No matter what size your organisation, the first impression you make on new staff is all important.  Whether on an individual or group basis, your employee induction process is critical to keeping people with you longer.

You’ve made a significant investment in your new recruit already.  Advertising, testing, interviewing and perhaps placement fees.  Don’t blow that investment by botching up the induction process.

In the current tight labour market, it is the employer who needs to entice the employee.  The Australian Institute of Management reports in its 2007 National Salary Survey that small companies are losing staff at an increasing rate. 

Voluntary staff turnover is at 13.6 per cent, up significantly from 10.3 per cent on the previous year.  And new recruits are particularly prone to leaving an organisation within weeks of commencing their employment. 

Bond with new staff quickly or risk losing them.

Having a number of new staff commence together makes sense.  It might take a bit of organising, but group inductions can be very efficient.  The benefits of a group employee induction include:

• New recruits receive the same consistent message;
• They feel more secure as part of a group;
• They learn more about the organisation through the questions that others ask; and
• Key policies and organisational information is explained methodically.

Once the group induction process is planned and designed, it’s easy to roll out again in six or twelve months time for the next recruitment drive.

Whether group or individual employee induction, it’s important to focus on conveying the key information and policies of the organisation.  And make sure you support everything said with detailed documentation.

Why not kick off your new relationship with an “induction breakfast”?  This is a good ice-breaker and creates a warm and welcoming atmosphere.

It’s important the induction process includes the organisational structure and chain of command, procedures for conflict resolution and an employee’s occupational health and safety obligations.

Make sure you are well prepared for ‘day one’.  Ensure workstations are clean and tidy and operational.  Telephone systems need to be explained, email addresses created and possibly lockers and security passes assigned.

Remember, the professionalism exhibited inducting new employees leaves a lasting impression.

Allocate each new recruit a buddy to aid the ongoing induction process.  Make sure buddies have good communication skills, are friendly and if necessary, are relieved of some of their workload so they are available to commit to the task.

The buddy’s role is important in conveying the cultural tone of an organisation.  As they guide and introduce the new employee, the buddy’s interaction with other staff will make an impression.  Are they respectful in addressing others?  Do they describe different roles sensibly?  Do they show a commitment to the organisation?

There are wild and mixed emotions running through the new recruit’s head during induction.  The induction process must be well managed so that feelings of apprehension are eliminated and second thoughts don’t get a chance to rear their ugly heads. 

New employees must feel welcome, supported and have confidence they have made the right choice.  An excellent program of employee induction raises the odds of hanging onto employees for the longer term.

Orientation, on boarding, induction, employee integration – whatever your company calls it – is probably the only form of training companies deliver that doesn’t regularly get measured for a return on investment.

Forms get filled out, ID pictures are taken, benefits are discussed, and maybe a forgettable video is viewed about the company and its product or services or history, and by that time the new hires are ready to bolt for the door.

People join organisations to do a job, and during their first day on the job all we want to talk about is the rules and reasons we may use for terminating them.  It is not the best use of our HR budget.

Here are five suggestions to improve the on boarding process:

Tie the orientation to more than just benefits, forms and policies.  
Orientation needs to reflect the mission, values, and culture of the organisation.   Whether the company is a family-owned business or a multinational, people want to belong to an organisation whose t-shirt they can be proud to wear at the beach.  Agilent Technologies goes one step further.  On a new hire’s first day, it sends flowers to the person’s home along with t-shirts for the whole family.  MicroStrategy, uses an in-depth boot camp to allow new hires to bond with their new organisation.  The orientation is spread over several days and includes technical training as well as team building.

Get new hires to their work site as quickly as possible. 
Give the new hire a job to do and use all that newfound energy and resource to bump up that understaffed and overworked team that has been waiting for the new person to start.

Use a stepped or staggered approach to orientation.  
Have a brief meeting on the first day, then a second meeting later that week.   Continue to hold brief meetings over the first three to four weeks.  Stagger the times of the meetings.  Have them in different departments or different parts of the organisation.  Use orientation to allow the new hires to get a more complete understanding of the breadth of the company.

Further, allow employees to become aware of all the different activities that are going on in the organisation. 
Many times, people join companies, but they leave managers.   Involve the manager as soon as possible.  Orientation, is more effective when not handled solely by HR.  Face it: New hires will pay more attention to what their managers say than what someone from HR tells them.  It’s the nature of the beast.  Managers held accountable for the success of their new hires are more likely to be involved in getting the new hires started off right.

Give new hires a goal they can reach in the first couple of weeks, or even days. 
People hate it if they join an organisation and then feel that they aren’t allowed to do any real work.   In fact, a SHRM study found that more than 80 percent of people who voluntarily change jobs do so because they want to feel that they have more control over their work and that the work they do has an impact.  People flock to smaller organisations in order to feel like more than just another cog in a giant machine.  A statement we heard in too many exit interviews is, “I’m leaving to go to a smaller organisation where I feel I can really make a difference.”

Adapted from GL Now

Successful employment practices rely on getting the basics right. It takes a little extra effort and some extra time, but that effort is well rewarded. An efficient and effective employee saves time and contributes positively to organisational success.

A poor employment selection only brings problems and stress - even if the person leaves smoothly

Employment success

At a recent leadership development training program, when asked the following question to  CEOs  :

Knowing what you know now, how many of your current employees would you re-employ?

The Answer  was - about 60%.

This answer is consistent with previous groups who had attended similar training , as well as general employment survey research. It means that poor employee selection decisions are regularly made.

Suitable candidates are not being found. About 40% of employees are not performing well or as expected. In some way, they cause their management a problem. It may be poor attitude or interpersonal problems. It may be they cannot perform their duties properly.

Are sound employee selection practices worth the effort?

Recruitment and selection is a good example of the ‘Pareto principle’ - 20% of the effort produces 80% of the results.

It is worth a little extra effort to make a good selection rather than an average one. Spending the time to make a good decision is a sound investment. It is time well spent.

Managing performance problems is a constant theme raised by training participants. Amongst other things, poor performance consumes management time. It diverts attention away from more productive matters.

Managing performance would not be a major issue if team leaders and managers exercised greater control in the recruitment and selection process.

Employee selection tips

The following tips may help:

• Establish clear requirements - what is expected of the position, what are the knowledge, skills and attitudes required to carry out the position responsibilities effectively?
• Probe the candidates in a variety of ways - ask them what they have done/would do in a variety of situations, test their knowledge, get them to demonstrate actual skills.
• Consider how they compliment the other team members - what different attitudes and approaches do they bring?
• Make sure you are fully satisfied - a partially suitable candidate will only cause problems in the long run.

These are basic tips. On the face of it, these tips seem relatively straightforward. However, doing them correctly is not easy.

For example, thinking about appropriate and non-standard interview questions requires some time.

Most candidates should have a coherent answer to:

What are your strongest points?

What are your weaknesses?

Behavioural questions are more helpful:

What would you do if …………?

How have you approached ……….before?

Interviews are not the only thing to rely on - there are other selection techniques as well (see related article below).

Successful employment practices rely on getting the basics right. It takes a little extra effort and some extra time, but that effort is well rewarded. An efficient and effective employee saves time and contributes positively to organisational success.

A poor employment selection only brings problems and stress - even if the person leaves smoothly

Recruitment

The use of career and job websites to advertise vacancies is growing. The availability of online recruitment advertising is encouraging companies to do it directly, bypassing the traditional recruitment agencies.

Online job sites are quick, easy to use and inexpensive.

Although these sites offer tools to assist in the shortlisting process, the key challenge still remains.

The important point is to structure the advertisement to attract the right number of qualified candidates - not too many, not too few.

This involves thinking about the employment market and the likely availability of suitable, interested candidates.

The greater the availability, the more specific you can be with the wording of the advert. If you know what you want in terms of attributes, experience and background, and you are confident that you can attract people, be specific. It saves you time and doesn’t unnecessarily raise the expectations of candidates.

The objective is to attract a manageable number of high quality candidates.

Selection

A job interview can be more than an interview. Skills can be tested just before or just after the actual interview, or even during the interview itself.

In most positions, the ability to read and write is critical. It only takes a few minutes to have someone complete a task that demonstrates that they have the ability to match the position requirements.

In the case of the manufacturing company mentioned above, they had to terminate a new employee’s employment. He could not do what he claimed he could.

He was employed in a trade, but with the specific intention of operating a particular machine. At his interview, he claimed he had experience in the use of that machine. As everything else was in order, he was hired.

It quickly became obvious that he did not have the necessary skills and experience and hence his services were terminated during the probationary period.

This costly mistake could have been avoided. The selection process could have included some form of practical assessment. The best test would have been to actually set up a job and run it on the machine. If that was not possible, standing next to the machine and asking specific questions about its operation would have quickly confirmed the level of existing knowledge. A number of “what if” questions would have shown his depth of understanding.

When employing staff with a customer service role, it is recommend for running a quick role play during the interview. The candidate can demonstrate their customer relations skills.

Recruitment and selection success

The 80/20 rule applies to recruitment and selection, that is, 20% of the effort produces 80% of the results.

A lot of aggravation could be avoided if the effort is placed on getting recruitment and selection processes operating smoothly. It is better to avoid performance problems.

In summary, recruitment and selection success involves many critical elements, but two major ones are:

• Attracting the right number of candidates through careful targeting of the recruitment advert.
• Using a variety of methods in the selection process, including practical assessments and roleplays relevant to the position description.

Research demonstrates that  that there is no substitute for objectively observing and systematically measuring how people actually perform “on the ground”. A well designed Assessment Centre is the most effective tool available for assessing individuals in both individual and group based environments for selection or development.

From the most basic unassigned role exercises to highly complex assigned role problem solving and decision making exercises for senior  managers/directors, we apply psychometric rigour to every centre we provide to ensure it is highly accurate, stable and job relevant.

There is no such thing a ’standard’ Assessment or Development Centre - some can last as little as half a day, while others can go on for three days or more. However, all demand considerable commitment from the host organisation.  

What is an Assessment/Development Centre?

The term assessment centre does not refer to a physical place, instead it describes an approach. Traditionally an assessment centre consisted of a suite of exercises designed to assess a set of personal characteristics, it was seen as a rather formal process where the individuals being assessed had the results fed back to them in the context of a simple yes/no selection decision. However, recently we have seen a definite shift in thinking away from this traditional view of an assessment centre to one which stresses the developmental aspect of assessment. A consequence of this is that today it is very rare to come across an assessment centre which does not have at least some developmental aspect to it, increasingly assessment centres are stressing a collaborative approach which involves the individual actively participating in the process rather than being a passive recipient of it. In some cases we can even find assessment centres that are so developmental in their approach that most of the assessment work done is carried out by the participants themselves and the major function of the centre is to provide the participants with feedback that is as much developmental as judgmental in nature.

Assessment centres typically involve the participants completing a range of exercises which simulate the activities carried out in the target job. Various combinations of these exercises and sometimes other assessment methods like psychometric testing and interviews are used to assess particular competencies in individuals. The theory behind this is that if one wishes to predict future job performance then the best way of doing this is to get the individual to carry out a set of tasks which accurately sample those required in the job and are as similar to them as possible. The particular competencies used will depend upon the target job but one will often find competencies such as relating to people; resistance to stress; planning and organising; motivation; adaptability and flexibility; problem solving; leadership; communication; decision making and initiative. There are numerous possible competencies and the ones which are relevant to a particular job are determined through job analysis.

The fact that a set of exercises is used demonstrates one crucial characteristic of an assessment centre - namely that it is behaviour that is being observed and measured. This represents a significant departure from many traditional selection approaches which rely on the observer or selector attempting to infer personal characteristics from behaviour based upon subjective judgement and usually precious little evidence. This approach is rendered unfair and inaccurate by the subjective whims and biases of the selector and in many cases produces a selection decision based on a freewheeling social interaction after which a decision was made as whether the individual’s ‘face fit’ with the organisation.

A History of Assessment Centres

The use of Assessment Centres in The UK

We can trace the existence of assessment centres back to 1942 when they were used by War Office Selection Boards (Anstey, 1989). Their introduction stemmed from the fact that the existing system was resulting in a large proportion of those officers it had predicted would be successful being ‘returned to unit’ as unsuitable. This is hardly surprising when one considers that the system as it was relied on interviewing to select officers and had as selection criteria things like social and educational background. Even the criteria of ‘achievement in the ranks’ which one might imagine as being more job relevant included things like ‘exceptional smartness’. No wonder unsuitable people were chosen as officers and potentially excellent officers overlooked. The assessment centre approach subsequently adopted was an attempt to accurately elicit the types of behaviour that an officer was required to display in order to be successful in their job. The tasks included leaderless group exercises, selection tests and individual interviews by a senior officer, junior officer and psychiatrist respectively. This new system resulted in a substantial drop in the proportion of officers being ‘returned to unit’ as unfit for duty. During the post war years this system was so successful that it was introduced for selection to the Civil Service and a variation of it is still used for officer selection in the armed forces to this day.

The use of Assessment Centres in The US

In the United States assessment centres were initially used by the Office of Strategic Studies to select spies during the Second World War. Subsequently the use of assessment centres was taken up by the private sector especially the giant American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) which began using assessment centres for management selection in 1956 as well as Standard Oil Ohio, IBM, Sears and General Electric. There were differences between the US and UK approaches which largely stemmed from the original background to their introduction. In the UK a greater emphasis was placed on group exercises with an appointed leader, group discussions and long written exercises whereas in the US more emphasis was placed on in-tray exercises, leaderless group exercises with assigned roles and two person role plays (Woodruffe, 1993).

The use of Assessment Centres in Industry

Modern assessment centres in the UK tend now to follow the American format although there are still some which have their roots in the public sector Civil Service model. The growth of the use of assessment centres in the UK has been rapid. In 1986 Robertson and Makin reported that slightly more than one quarter of organisations who employed 500 people or more used assessment centres, in 1989 Mabey reported that more than one third of companies employing over 1000 people used them while most recently Boyle et al (1993) reported that 45% of organisations who responded used assessment centres and that their use was more prevalent in the private sector and by larger organisations. We have also seen a rise in the use of what we could term ‘pure’ development centres. The main reasons behind this have been the realisation that centres that have an element of selection decision making to them can have a demoralising effect on those individuals who have been deemed unsuccessful. Organisations have also come to realise that to be competitive they must constantly invest in the development of their staff in order to enable them to respond effectively to an increasingly uncertain marketplace. This has meant that rather than selecting new employees organisations are now investing more in their existing workforce. Traditionally companies who wished to train their staff would send them on a training course external to the organisation, indeed many still do, but there has been an increasing emphasis placed on delivering training that is relevant to the organisation’s needs and business objectives. A development centre run as part of an integrated training strategy is an excellent way of ensuring that training is carried out in a context of organisational relevance. A final reason for the growth in use of development centres has been the widespread adoption of the idea of behavioural competencies in the human resource field, because development centres are designed around the job simulation format which requires the participant to actively do something they are a naturally effective way of assessing competencies in individuals.

What are the Differences Between Assessment and Development Centres?

The type of centre can vary between the traditional assessment centre used purely for selection to the more modern development centre which involves self-assessment and whose primary purpose is development. One might ask the question ‘Why group assessment and development centres together if they have different purposes?’ The answer to that question is threefold. Firstly, they both involve assessment and it is only the end use of the information obtained which is different i.e. one for selection and one for development; secondly, it is impossible to draw a line between assessment and development centres because all centres, be they for assessment or development naturally lie somewhere on a continuum somewhere between the two extremes; thirdly most assessment centres involve at least some development and most development centres involve at least some assessment. This means that it is very rare to find a centre devoted to pure assessment or pure development. The issue is further confused by the political considerations one must take into account when running such a centre, it is common practice for an assessment centre with internal candidates to be referred to as a development centre because of the negative implications associated with assessment.

It is easier to think about assessment centres as being equally to do with selection and development because a degree of assessment goes on in both. Development centres grew out a liberalisation of thinking about assessment centres and it is a historical quirk that while assessment centres were once used purely for selection and have evolved to have a more developmental flavour the language used to describe them has not. Another problem with using the assessment - development dichotomy is that at the very least it causes us to infer that little or no assessment goes in development centres. While you will hear centres being called assessment or development centres remember that assessment goes on in both and so to some extent at least they are both assessment centres. The end result of this is that it is not possible to talk about assessment or development centres in any but the most general terms. It is more useful to talk about the constituent parts and general processes involved in each. In these terms we can identify a number of differences between assessment and development centres that one might typically find:

Assessment centres usually -

  have a pass/fail criteria

  are geared towards filing a job vacancy

  address an immediate organisational need

  have fewer assessors and more participants

  involve line managers as assessors

  have less emphasis placed on self-assessment

  focus on what the candidate can do now

  are geared to meet the needs of the organisation

  assign the role of judge to assessors

  place emphasis on selection with little or no developmental feedback and follow up

  give feedback at a later date

  involve the organisation having control over the information obtained

  have very little pre-centre briefing

  tend to be used with external candidates

Development centres usually -

·         do not have a pass/fail criteria

·         are geared towards developing the individual

·         address a longer term need

·         have a 1:1 ratio of assessor to participant

·         do not have line managers as assessors

·         have a greater emphasis placed on self-assessment

·         focus on potential

·         are geared to meet needs of the individual as well as the organisation

·         assign the role of facilitator to assessors

·         place emphasis on developmental feedback and follow up with little or no selection function

·         give feedback immediately

·         involve the individual having control over the information obtained

·         have a substantial pre-centre briefing

·         tend to be used with internal candidates

Organisational Effectiveness is an organisation’ s ability to maximise results in the competitive external environment.

The focus on maximising results is increasingly about meeting customer’s expectations. But the goal posts are continually shifting. Delivering static levels of service will mean that competitors will overtake and could provide not only product and service but that hybrid which goes beyond or exceeds and provides all the intangibles in the customer experience. It is the experience that registers in customers memories. If further successful experiences can be delivered a relationship may develop and the competitor will gain a customer. Clever competitors will manage and develop the relationship by fronting bright, enthusiastic, committed professionals who deliver customer success through a series of mutually reinforcing experiences, the new basis of life-time customer value.

The first priority of the leader is to shape the business’s purpose and direction to deliver excellent customer experiences. Following this, the leader’s main concern is to ensure that the organisation’s people are fully committed to the business’s purpose and direction. Beyond this they need to ensure that the structures, processes and culture are aligned to the business purpose and direction. Alignment is essential to enable the organisation to attain real attraction and produce the high levels of creativity, energy and effort needed to generate winning customer experiences. Non-alignment in the organisation causes blocks to progress, friction, frustration and poor focus on the customer experience.

How the Human Resources function can help an organisation to be effective?

The focus on people, their performance, innovation and creativity is the professional concern of the Human Resources function. Business managers seeking profits growth now need to engage their people in a new quest for creativity in all aspects of provision for customers and potential customers. The accomplishment of this quest depends on three essentials:

1.              Effective leadership

2.              A knowledgeable, skilled and motivated people and

3.              An organisation’s  designed to enable people to achieve.

The responsibility for the transformation of Human Resources from what has been traditionally, a relatively passive administrative function into a business and organisation enabling activity is jointly shared between line managers and HR professionals. Line managers need help in gaining the levels of creativity and performance that are required to achieve the excellent results that will differentiate their businesses from competitors. It is critical to the success of the enterprise that organisations appoint business-focused people into their HR functions.

But what of HR’s role in developing organisational effectiveness? Dave Ulrich says HR people must become:

               A partner in strategy execution :-  To work with senior managers in designing the organisation to realise its purpose and direction and achieve its goals

               Administrative experts: - Be effective and efficient in HR processes, measure achievement and deliver results, or get the offer letters out on time before trying to change the world?

               Become an employee champion :-  The psychological contract has changed, people need to be fully engaged in realising business purpose and direction, and as Jack Welch said years ago, “ we need 100% of the people thinking, not just 5% of our manager”.

               Become a change agent: - The rate of change is not only accelerating, it is encompassing new characteristics such the emotional and memorable dimensions involved with the customer experience. HR needs to anticipate change but most importantly enable the organisation to build the capability to change into its core competencies.

These elements of HR’s role are important. However, the focus of HR’s endeavors must be on the three essentials:

               Effective leadership,

               A knowledgeable, skilled and motivated people and

               An organisation designed to enable people to achieve.

To develop an organisation which can maximise results in the competitive external environment by delivering excellent customer experiences, effective leadership is the top priority. HR executives can support the development of leaders who use power for the benefit of the whole organisation. This is an issue of integrity. Help is also needed in providing the right balance of inspiration and reasoned strategy. HR can help executives build the robust frameworks that will link strategic goals with guiding principles in support of business purpose and direction.

HR can also support the thorough development of performance measures that cover the factors critical for business success and the competency frameworks that will drive the development and application of the right knowledge and skills.

To help the business leaders have a fit organisation designed to facilitate superior people performance, HR needs to adopt an organisational model which will enable redesign and re-alignment speedily in pursuit of necessary change. Organisation should develop a model which supports the alignment of structure, processes and systems, people and culture with business purpose and direction.

Source :- An article by Richard Nelson

Change has become an everyday part of organizational dynamics.  Change is all-pervasive &  it happens continuously, and often at rapid speed . Employees who resist change can actually cripple an organization.

Resistance is an inevitable response to any major change. Individuals naturally rush to defend the status quo if they feel their security or status are threatened. If management does not understand, accept and make an effort to work with resistance, it can undermine even the most well-intentioned and well-conceived change efforts. Coetsee (1999) states “any management’s ability to achieve maximum benefits from change depends in part of how effectively they create and maintain a climate that minimizes resistant behavior and encourages acceptance and support”

What is Resistance  

Alvin Zander (1950) an  researcher ,defined resistance to change as “behavior which is intended to protect an individual from the effects of real or imagined change.  As per  Folger & Skarlicki , resistance is defined as “employee behavior that seeks to challenge, disrupt, or invert prevailing assumptions, discourses, and power relations”

Piderit (2000) believes that the definition of the term resistance must incorporate a much broader scope. She states that “a review of past empirical research reveals three different emphases in conceptualizations of resistance: as a cognitive state, as an emotional state, and as a behavior” .The notion that employee resistance can be overcome cognitively suggests that negative thoughts or beliefs about the change exist. Piderit sites, “Watson (1982) who suggests that what is often labeled as resistance is, in fact, only reluctance.

Others attempt to define employee resistance based on the emotional factors exhibited as a result of organizational change. Aggression and frustration in employees are  the emotional factors that caused undesirable behaviors and resistance to change. Resistance to change is a defense mechanism caused by frustration and anxiety .

The final aspect of Piderit’s conceptualization focuses on individual behavior in an attempt to define employee resistance to change. She defines  resistance as a particular kind of action or inaction. Many define  resistance as intentional acts of commission (defiance) or omission and willingness to deceive authorities constitutes resistance to change .

Each of these three conceptualizations of resistance - as a behavior, an emotion, or a belief - has merit and represents an important part of our experience of response to change. Thus, any definition focusing on one view at the expense of the others seems incomplete .

According to Dent & Goldberg  , individuals aren’t really resisting the change, but rather they may be resisting the loss of status, loss of pay, or loss of comfort. They claim that, “it is time that we dispense with the phrase resistance to change and find a more useful and appropriate models for describing what the phrase has come to mean - employees are not wholeheartedly embracing a change that management wants to implement” .

Managing resistance

Kurt Lewin first introduced the idea of managing and removing “resistance” to proposed changes occurring within organizations. His early work focused on the aspects of individual behavior that must be addressed in order to bring about effective organizational change.

Any potential change is resisted by forces in the opposite direction. The idea is similar to the dialectical principle that everything generates its opposite. The forces tend to be external to the change, holding situations in states of dynamic equilibrium. Successful change rests in “unfreezing” an established equilibrium by enhancing the forces driving change, or by reducing or removing resisting forces, and then “refreezing” in a new equilibrium state .

Researchers focused on the main questions (1) Why do people resist change so strongly? and (2) What can be done to overcome this resistance?

Alvin Sander, a  colleague of Kurt Le win, offered six primary reasons for resistance to surface.

(1). If the nature of the change is not made clear to the people who are going to be influenced by the change.

(2). If the change is open to a wide variety of interpretations.

(3). If those influenced feel strong forces deterring them from changing.

(4). If the people influenced by the change have pressure put on them to make it instead of having a say in the nature or the direction of the change.

(5). If the change is made on personal grounds.

(6). If the change ignores the already established institutions in the group .

The Nature and Causes of Resistance

Symptoms are the specific behaviors individuals exhibit when they are resistant to change. According to Bhutan , it is important to distinguish between the symptoms of resistance to change, and the causes behind it.

These behaviors fall into two categories — active-resistance or passive-resistance. Symptoms of active-resistance include finding fault, ridiculing, appealing to fear, and manipulating. Passive-resistance symptoms include agreeing verbally but not following through, feigning ignorance and withholding information.

To diagnose the causes, we must understand a person’s state of mind. The most important factors that go into a person’s state of mind are his or her facts, beliefs, feeling, and values” .

WHY EMPLOYEES RESIST CHANGE

Employees resist change because they have to learn something new. In many case there is not a disagreement with the benefits of the new process, but rather a fear of the unknown future and about their ability to adapt to it. Most people are reluctant to leave the familiar behind. We are all suspicious about the unfamiliar; we are naturally concerned about how we will get from the old to the new, especially if it involves learning something new and risking failure .

Low tolerance for change is defined as the fear that one will not be able to develop new skills and behaviors that are required in a new work setting. If an employee has a low tolerance for change, the increased ambiguity that results as a result of having to perform their job differently would likely cause a resistance to the new way of doing things. An employee may understand that a change is needed, but may be emotionally unable to make the transition and resist for reasons they may not consciously understand.

Many thinks ,  resistance to change is a response to the treatment employees receive in the change process. Specifically they focuses on resentment-based resistance -reactions by disgruntled employees regarding the perceived unfairness of the change.

Prof. Paul Strebel (1996), attributes resistance as a violation of “personal compacts” management has with their employees. Personal compacts are the essence of the relationship between employees and organizations defined by reciprocal obligations and mutual commitments that are both stated and implied. Any change initiatives proposed by the organization would alter their current terms.

Personal compacts are comprised of formal, psychological, and social dimensions. The formal dimension is the most familiar. It is the aspect of the relationship that addresses the basic tasks and performance requirements of the job, and is defined by job descriptions, employee contracts, and performance agreements. Management, in return, agrees to supply the employee the resources needed to perform their job. The psychological dimension address aspects of the employment relationship that incorporate the elements of mutual trust, loyalty and commitment. The social dimension of the personal compact deals with organizational culture, which encompasses, mission statement, values, ethics and business practices.

Strebel points out that when these personal compacts are disrupted it upsets the balance, and increases the likelihood of resistance. He suggests that management view how change looks from the employees perspective, and to examine the terms of the personal compacts currently in place. ‘Unless manages define new terms and persuade employees to accept them, it is unrealistic for managers to expect employees to fully buy into changes that alter the status quo” .

Kegan & Lahey (2001) describe a psychological dynamic called a “competing commitment” as the real reason for employee resistance to organizational change. The change is not challenged, but rather is it resisted, or not implemented at all because the employee faces additional issue or concerns related to the change. When an employee’s hidden competing commitment is uncovered, “behavior that seems irrational and ineffective suddenly becomes stunningly sensible and masterful - but unfortunately, on behalf of a goal that conflicts with what you and even the employee are trying to achieve”

Competing commitments should not be viewed as a weakness, but as a version of self-protection. If these competing commitments are a form of self-protection, then what are employees protecting themselves from? Kegan & Lahey believe the answer usually lies in what they call “big assumptions” - deeply rooted beliefs people have about themselves and the world around them. Many rarely realize they hold big assumptions because they are woven into the very fabric of people’s existence, and thus they accept them as reality. “these assumptions put an order to the world and at the same time suggest ways in which the world can go out of order. Competing commitments arise from these assumptions, driving behaviors unwittingly designed to keep the picture intact” (p. 88).

Positive Resistance

Managers often perceive resistance negatively, and employees who resist are viewed as disobedient and obstacles the organization must overcome in order to achieve the new goals. However in certain instances, employee resistance may play a positive and useful role in organizational change. Insightful and well-intended debate, criticism, or disagreement do not necessarily equate to negative resistance, but rather may be intended to produce better understanding as well as additional options and solutions. de Jager (2001) claims, “the idea that anyone who questions the need for change has an attitude problem is simply wrong, not only because it discounts past achievements, but also because it makes us vulnerable to indiscriminate and ill-advised change’ .

Piderit (2000) points out that what some managers may perceive as disrespectful or unfounded resistance to change might be motivated by an individual’s ethical principles or by their desire to protect what they feel is the best interests of the organization. Employee resistance may force management to rethink or reevaluate a proposed change initiative. It also can act as a as a gateway or filter, which can help organizations select from all possible changes the one that is most appropriate to the current situation. According to de Jager (2001), “resistance is simply a very effective, very powerful, very useful survival mechanism’ ‘ . Legitimate resistance might bring about additional organizational change .

Transition and Transitional Phenomena

The process of change is simply moving from the current way of doing things to a new and different way of doing things. Bridges (1991) believes that it isn’t the actual change that individuals resist, but rather the transition that must be made to accommodate the change. He states, “change is not the same as transition. Change is situational: the new site, the new boss, the new team roles, the new policy. Transition is the psychological process people go through to come to terms with the new situation. Change is external, transition is internal. Unless transition occurs, change will not work  .

An understanding of the theory of transitional phenomena would provide valuable insight into organizational change, and why it might be met with employee resistance. This theory “suggests that change will occur spontaneously only when people are prepared to relinquish what they hold dear for the purpose of acquiring something new or can find ways of carrying what they value in the old into the new .

In the event that it does not exist naturally, it may be necessary for the organization to create transitional phenomena. This would help in the “letting go” of the current way and moving forward to the new way. Bringing about organization change “can rarely be done effectively by “selling” or imposing a “change package,” an ideology or a set of techniques. The theory of transitional phenomena suggests that in situations of voluntary change the person doing the changing must be in control of the process .

Leon Coetsee (1999) attempts to explain the nature of resistance to change through a continuum model. He states that, “in organizational development literature, acceptance of change (commitment) and rejection of change (resistance) are typically treated as separate, unrelated phenomena  . Through his model, Coetsee argues that they are closely linked in the sense that they represent a polarity, with each being the far end of the continuum. Moving from resistance to commitment is done through sequential phases contained within the continuum.

Employee resistance to change is a complex issue facing management in the complex and ever-evolving organization of today. The process of change is ubiquitous, and employee resistance has been identified as a critically important contributor to the failure of many well-intend and well-conceived efforts to initiate change within the organization.

Vast amounts of resources are expended by organizations to adjust employees to a new way of achieving desired goals. The natural propensity for individuals to “defend the status quo” presents a set of challenges that management must overcome in order to bring about desired change. Management must also seriously take into account and consider the myriad of problems that may result if they are not responsive to issues of resistance in the workplace.

In order to facilitate a smooth transition from the old to the new, organizations must be competent in effective change management. The process of change management consists of getting of those involved and affected to accept the introduced changes as well as manage any resistance to them.

Source :- An article by Albert F. Bolognese, Ed. D. Winthrop University

Forbes magazine’s  list of the “100 Best Companies to Work for in America,” highlights organizations that have achieved high rates of employee satisfaction and motivation. Revenues, net income and job growth for these companies were substantially higher than they were for companies with average levels of employee satisfaction.

Higher employee motivation leads to greater creativity, productivity and discretionary effort, which in turn lead to improved company performance. Furthermore, working for a successful company itself becomes a component of employee motivation, helping create and sustain a cycle of performance improvement.

How can you, as an Hr professional, achieve similar results? Research indicates that you should start with your HR practices, which can have a direct impact on employee motivation. It is essential that you understand the relationship of employee motivation to your company’s performance, that you identify strategies to motivate your employees to increase their discretionary effort, and that you have a plan to effectively implement those strategies, which ultimately will contribute to your company’s success.

EFFECTIVE MOTIVATIONAL PRACTICE

Human resources professionals have documented a wide range of effective practices for motivating employees, most of which can be grouped into several key objectives, including:

Understand employee needs

·                   Devise employee management programs and practices that aim to satisfy emerging or unmet needs such as offering flexible work schedules or benefit plans to employees.

·                   Actively seek employee input regarding issues that are important to them.

Offer fair compensation

·                   Establish hiring and promotion decisions that are based on merit- and job-related information.

·                   Find out employee perceptions of salary, working conditions, supervisor relationships, company policies and other dissatisfying extrinsic factors through informal conversations, interviews or attitude surveys.

·                   Respond quickly and accordingly to correct potential problems.

Build an effective employee rewards program

·                   Consider using a combination of rewards in your company’s reward system.

·                   Start by examining and addressing sources of dissatisfaction, such as salary, workplace relationships and job security.

·                   Next, improve motivating factors, such as employee recognition, career growth and increased responsibility levels.

Set challenging goals

·                   Set difficult goals that are quantifiable and measurable.

·                   Make sure employees understand and support the goals.

Link employee results and rewards

·                   Develop and communicate performance standards and reward systems to all employees.

·                   Give employees regular feedback on their progress towards their goals.

·                   Quickly reward goal and performance achievement. Great results should equal great rewards.

What HR metrics organizations ought to be utilizing ?? Many make the same two errors when it comes to developing and implementing metrics. Avoiding these two errors will not guarantee success by itself, but it will go a long way towards ensuring that you are set up to handle any roadblocks or problems you may encounter along the path to using world-class metrics in your organization.

These two common errors are:

1. Developing and implementing HR metrics in a vacuum
2. Developing more metrics than it is feasible to maintain and utilize

The most common error is that ,  HR managers try to create and implement metrics in a vacuum. Rather , they should take a collaborative approach, in which they should  take a list of strategic HR metrics that they  can live with to the CFO and let him or her select the specific ones that are most likely to measure business impact and be easily understood and considered strategic by top management. By letting the CFO play a role in the selection process and allowing them to make the final decision on what metrics you will move forward with, you eliminate many of the roadblocks you may encounter  and you are sure of a  high-level champion in your organization at the same time.

The second most common error that senior HR managers make in developing metrics is that they develop and track too many. A large number of metrics is both unnecessary and difficult to maintain. Instead of that , HR managers should  settle on between 8 and 12 really important metrics that demonstrate HR’s impact on the business. Because collecting data and calculating metrics is time-consuming and expensive, it’s important to focus your energies on the ones that really matter.

1. Percentage improvement in workforce productivity. Improvement in Rs. / dollars spent on people costs for every Rs./ dollar of revenue/profit generated (as compared to last year)
2. The Rs./ dollar value of the increased workforce productivity between this year and last year

Employee Engagement It’s essential that you balance employee engagement with employee productivity in order to ensure that managers don’t abuse or burnout their employees in an effort to maximize productivity. Both are important, and there are studies that demonstrate the impact of high engagement on productivity and a firm’s success. Managers should be rewarded for both high productivity and high employee engagement scores. Metrics include:

1. The percentage of employees who “look forward to coming to work” everyday (from survey results)
2. The percentage of employees who feel that their managers exercise expected management behaviors (from survey results relating to two-way communication, challenging and exciting work, exceptional growth and learning, recognition and reward, some degree of control over their job, and knowing that their work makes a difference)

Recruiting Managers consistently rate recruiting among the top three things they expect from HR. Without overdoing it, here are some simple metrics that you can use to assess recruiting effectiveness:

1. Number of overall days that key positions were vacant (due to recruiting)
2. Average performance appraisal score of new hires (compared to last year for the same job)
3. Manager satisfaction with new hires (survey hiring managers; compare results to last year’s average)
4. The turnover rate of new hires within the first year
5. The percentage of diversity hires in managerial and senior positions
6. The Rs./ dollar impact of a bad hire in key positions

Retention Retention is also a highly rated management issue. In this case, most turnover measures are too simple. Potential metrics include:

1. Overall employee turnover (not recommended)
2. Performance turnover in key jobs (where performance turnover means that top performer turnover is “weighted” more heavily and bottom performer turnover more lightly than average worker turnover)
3. Preventable turnover in key jobs (where a sample exit survey is used to identify the real reasons individuals left the organization and whether the turnover could have been reasonably prevented)
4. Diversity turnover in professional, managerial, and technical positions
5. The dollar impact of employee turnover in key positions
6. Managers’ overall satisfaction rate with HR’s retention efforts and the impact of these efforts on team productivity (survey of a sample of managers)

Overall HR Costs Even though overall HR costs are relatively small compared to all general and administrative expenditures, it never hurts to have a metric to ensure that the Rs./ dollars spent in HR are resulting in a continuous rated improvement of workforce productivity.

1. Dollars/ Rs. spent on HR costs for every dollar/Rs.  of revenue generated (compared to last year)

1. Average ranking of all individual HR functions in a manager survey where managers are asked to rate all individual overhead functions specifically on their contribution to productivity and in helping the manager to meet his or her performance goals

Rs. / Dollar Impact of HR on the Business

1. Estimate of the overall dollar impact of HR as a result of last year’s recruiting, retention and productivity improvement (ROI) efforts

Second-Tier Metrics Compensation and Benefits Rather than trying to use a statistical method to determine pay fairness, Dr Sullivan recommends that HR Managers should survey employees on their perceptions of pay fairness compared to work expectations.

1. The number of “cents” in total compensation and benefits costs that it took to generate a dollar of revenue (as an indication of compensation effectiveness, where this year’s ratio would be compared to last years ratio)
2. Percentage of employees who are satisfied with their compensation (survey of a sample of employees on their satisfaction with the rewards and the expectations of the firm)
3. Percentage of employees who are rated in the top performance appraisal level and who are paid above the average salary for their position (and vice versa)
4. Percentage of the average employee’s pay that is “at risk” based on the employee’s on-the-job output
5. Percentage of top-performing employees who resigned for compensation-related reasons (using a post exit survey, identify the percentage of top performers who listed pay issues among their top three reasons for leaving)

Employee Relations The metrics focused in the employee relations area analyze whether poor performing employees rapidly improve their performance or are terminated within a year.

1. Percentage of employees who report that they have a bad manager (based on an employee survey, comparing this year’s percentage to last years)
2. Turnover percentage of low-performing managers and employees within one year of receiving the low rating
3. Percentage of low-performing employees who are on a performance management program.
4. Percentage of employees who are in any performance management program who improved at least one level on performance appraisal ratings within one year
5. Manager satisfaction with the impact of HR’s employee relations efforts on their team’s productivity (survey results of a sample of managers)

Training and Development Although learning, growth, and development are critical to both performance and employee retention, few training departments focus on the type of development that managers and employees find to be the most effective: on-the-job training and assignments. As a result, the recommended training and development metrics focus on learning, development, and growth.

1. Percentage of employees who report that they are satisfied with the learning and growth opportunities provided by the firm (survey of a sample of employees)
2. Percentage of employees who report that they are satisfied with on-the-job learning, project assignments for growth and development, and job rotations (survey of a sample of employees)
3. Percentage of employees who report that they are in the leading edge of knowledge in their profession (survey of a sample of employees)
4. Percentage of new hires that report excellent training opportunities among the top three reasons they accepted the job (survey of new hires in which they force-rank their job acceptance factors)

Generalist Activities In many HR departments a significant percentage of all HR services are provided by generalists. As a result, it’s important to identify metrics that measure generalists’ satisfaction and impact. Each of the individual generalist scores would be averaged to get the overall effectiveness of the generalist function.

1. Percentage of managers who are satisfied with generalists (survey of all managers who are serviced by generalists)
2. Average percentage improvement in workforce productivity (ratio of employee costs to dollar value of output) within the divisions that each generalist serves
3. Employee referral rates in their business unit, as an indication of employees’ willingness to recommend others to the firm

HR Goals Met HR departments frequently set unclear and unquantifiable goals at the beginning of the year, but they are seldom measured throughout the year and formally assessed at year end. In order to improve HR performance and ensure that HR professionals are focused on the appropriate goals and activities, it’s essential that the goal assessment process be more formalized.

1. Percentage of top priority HR goals that were met or exceeded during the year (goals are set, quantified, prioritized, and approved by senior management at the beginning of the fiscal year)

Ref :-   Dr John Sullivan’s article on “ What Are the Best HR Metrics for a Large Organization? “

Competencies

Competency is the state or quality of being adequately or well qualified to perform a task. A person gains competency through education, training, experience, or natural abilities. While there are many definitions of competency, most of them have two common components:

o                      The competencies are observable or measurable skills, knowledge, and abilities.

o                      These SKAs (skills, knowledge, attitude) must distinguish between superior and other performers.

Since its initial conception, attitudes, traits, or personalities have also played a major role in competencies, even though they are not normally thought of as being observable and measurable. McClelland  group attitudes  with competencies, such as McClelland, while the U.S. Army, separate them by listing attitudes under “attributes” to create a  capability mode . 

David McClelland conceive the original use of competencies &  first used it as an alternative for the replacement of intelligence tests with criterion reference testing (McClelland, 1973). He argued that intelligence tests were not valid predictors of intelligence and irrelevant to the workforce. There used to be a joke among Psychologists that intelligence was what the intelligence test measured, but McClelland thought the joke was “uncomfortably near the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

Following his groundbreaking 1973 article, a number of large organizations called him. McClelland selected to work with the U.S. State Department to improve their failing selection process, which was based on selecting the best and brightest from elite universities. McClelland developed competencies for each position based on behavioral interviews with superior performing Foreign Service Officers and underpinned each competency with behavior indicators.

The major difference between traditional job based models and competency based model lies in their approach in identifying the SKA needed for successful performance. The dominant approach in performance management has focused on designing organizations around job structures. This traditional job based approach starts with a job analysis to identify job-related tasks, which are then used to identify a list of SKA that are required for successful job performance. Tasks are normally very specific in that they inform the task holder and other interested persons, such as supervisors and trainers, on how each logical and necessary action results in a major accomplishment. The main benefit of tasks is that they are normally very specific, especially when they include the steps, thus they leave little room for error when it comes to evaluating the worthiness of task performance. However, being very specific, they can be extremely time-consuming to create, especially when a job may have 50 to 100 tasks or more. And with jobs and processes rapidly changing in many environments, they can quickly become out of date. In addition, when it comes to such professions as management, leadership, and knowledge workers, most job responsibilities are often ill-defined and very broad in scope, thus the specific nature of tasks do not work well.

On the other side of the coin are competency-based models. The ideal of competencies are based on the analysis of exemplary performers. These start with the performance indicators of expert performers to produce a list of grouped competencies, related to effective or superior performance. The question is not which SKAs do we believe are required to perform a job, but which SKAs do superior performers in a job possess and use? Organizational success greatly improves upon hiring individuals who fit the organization, rather than the job. A person-to-organization match provides an organization with the core competencies needed to maintain a competitive advantage by meeting the demands of a rapidly changing environment brought on by corporate restructuring and change initiatives.

Behavioral Indicators

Competencies are normally based on an analysis by interviewing and observing an expert performer (McClelland, 1973). During the analysis, key behavioral indicators are determined for successful performance of the job. These behavioral indicators are linked to a competency.

Each job normally has five to ten competencies. The number is normally kept small, otherwise they run into the same problems as tasks — there are simple too many to properly evaluate and keep up-to-date.

For example, the competency of Decision Making might include the following behavioral indicators:

o                      Dealing with difficult decisions:

o                                    Able to connect information together in order to diagnose problem.

o                                    Determines root cause to fully resolve issue

o                                    Sensitive to the needs of others when dealing with divisive issues.

o                      Commits to a course of action:

o                                    Can make decisions quickly when necessary.

o                                    Seeks the correct answer and understands the impact that the decision could have on other organization issues.

The behavioral indicators are often contrasted with INEFFECTIVE indicators, for example:

Dealing with difficult decisions:

o                      Avoids making decisions and often waits for others to make the decision.

o                      Does not take responsibility for wrong or ineffective decisions.

Since one of the main uses of competencies is to help in the interviewing and selection of new hires, questions are created to elicit responses from the candidates that will reveal their past behaviors with the premise being that past behaviors will help in predicting the behaviors that you can expect from them if hired. Listed below are two lines of questions to help in determining a person’s competency on Decision Making. Note that each question is followed by one or more questions in case there is a need to draw additional information from the candidate:

o                      Tell me about a recent decision you have had to make in which there was little or no time to seek addition information? What impact did the decision have on the business? What did you do to help lessen the risk of making a bad decision?

o                      Tell me about a time you made a bad decision? What lessons did you learn from it?

Competency models are also helpful in the growth of present employees. Few, if any employees will be expert performers in all the competencies listed for a position, thus the model is used to help them with their career growth within the organization. For example, in one organization there was a  manager who was very good, except for his decision making aspect. He had a tendency to make decisions that were good for his department, but were often not well suited for the organization as a whole, that is, according to the behavioral indicator given above, he failed to realize the impact his decisions had on other organizational issues. Thus he was promoted to a department that had a history of making good decisions and put under the mentorship of a person known to excel in making quality decisions (sometimes it pays to be not quite perfect).

Knowles (1975) uses the following typology for competencies:

o                      Knowledge

o                      Understanding

o                      Skill

o                      Attitude

o                      Value

For example, to have an understanding of adult learning theories; to have a skill in setting objectives; to respect (value) the uniqueness of all people.

Thus, Knowles adds the vaguer terms of understanding, values and attitudes. The main reason is that what makes expert performers “experts,” is that they have a love for what they are doing, which can only be captured through values and attitudes. As far as “understanding” I believe this is more of a term that fits in with today’s knowledge workers.

So in the end, when assessing the expert performers with such tools as interviews, observation, and self-assessments, you are going to get a lot of skills and knowledge indicators. However, you need  to pick up some of these other “milder” indicators of what makes them successful. Thus, do not solely dwell on “observable behaviors,” but rather on what makes an “expert performer” so desirable to the organization. This is what competencies are all about.

A hierarchy of standards would be

o                      Competent - Satisfactory, able to perform the competency.

o                      Proficient - Above average, able to perform the competency well (expert).

o                      Excellent - Extraordinary, able to perform the competency superbly (guru).

References

Knowles, M. (1975). Self-Directed Learning. New York: Association Press.

Chalofsky, N. (1984) “Professional Growth for HRD Staff” in The Handbook of Human Resource Development edited by Nadler, L. Pp. 13.3-13.4.

Many business leaders have few kind words for the HR Function. They just don’t understand the vital role it can play .

At a leadership conference , the president of a large manufacturer. explained  ”We’ve done a lot to turn the division around but we have a ways to go. I’m saddled with a weak human-resources group,They’ve slowed our key initiatives. That’s the way it goes when you’re dealing with HR, “

Can you imagine a division president complaining that  he’s been saddled with a weak sales force or a weak product team.  

Leaders get the staffs they deserve, and HR groups are no exception.”

Why is it that HR is so often the scapegoat when companies aren’t getting the results they want? True, there are HR people out there who are abysmally ineffectual. But they keep their jobs at the pleasure of CEOs.

Why is that?

Liz Ryan ,  a veteran of 20 years in HR,  offers three reasons .

Business leaders don’t understand HR. Meaning, CEOs often don’t know what results they should expect. This is odd because, for me, the HR role is as clear as day. Look at it this way: Your CFO is responsible for dollars in and dollars out, for short-term accounting and long-term financial leadership. It’s his or her job to keep the company fiscally sound. Ditto for the HR leader, only substitute the words “talent” and “organizationally” for “dollars” and “fiscally.”

You can tell that a lot of corporate leaders don’t understand this just by observing how low their expectations are when they hire an HR leader. Browse Monster.com and you’ll see openings for vice-presidents of HR that don’t mention vision or excellence or talent. Instead, they stress recruitment , Salary/Payroll  Admn , and succession planning. That would be like advertising for a chief financial officer who was an expert in general ledger accounting and accounts receivable. Earth to CEOs: Do you want a visionary HR leader or a functional specialist?

Top execs often undervalue the HR leadership role. I’ve noticed that many of the companies that display their leaders’ bios on the About Us page of their Web sites leave out the HR leader. Should it bother anyone that many companies have a vice-president of sales, a vice-president of marketing, a CFO, CIO, and a vice-president of operations, but only a lowly director of HR? Or that many top-level HR leaders report to the CFO or general counsel rather than to the CEO?

Here’s the thing: You can’t say that people make your organization what it is and then discount the human-resources function.

Reporting structures send a signal. If HR reports to the CEO, then the company may be serious when it brags that “people are our most important asset.” Stick it under legal or finance, and the implication is: “We were only kidding when we said that our people set us apart from our competitors.”

A company that is serious about developing its people will make its top HR post an executive team position. And it will find a business person with world-class qualifications to put there.

I have this advice for anyone who interviews for the top HR spot: When the conversation turns to your compensation, say: “I will require the same compensation as your CFO.” Of course, as HR leader you’ll be privy to this information, so there’s no fooling you. Why would a company hesitate to pay its top people officer just what its top money officer is earning? Beats me — unless the company doesn’t value its people as much as it says it does.

VICIOUS CIRCLE :-  Many HR leaders don’t exactly burn the house down. Notwithstanding some wonderful counterexamples, the level of HR leadership in many companies falls short of what it might be, could be, and should be. Inspired and inspiring leaders aren’t as often drawn to HR as one would wish — or they’re drawn to it early in their careers before being hired away for more rewarding assignments.

It’s a vicious circle: HR doesn’t pay what it should, so good people leave, and brilliant candidates aren’t attracted to the field, so HR doesn’t pay what it should, and so on.

Any CEO can snap her fingers and break that cycle, however. To do so only requires a relentless determination to find a creative, fearless, and business-savvy HR leader. Pay this person appropriately, demand that he produce results — meaning, assemble a championship team both for now and the future — and stand back.

With the business world changing so quickly, what competitive advantage can an organization hope to build and sustain beyond the abilities of its people? Surely not its equipment, its methods, or even a financial advantage. You have to have the team that can win — well equipped, smartly led, and highly motivated — if you want to get ahead of the pack and stay there. If, by contrast, it’s important to you to save a few bucks on your coaching staff payroll, you had better get comfortable in the minor leagues.

If your HR team is an impediment, upgrade. When you decide that you’re serious about the results you want, you’ll do that. In the meantime, a weak HR group is a great excuse for things that don’t go the way you want.”

Could this be another reason for the mediocrity of HR leadership in. organizations — that when things go wrong, it’s always nice to have someone around to blame?