goals yield better result than ‘blanket’ goals like “give your 110 percent”. In addition, ‘stretch’ goals add glamour to the whole idea of achieving goals and bring out the best in people. However, it is also for these reasons that goal setting can go haywire and create complex side effects.

When goals become too specific and narrow, people fail to see the larger picture and ignore non-goal areas which could be equally important. Further, people working on multiple-goals tend to focus on one goal, while ignoring others. They tend to pick and choose goals according to their convenience and work only on what suits them. Another important factor in setting specific goals is the time factor. In case of short-term goals, people tend to resort to unethical means and compromise on certain basic work rules. The shortchanging of ethics is primarily because people view goal attainment as their professional ceiling, while in reality it is the foundation of good professional life. Hence, by compromising on ethics, people sabotage the very purpose of effective goal attainment.

When goals become too challenging, employees either stop trying or try too hard and succumb to the side effects. Increase in risk appetite, unethical behaviour and psychological stress due to fear of failure are some of the side effects of extremely challenging goals. Experts recommend that goals should be stretched only to the extent that inspires a person, but not to the limits that make the whole exercise counterproductive.

Another critical side effect of overprescribed goals is that they hamper learning and cooperation. In a rush to meet the goals, individuals often overlook learning. So managers must prescribe both learning and performance goals. This will bring some clarity of purpose to individuals working on goals.

Overstated goals also lead to unhealthy competition, thereby hampering cooperation among colleagues. Managers have to be careful about inspiring unhealthy competition in the name of goal attainment.

Complex process

There is no one best way of prescribing goals. Goal setting is a complex process involving a number of issues relating to human psychology. Thus, keeping it simple is a challenge for managers. However, there are some basic rules, which if followed, can help managers tame the goals. They are:

• Avoid goals that could lead to stress
• Do not impose punishment for failure
• Set mutually agreeable goals
• Exercise flexibility wherever possible

Goal setting is not necessarily the best method to inspire employees. There are other ways. However, for those who still believe that goal setting is the only way to improve individual performance, here is a word of caution: Goals are performance floors; do not use them as ceilings!

Reference:
The ManageMentor

Organisational Behaviour: Spiralling Support!!!

Leader support is important to nurture organisational creativity...

• Leadership support impacts employee creativity positively
• Leadership support or the lack of it is discernible through effective and ineffective leadership behaviours
• Socioemotional support is an example of effective leadership behaviour that helps employees combat workplace stress

Employee performance, especially in a setup that is driven by creative insights, is greatly dependent on leadership support. Even in general, leadership support is pivotal to employee performance. Its influence on is more pronounced in a creative environment, where risks like loss of rewards are many.

A research conducted by professors of administrative management at the Harvard School of Business reveals significant findings about how leadership support or the lack of it can influence the creative output of employees. While it may seem logical for employee performance to take a beating due to lack of leadership support, the kind of leadership behaviours that indicate that ‘lack of support’ are not so obvious. Hence, to ensure that leadership is supportive and not restrictive or regressive, it is important for leaders to identify and differentiate behaviours that would typically hamper employee creativity from those that aid employee progression.

Winning behaviours

Most teams have issues concerning leadership support. While leaders may not create a ‘non-supportive’ environment deliberately, certain behavioural demonstrations may manifest as non-productive actions, thereby creating a negative impact on employee morale and work efficiency. To prevent themselves from indulging in ineffective and adversely impacting behaviour, leaders need to know the ‘effective’ from the ‘ineffective’. This is very important from the employee perspective as leadership behaviour translates into leadership support. Therefore, when employees feel they have leadership support, their efficacy increases, while it dwindles proportionately if they feel deprived of leadership support.

To ensure that work efficiency charts an ascending graph, leaders must be aware of effective leadership behaviour. The following presents an account of the types of behaviour that indicate leadership support.

Supervising work

Leaders must refrain from micromanaging. Leaders who monitor work progress at reasonable intervals put employees at ease, and therefore, are more likely to get the desired output. In addition, leaders must help employees through work-related difficulties by listening to their problems and suggesting solutions. Reacting positively to problems is important as it communicates leadership support instantly.

Socioemotional support

In addition to providing guidance and support in work-related areas, leaders also need to give adequate socioemotional support. Socioemotional issues encompass stress-related factors at the workplace, exchange of personal information, work-life balance etc. When leaders address such issues, they cross the professional boundaries to enter the personal space of employees, thereby creating a bonding that goes beyond professional life. In addition to addressing socioemotional concerns, leaders also need to socialise with employees and make them their friends. A friendly equation between the leader and the subordinate can compliment professional coordination at the workplace.

Recognition

Employee recognition helps boost morale and reinforces desirable behaviours. Leaders must make a deliberate attempt to recognise employee efforts, both privately and publicly. Recognition by leaders helps employees build credibility and restores confidence in others. In addition, it encourages employees to go beyond their traditional work boundaries and think better, bigger and different.

Engage subordinates

Supportive leaders break through the command and control chains to involve and include people around them in the decision-making process. Encouraging employees to present their ideas and suggestions is an indication of effective leadership behaviour, as employees feel valued under such leaders and tend to give their best.

Effective leadership behaviour nurtures employee loyalty and trust. Leaders who realise the significance of demonstrating positive behaviour will enjoy employee confidence and support, and the benefits of better performance.

Beware!

Like effective leadership behaviours indicate leadership support, ineffective behaviours indicate the lack of it. Identifying ineffective behaviours is, thus, critical for leaders to prevent ill-effects from taking over. The HBS research brought out three most common ineffective leadership behaviours. They are:

• Micromanaging and hyper control
• Lack of clarity in assigning roles and responsibilities
• Inability to deal with workplace problems, thereby leading to more complications

Holding guard against ineffective leadership behaviour is therefore important for leaders to demonstrate support.

The mechanism

An understanding of ineffective and effective leadership behaviours gives leaders an insight into their own behavioural patterns. Research on the subject indicates that when leaders exhibit effective behaviour like monitoring work at reasonable intervals or involving people in the decision-making process, they create positive spirals that prompt subordinates to work better and give their best. On the other hand, if leaders demonstrate ineffective behaviour like micromanaging, they incite negative reactions from subordinates, who begin to feel suffocated and incompetent, thereby creating negative spirals all the way down.

While the adversities of non-supportive leadership are serious, research shows that its negative impact is pretty much reversible. Thus, for leaders who have unintentionally been indulging in ineffective behaviour, the good news is that they might just be able to change things for better!

Reference:
The ManageMentor

Strategic HRM: Weeding out the dishonest…

• Recruiting honest people requires effort, and so does keeping them honest once employed
• With rising cases of theft and embezzlement, organisations need to recognise employee dishonesty as a serious concern

A recent survey of employed individuals revealed facts that could make employers queasy—56 percent admitted to lying to their seniors repeatedly, 41 percent said they had falsified reports and documents more than once, and 35 percent reported to stealing from their employers. As per another survey, 36,000 employers are ‘stolen out of business’ by their employees annually.

With findings like these, the quest for honest employees is only intensifying. With the economy in the doldrums, worrying about dishonest employees is the last thing that organisations want to do. The dishonest will admit their trickery only under anonymity! Also, assuming all employees to be dishonest until proven honest is a sure way to doom. Keeping things locked or under surveillance is neither cost-effective nor fool-proof.

All this suggests only a bleak possibility of a win-win situation, where organisations recruit the honest and keep them so, while the employees feel their organisations know how to differentiate good from bad. Can organisations rely on tools other than background checks to weed out the dishonest? Here is how they can recruit the honest and keep them so.

Honesty check

The honesty check must take place at three levels.

Pre-recruitment stage: Consider resumes as a preview to a candidate’s background. When organisations form opinions based on resumes alone, they are only ignoring the caveat: “The best written resumes often camouflage the worst individuals!”. The best practice is to get all candidates fill application forms. Here too, care is required. Instead of handing out a form and saying “Please fill this and hand it over to the receptionist”, candidates must be told to fill out the forms completely and truthfully. They must be given ample time to provide every detail sought, like the number of previous employers and the reasons for leaving them. Candidates must also be informed that their answers will be checked for accuracy. Organisations need to convey that one need not be perfect to work for them, but honesty and truthfulness are a must.

As one recruiting expert says, “You may be amazed with what you learn from a comprehensive employment application presented to your applicants with an ‘answer truthfully’ pitch.” Hyping up truthfulness is a ploy that has scared away weak-hearted frauds successfully!

Mid-recruitment stage: With the objective of recruiting genuine performers, interviewers typically grill candidates on their achievements. Resultantly, there is little time to assess candidates on other equally important qualities like honesty. Interviewers must, therefore, reset the primary objective of interviewing to recruiting ‘honest top performers’.

In addition to discussing their achievements, candidates should be questioned on why they left their earlier jobs, and asked to explain gaps between jobs. Equally important is for interviewers to correlate information collected during the interview with resume details. Discrepancies should be pointed out and candidates given the opportunity to explain themselves.

Post-interview stage: This is when reference and background checks are conducted. Although most organisations conduct background checks, the focus is merely to validate the information collected. However, in addition to verifying the information gathered in the first two stages, a thorough background check uncovers a candidate’s work ethics and character.
As part of a background check, some organisations ask candidates to undergo credit assessments to contrast their earnings with outgoings. As part of reference checks, a smart move is to request for two types of references—work and personal. A still smarter thing is to ask a candidate’s work reference questions that one would ask his personal reference. “Work references usually have nothing bad to say about a candidate, so asking candidates to provided personal references is a good idea,” says a recruiter.

While these stages keep the dishonest at bay, what can organisations do about keeping their honest employees honest?

In-house honesty

The rising cases of employee theft and embezzlement have forced behavioural scientists to re-examine workplace honesty. A new school of thought now believes that while everyone is inherently honest, opportunities to get away with fraud tempt even the best to cheat. Therefore, even while organisations believe in principles such as self-governance, autonomy and laissez faire, the absence of internal controls will lead to diminished protection against employee dishonesty. Here are a few simple yet effective internal controls that help keep the employees honest:

Gag the talkers: Managers should be cautioned against saying things like, “I can trust him with my life” or “He is the most loyal of employees”. According to behavioural scientists, such expressions become the basis of diluting one’s control over employee conduct. Employees showered with such praise become impervious to the consequences of misconduct.

Praise the action: The kind of expressions mentioned above create an “entitlement mentality” amongst employees, where they feel their employers owe them much more than their salaries. Thoughts such as, “I deserve this because I have been working for 6 months without bonus” or “I have been working overtime so I ought to get this”, drive employees to pilfer, which can lead to large embezzlements eventually. While praising is an effective motivational tool, managers should be specific about why the employee has received the pat.

Decentralise money matters: Allowing a select few to handle all the financial matters is a bad idea. Separating activities such as creating invoices, receiving payments, opening band accounts and recording bank statements distributes control and prevents misconduct. Another tip is to audit customer and vendor lists regularly to validate their existence.

A focus on recruiting the honest and exercising controls in operations should prevent episodes of misconduct. They may not eradicate dishonesty altogether, but the steps taken to reduce occurrences of employee misconduct are worth the effort.

Reference:
The ManageMentor

The Bounce Back Plan – Recruitment & Retention

Key learnings:

• Survival measures have grown so severe that organisations are not thinking of the future
• But living for the moment should not make them unprepared for an imminent revival

Thankfully, nothing lasts forever. Although the end is far from sight, the current downturn is not permanent. As immersed as organisations are in strengthening their survival tactics, another concern that must be addressed is their preparedness and ability to bounce back when the economy turns around. Will it not be sad for an organisation to survive the downturn, only to stumble and fall when the economy revives? In discussing how organisations can prepare to bounce back, this mailer series describes what experts call the ‘recruiting turnaround plan’.
Leave alone a recruiting turnaround plan, a recent survey revealed how a majority of organisations are recruiting without documented strategies. Their excuse is, “How can one plan when things are so uncertain?” But the counter-argument is that the absence of a plan is what makes the future foggier. Even experts agree that the difficulties involved in drafting recruiting strategies right now are huge. Yet, they recommend putting together a series of efforts based on ‘what-if’ analyses. The efforts of such analyses would produce a recruiting turnaround plan with the following elements:

Priority-based recruitment:

When the recruitment freeze ends later, the absence of a plan leaves recruiting professionals in a state of panic. The panic translates into a string of random and chaotic activities where organisations ends up over or under staffed, or worse staffed against requirements. Getting back on one’s feet with critical positions vacant is more than merely challenging.
A turnaround plan allows recruiting professionals to direct their time and resources towards recruiting for critical and hard-to-fill positions and priority business units before recruiting for any others. It also prevents recruiting professional from buckling under pressure. With a plan in place, no big wig can ‘compel’ recruiting professionals to ‘do them a favour’ and recruit against priorities!

Competitive intelligence:

When recruitment becomes a non-activity, recruiting teams too turn inert. But a turnaround plan ensures some level of activity to keep their joints well-oiled, so that recruiting professionals will not be caught off guard when things bounce back to normalcy! Plans induce recruiting professionals to be proactive about collecting competitive intelligence. Learning about one’s talent competitors allows recruiters to draft and alter their re-entry to recruiting. Professionals, who remain active during the lull, will know what talent is available and what tools and techniques to use to attract them when recruiting opens up.

Defined schedule:

The outcome of a turnaround plan is a timetable that spells out clearly what needs to be done and who will do it once recruiting is unfrozen. With roles and responsibilities pre-defined, recruiting teams save themselves from last-minute delegation follies.

Studying the past:

A good turnaround plan encourages organisations to study past downturns and identify telltale signs of a recovery. That way, recruiting professionals can be on the look out for certain indicators of a revival. This increases an organisation’s chances of getting set right before it’s time to roll. Here is when incorporating the inputs of C-level executives becomes important. Their vision and experience helps them to be more perceptive about imminent changes.
Restrategised goals: A recruitment freeze is the best time to revamp recruiting strategies and tactics. With little pressure to fill positions, recruiting professionals can review their performance and ensure that what they do next will have a greater impact on business goals. With a turnaround plan to develop, the need to refurbish recruiting efforts becomes demanding. Equally important at this stage is to redefine metrics. Experts recommend the use of the following metrics as part of a turnaround plan:

• Employer brand influence
• Quality of recruit
• Cost of new recruit turnover
• Loss of revenue to vacant positions
• Innovation from new recruits

Top buy-in:

Last minute approvals and sanctions are not something managements agree to. A plan ensures that the management is kept in the loop about what will transpire once recruiting is reactivated. With the C gang informed of their imminent roles, they do not feel ambushed when recruiting professionals bombard them with a flurry of requests and requirements. Moreover, since the top controls budgets and requisitions, their buy-in becomes mandatory.

Candidate expectations:

A turnaround plan ensures that recruiting professionals remain in touch with candidate expectations. It is foolhardy to assume the expectations of potential applicants remain steady over time. Periodic discussions with a sample representing the talent that will be required clues in professionals to the latest decision criteria. That way, recruiting teams will know what to say in their job adverts and across the interviewing table. It also prepares organisations to counter the turnover problem. By building in a retention strategy, a good turnaround plan prepares for employee turnover, which will soar when the economy opens up. With competitors going all out to attract the best, organisations must be prepared to counter their desperate, last minute attempts to snare talent. With a plan in place, recruiting professionals can easily identify ‘at risk’ candidates and employ proactive measures to retain them.

Reference:

The ManageMentor

Quantifying the Return on Your People Investment

What if you had the opportunity to streamline your company's talent acquisition process and substantially improve quality of hire? "Sounds promising," you might say. What if you also could demonstrate cost savings, productivity gains or a measurable return on your investment? You'd be a hero, right?

Many companies are doing exactly this by implementing assessment tools in recruiting and hiring processes and then quantifying the impact on measurable outcomes such as retention, sales revenue, productivity and quality. Assessments can take on a variety of forms, including ability tests, personality and biographical inventories, simulations and knowledge or skills tests. Regardless of type, it is possible to quantify an assessment's value by linking candidates' scores to the outcomes the organization values and is trying to effect.

Consider a broadband communications company that integrated assessments into its hiring process for customer-service representatives (CSRs). It found that CSRs who scored high on the assessment resolved inbound service calls about 20 seconds more quickly and up-sold about $1 more per call than their lower-scoring counterparts. When the company extrapolated these results, this translated into nearly $18,000 per agent per year. With assessments costing only $20-30 per candidate, with four to five candidates being considered for several hundred openings per year, this is a significant ROI.

With findings such as these, one might expect every organization to implement assessments. However, the potential value of assessments is seldom translated into terms - increased sales, reduced attrition, efficiency gains or return on investment - that influence the decision makers who hold the purse strings.

To translate the value of assessments, know what characteristics to assess - such as skills, abilities and personality characteristics - know how best to assess them via tests, inventories, simulations or interviews; and then implement the assessments effectively. Finally, follow through on an evaluation strategy to demonstrate the value of the assessment program.

Step 1: Select the Right Assessments

Start with a job examination. How is success defined and measured? What characteristics promote behaviors that lead to success? Also, consider the organization's strategic direction and how planned or anticipated changes will influence what is expected of employees, as well as how success is defined or measured. Designing an assessment program with the future in mind will help ensure talent managers evaluate candidates for the job demands of today and tomorrow, rather than yesterday.

There are a variety of characteristics that predict performance in different roles. Few characteristics predict performance across all jobs. Confidence and an ability to influence others, for example, are important in sales roles. Emotional resilience is important in demanding customer-service roles, while it's critical for a pilot or ER nurse to keep a cool head in an emergency. Knowing which characteristics contribute to effective performance in certain positions will help talent managers choose the right assessment tools to evaluate candidates' success potential.

Not all assessments are created equal. Some are appropriate for use in employee selection, but others are primarily designed for use in self-development, self-discovery or even for entertainment. The options can be dizzying. To select assessment tools that will produce ROI, ensure they have been developed by testing professionals, preferably those with advanced psychology training, and are supported by documentation that describes their development, use and validity.

Step 2: Use Assessments Consistently

Few things are more frustrating than carefully choosing a set of assessments, taking the time to plan an evaluation strategy and waiting for data to accumulate in order to quantify impact, only to find segments of the organization are not using the assessments properly or consistently. In the assessment program implementation process, communication with key stakeholders is critical to build their buy-in and commitment to use the new tools. For example, recruiters need to know how to administer the assessments and how doing so will make their jobs easier.

Hiring managers are more likely to integrate assessment results into their decisions about candidates if they understand how those results can help them make a better hire. Therefore, before implementation, train users, communicate to stakeholders and then communicate some more. A good assessment partner will help guide talent managers through the process.

Also, develop a plan to monitor assessment program compliance. This is the only way to know if assessments are being used consistently, how many assessments have been administered, if all candidates have assessment scores on file and how many candidates were hired who should not have been based on their assessment scores. Monitoring information that provides answers to these questions will help ensure candidates are treated consistently and fairly, and provide information necessary to evaluate assessment program impact.

Step 3: Evaluate Impact on Outcomes That Matter

With data, it is possible to demonstrate that assessments help drive important outcomes such as productivity, sales, efficiency and customer satisfaction. It's important to keep a few things in mind when doing so. First, focus on what matters most. For some roles, there literally may be dozens of metrics used to measure success. Sales jobs and contact-center roles are just two examples. However, just because something is measured doesn't mean it is important to business leaders.

Work with business partners to understand the outcomes and metrics that matter most to them. Don't presume to know what business leaders care about. Ask, "If we wanted to demonstrate that our assessment tools drive employee outcomes that matter to you, what metrics should we focus on?"

Target the metrics they identify as most influential. After all, a small impact on a critical outcome or metric can be much more influential to win their support for the assessment program, as well as budget, than a large impact on an outdated or unimportant metric.

Second, consider what outcomes or metrics are available that can be expressed in or tied to actual dollars. Any true return-on-investment calculation requires financial inputs. The good news is many types of nonfinancial outcomes can be translated into dollar terms. Consider, for example, the cost savings associated with reducing attrition, avoiding costly mistakes and lowering accident rates.

One organization found assessing and hiring broadband technicians with stronger problem-solving ability would result in a 25 percent reduction in trouble call rates; they could more effectively install services on the first visit and avoid costly trouble calls. Over the entire technician workforce, this translated into thousands fewer trouble calls per year, saving the company nearly $1.5 million annually in trouble call expenses alone.

Other organizations have realized enormous savings following reductions in employee attrition. One call-center operation recently found that candidates who scored higher on an assessment had a 29 percent lower attrition rate. The company calculated that this reduction was worth several million dollars per year in reduced replacement and training costs, as well as lost opportunities.

Embarq, a phone services provider, implemented an assessment process to evaluate whether customer-service applicants possessed the qualities necessary for success on the job. The program had a significant impact on CSR retention, productivity and efficiency - metrics that mattered to business leaders. Here are some other examples of how organizations can quantify the impact of pre-employment assessment tools on their businesses:

a) In a financial-services call center, agents who earned higher scores in a pre-employment assessment collected on average $10,900 more per month than lower scores. In one year, 100 high-scoring employees would generate nearly $13.1 million more collections revenue than 100 low scorers.

b) By using an assessment to systematically identify more promising candidates for a sales associate position, one retain chain estimated an annual increase in sales of $25 million across the entire workforce.

c) A retail automotive parts chain found the average level of store employees' parts knowledge was associated with store-level financial performance. Based on this link, the organization estimated that an improvement of 10 percentage points on average knowledge test scores would result in an increase of more than $84 million in sales across the organization.

Assessments can drive measurable improvements in the key outcomes that matter most to business leaders. Further, assessments can help talent managers put the right people in the right places. And a thoughtful, sensible evaluation strategy will help quantify the return on an organization's people investment.

Reference:
Dr. Jeff Facteau and Dr. Jay Janovics
[About the Authors: Dr. Jeff Facteau is director of consulting and optimization services, and Dr. Jay Janovics is manager of optimization and professional services at PreVisor, a pre-employment assessment and employee selection solutions provider.]