Allow me to present a story:  Once in a history not to distant, I was a supporting initiative project team leader and change management team member working on a fairly complex change management initiative.  This robust and aggressive inititiative involved the entire organization, its business units, core business functions, staff support functions,  and information systems.  Thus, in the organizational textbook sense of change management, it met the criteria of being both complex and essential to maintaining the advantage in the industry of which it was a part. 

The concept was Appreciative Inquiry (AI) and my core role during the exploration stages was to unearth practical utility prior to  implementation stages of supporting initiative projects.  The organizational leadership, rightfully, in my opinion, did not believe in abstract concepts unless empirical evidence supported cost and effort; in other words, could a quantitative and qualatative business case be built around workforce actions built into the operational and functional actions of employees. 

The resistance to the concept initially came from my inability to link AI (in this case) into observable actions.  And here is an important point: Professionals with whom I work usually have very little issue or challenge in developing and linking abstract entities and theoretical management concepts during the strategy planning and visioning phases.  However, there is a tendency to “fake it,” or at least hope someone will not notice when it comes to relating the concept to observable actions that can be empirically measured and assessed.  As it related to my experience,  the impression formed that AI was another fuzzy management concept with no practical utility.  It became a concept in which one accentuated the positive to perhaps reach states of the ideal working environment.  Bright (2009) states that a one-sided reception of AI hinders its organizational employment potential stating, “I am concerned that an understanding of Appreciate Inquiry as simply ‘a focus on the positive’ undermines its full potential to create sustainable change in organizations . . . researchers have helped us understand that organizations are most vibrant and alive when they embrace the tensions of the human condition” (p. 2).  My point quoting bring is that this can apply to most abstract organizational intervention (i.e. emotional intelligence, cognitive diversity, etc.)

Specific to my case, I felt that AI was more than just emotional and abstract strategic entity and intervention merely to be integrated with selected management methodologies such as performance management and its accompanying tools.  As related to AI, Bright (2009) points out the operational components of AI stating that AI “. . . refers to an increase in the value of capital. Operational appreciation usually refers to the value of financial assets.”  This was my intuitive “aha” moment that allowed the concept to gain traction.  When I approached AI from both connotations (the philosophical and operational), I not only received the necessary buy-in, I received support in the infamous stakeholder meetings in which every dollar toward project and their teams has to be accounted.  To put this in a tangible perspective, what I did was capture the ideal in theory and the practical in “real world” and linked those to the core functions, tasks, and outcomes to be achieved by the workforce – related to readiness, brand equity, profitability, and organizational citizenship.  As a result (and understand I am compressing for space sake), the mind-set shifted from “we are broken” to “we have done this before and we can do it again . . . even better . . . within the context we need to move forward.”  Again, this was intuitive at the time and have I had the benefit of additional experience and sound research, the learning curve may have not been so steep.

The lesson here: Abstract entities and notions must make sense from a business and organizational perspective.  My personal experiences tell me that until you link the concept to the concrete (what is real for the stakeholders, clients, workforce, etc.), organizational interventions, especially among senior level leaders, are merely theoretical rhetoric, which captivate scholars and consultants at the moment.  It is important to know the business and the concept. 

Further Reading/References:

Bright, D. (2009). Appreciative inquiry and positive organizational scholarship: A  philosophy of practice for turbulent times. OD Practitioner, 41(2), 2-7.

“Ray doesn’t know business.  He doesn’t know the business I am trying to build.  He is one of those HR types that runs background checks and specializes in recruiting.  But he knows nothing about shipping, distribution, required freight costs and packaging.  Let’s not even talk about working with suppliers.” 

I nearly fell out of my chair and I looked at my friend who just stared at me as to say, “What is with you?”  Breaking the silence, I asked him, “Did you catch that?”  Returning my stare with a matter-of-fact smile, he stated, “Yeah, that’s the perception of HR on my job.” 

But for me it wasn’t that simple.  There stood two guys that had a vision of starting a company; the shingle based contracting business was only the beginning.  Yet even more surprising, they expressed an opinion of my passion and livelihood that is shared by perhaps many others – more than I (or we) probably like to admit. 

That casual comment has been on my mind now for almost two weeks with the words, “Ray doesn’t know the business” echoing in my head.  A statement so easily accepted by my friend that he barely even acknowledged that the statement had been made.  There I was with an undefined feeling that could only be described as a mixture of fury, embarrassment, and determination.  The question of ”What am I and my fellow HR professionals doing to change this perception?” looped in my conscience; loops in my conscience.   

I began to reflect on my conversations over the previous month with my fellow HR professionals searching for validation (or misguided perception) over the statement that the contractor had made. It also brought me back to the present and the topic of the day for HR: The strategic role of HR. 

We talk about it.

I support some of the practical thoughts and applaud the organizations and leaders that have found a strategic and practical solution that focuses on the business outcomes of their organizations.  However, I must admit, we still have work to do to change the perception (and reality) that HR is viewed as transactional back office work – by many and perhaps the majority of our business peers; we really don’t know – at least I have found no compelling study to convince me one way or the other. 

With all our talk of succession planning, talent management, organizational development, and a framework that contributes directly to our organization’s strategic goals and objectives, more often than not, when I dig deeper looking (and hoping) for my peers to state clearly a business case – they cannot.  Instead I hear (at best) discussion of management methodologies that are detached from the actual growth (or survival) of the companies in which they work. 

I search (sometimes in desperation) for someone to tell me the costs and financial impact to the organization’s bottom-line when employees are not properly trained in the field.  Or the horizontal-vertical misalignment that results when “key drivers” are not properly isolated or measured, directly or indirectly, to business performance (profitability or readiness).  Or why Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are even developed from a overarching business perspective. 

For the fact of the matter is that discovering, developing, and transforming HR into a strategic driver within organizations is hard work.  It’s important work.  It must be done for the sake of our “role” in the organizations and in many cases our organization’s survival. And to be honest: We will not convince many – more than I care to even predict.  But we will convince several: The forward thinking HR-centric firms or up-and-coming organizations that realize that human capital alignment is at the center of the brush with HR professionals kneeling at the source with match in hand ready to ignite the flame.  I will even count victory for the contractors discussing business growth as they work on growing their new businesses.  Heck, I will turn flips when the social entrepreneur who is finding some success in her homeoffice discuss the importance of having an effective HR framework for her business.

So who takes the lead: We do!  And it starts with an opening of Pandora’s box.  It continues with a quest to learn the value-creating process of delivering our organization’s products and services to the workplace.  It requires a keen understanding of how business works up-and-down, end-to-end. It will require a keen insight into how HR contributes to organizational branding, operational processes, salesforce readiness, and R&D innovation.

We must make it happen; we must look to the day when we hear – regulary:   “Ray is all about business and is instrumental to our business success.”

And it must flow every so easily – as a matter of fact.

For example, one executive stated that he needed skill development/technical training.  My questions to him were How much was the training going to cost?  What kind of training (specifically) was needed?  And, How did would he know that training being provided was effective?  In particular, what led him and the organization to come to the conclusion that  more training was needed:  Was it market position, defect rate, employee satisfaction feedback, customer satisfaction feedback, accident rates, or lost time?  Was it a combination of all of these measures – or did you even measure at all?

The second executive stated to me that he needed to have his particular SBU performance on par with the other SBU.  He also stated that because his product/service line was new that he was under much scrutiny.  My questions continued.  How do you know that the other SBU has it right? How is your SBU performing among industry competitors (locally, nationally, internationally)?  When do you know (or will you know?) you have gotten to where you need to be when two different markets are being served?

Finally, the last executive I spoke with stated that he wanted to “really go after” a chosen management methodology.  My questions continued: What is so important about this specific methodology? What is the resistance?  What incremental yard posts/milestones are in place to let you know that change is being captured and that the change management process accompanying the methodology implementation is taking hold?  What is so important about this methodology – is it growth based or improvement based?  Is it focused on ROA or revenue based that facilitates time-to-market and market penetration?

The final conclusion that I drew was that this organization had to define just what they were after.  Between talks of continuous improvement, training, and top-line growth strategies, I could not get a single consistent theme.  Now this does not take away from any of the professionals that I spoke with that day.  They are, I assume, talented individuals with a track record of success.  However, my point is that for there to be any improvement at all you have to clearly identify what you are going for else any improvement will do and little will have changed in what you are going after.  It is important for you, as a business and/or HR professional to see through the clouds of ambitious (and often competing goals), agendas that are contradictory, and measures that are consistent with where your organization wants to be positioned (are top line measures driven by top line enablers – drivers).  The list goes on.

Unfortunately, many professionals like to storm through strategy and business planning sessions to get back to work only to get back on the same path to nowhere.  It is up to you to prepare your peers and managers for the long path ahead by applying the needed focus required for the journey your organization wants to go after?

You want the chance to contribute to strategic growth and provide value – this is your chance and they exist in almost all organizations.  Go for it and share your story here.

On-boarding is real and though cost reductions have been made in many key HR areas, many organizations are finding it necessary to either implement or improve its existing on-boarding processes.  You have two arguably equal goals in the on-boarding process.

• Reduce the time to productivity
• Increase retention

That’s it.  It’s that simple and everything else either supports the two aforementioned goals or is background music (this includes the theoretical engagement and talent management arguments) .

With the aforementioned goals in mind, I wanted to provide you, my fellow HR professional, with my real-world experience on how you can bring your on-boarding program to life.  Prior to going into these tips, let me offer a piece of advice:  Many of you will try to emulate and design your program around “best-in-class” on-boarding programs.  Although this may be feasible and even necessary to gain your “organizational bearings,” it is important for you to take into consideration the unique needs and goals of your organization – just what is the end-game and supporting goals within the larger context of the goals mentioned earlier.  This is done by listening to your line-managers and asking for feedback.  An equally important source of information, when designing or improving your on-boarding program, will come from recent new hires and seasoned employees.

When I took over the on-boarding process for my organizational unit, I poured over exit data as well as new hire feedback that was offered via questionnaires, focus groups, and follow-up interviews.  Upon review of all the data there were common themes that reoccurred, forming the basic thesis and providing the foundation of what needed to be accomplished within our on-boarding process.  In my specific case, respondents felt that the on-boarding process was a “check-in-the-box” program offering little value in the long-run.  Second, respondents felt that the information that they were exposed to had little direct influence on their jobs-careers.  Third (and perhaps most interesting of note), respondents and recent new hires, on average, did not feel a strong sense of engagement after having completed the on-boarding process, and/or the program committed very little in the area of company loyalty – which again impacts the obtainment of the goals mentioned above.  And finally, respondents saw no correlation between the on-boarding program/process in reducing turnover and/or increasing their productivity and/or their willingness to contribute to the organizational mission and divisional-departmental goals and objectives.  Based upon the data reviews and evaluation, we had a huge challenge and the underlying conclusion was quite simply this: Our on-boarding program missed the mark.  Its very reason for existence was non-existent.  What follows below are the specific steps we took to improve our on-boarding program/process:

(1) Pushed Information to New Hire Upon Notification of Selection.: The on-boarding process traditionally starts once the new hire reports to your organization.  However, we pushed the envelope on this issue by starting orientation immediately upon notification of new hire date/report date (in the case of existing-transferring employees).  Access was given to Intranet resources and tasks were assigned/designed to be completed prior to “showing-up” for work.  This allowed the new hire to internalize valuable information, contribute in a tangible sense to the organization, and provide a glimpse into organizational culture.

(2) Mentor Assignments:  As soon as the new-hire is notified of their selection, he/she was also assigned a mentor.  This mentor communicated at defined intervals that matched and sometimes was included within organizational communications.  However, the mentor was also encouraged (read required) to communicate outside of traditional organizational channels.  This communication was not reduced to the writing of e-mails and letters, but also included the use of Web 2.0 tools and person-to-person meets.  Perhaps most important, the mentor had to meet a set of predefined standards.  Previously, mentors were thought to be last resort or light-duty candidates that line managers sought to make productive or more bluntly, push to the side.  However, mentors under the revised on-boarding process were the very best the division-departments had to offer.  Each mentor, prior to being assigned, was required to meet with the organizational head, myself (as HR Head), and Director of Operations if this was his/her initial assignment.  Performance appraisals-reviews were poured over and in short, this was viewed as a key ingredient of our success.

(3) Included Key Training Events.   Key technical and non-technical training events were include within the on-boarding process to a considerable level of depth and detail.  Training normally conducted once new hires reported to parent division-departments was incorporated in addition to the normal training received on topics such as mission, culture, values, ethics, and overviews of key organizational-human resources information.  The training topics covered were based upon feedback received from line-managers that were concerned about organizational specific training not provided in previous learning environments – thus having a direct impact on productivity.  The development of the training is beyond the scope of this blog, but did include elements of “train-the-trainer” as well as sign-offs of key tasks by mentors and observation by mentor’s supervisors.  In addition, linkage was established within our Knowledge Management process and in between schools and outside entities so that connections could be made and drill-downs conducted based upon previous learning-development experience and training events.

(4) Extended Orientation Period.  Next, because of the aggressive scope of our revised on-boarding process, we found it necessary to extend the length of the process.  Thus, our two-week program was extended by four weeks for a total of six weeks.  During those six weeks, the prospective division-department was a key allay; however, the prospective division-department did not assume “reporting responsibility” of the new employee.  Instead, the new-hires were considered temporary assignees of HR.  This allowed a clean relationship and strict accountability of the new hire, yet provided the necessary motivation for key line managers to participate in the on-boarding process.  With a shared commitment from HR and prospective line managers, new-hires were infused with a sense of urgency to complete yet another milestone: Successful completion of the on-boarding program and assignment to their new division-department.  In addition, the new-hire, mentor, and line-manager(s) received a predetermined amount of hours in which they could test drive their new skills and knowledge in the prospective department.

(5) Defined Follow-Up Periods:  In partnership with the organizational head, line-managers, and HR, defined follow-up periods were identified at specific intervals for the new-hires first 12 months of being attached to the organization.  These follow-up periods escalated in level of transparency and involvement. As an example, at the three month point, the new-hire was interviewed by his departmental supervisors and mentor.  At the six month point, the new hire received interviews by the division head, department supervisor, and mentor.  This process continued until the new-hire received an interview with the organizational head, mentor, division line manager, and departmental supervisor.  If at any point, the new-hire had a concern and/or perceived weakness that was included within the on-boarding process, he/she had the option (or at the direction of the supervisor-manager) to receive additional or repeat training for specific events.  This “stop-gap” had an additional benefit of ensuring that line managers, supervisors, mentors, and the new hire herself were committed to the engagement process.

(6) Senior Leadership Involvement:  Perhaps the most important element of the on-boarding process was the involvement of senior organizational leadership and key staff employees.  This included the organizational head, his assistant, and key staff departments that included our legal team, key departmental personnel that worked in non-line positions, and several HR subject-matter-experts. By including all these key leaders and organizational unit staff members, the new-hire could make a connection of how their technical and day-to-day tasks contributed to the larger strategic effort.  Just as important, the new hire felt a connection to the organization in a holistic sense – making for a well-rounded professional in the end.

In conclusion, it is important to note that this is an overview of how I, as the HR Head, built upon an existing, albeit weak, on-boarding process.  Your steps and/or insight into the process will be unique; however, you may see elements within this post that you can apply within a reasonable time frame (this assumes you have an input, formal or informal, to the on-boarding process).  In addition, normal assumptions should be included.  For instance, enabling technology was utilized, automation was employed, training targets and ROI metrics were developed.  What’s included above are “meat-and-potato” steps that were taking on the ground floor.  In other words, it was my goal to provide you information in a practical context and not with the normal consultative language often provided with no tangible example or methodology of how to get there from here.

In the end your obligation to your new employee does not end with hiring or even the completion of the on-boarding process.  Instead, the socialization, integration, productivity, engagement, and retention goals make this one of many critical steps in the human resource and professional development process.  The on-boarding process, in my view, is a continuum of processes that takes your employee from selection-recruitment all the way to the time the employee leaves the organization – and maybe beyond if you have an on-ramp/off-ramp – rehire culture.

How did my story end?!  Turnover was reduced by 30% during the first 12 months after formal incorporation.  Productivity increased by a similar percentage; morale as measured through the various feedback avenues and annual organizational assessment-climate survey significantly improved.  In other words: We got it right, but still had room for growth and improvement – as it should be.

Properly on-boarding employees is a strategic business necessity.  On-boarding should be viewed with the key goals that we mentioned above – increased productivity and increased retention – that lend themselves to your organization obtaining a strategic (competitive) advantage.

The rest my friends is background music.

In addition to what we are getting right, there are businesses that KNOW that a key differentiator from a good business (or a business at all) to a great business is to recognize, embrace, and implement key effective HR practices – that directly contribute to the bottom line.

Furthermore, businesses both large and small, make it point to focus on the bottom-line contributions that HR brings.  HR Magazine (September 2006) states that “Small businesses that invest in formal employee selection, management and retention strategies see direct, quantifiable results on the bottom line.” This insightful article concludes with a powerful quote by Christopher Collins, associate professor at Cornell University and conductor of the study: “. . . we’ve proven that specific human resources strategies have a meaningful, and statistically significant impact on small business financial performance.”

One of my favorite works, “The HR Scorecard” (Becker, Huselid, Ulrich) – the almost timeless classic – unearth findings still relevant today, seven years after its publication.  This formal study provided a framework for companies to implement bottom line HR strategies by highlighting the studied companies financial performance (those that got it right and those that didn’t), making the case for implementing the right mix and relevant HR strategies, which have proven to play an invaluable role in their financial success.

So the question in my mind is not, “Will HR find its way?” Or, “Will HR finally get it right”.  Nor should the HR professional, in my opinion,  continue to question what is more cliche than true.  The fact is that we are valued business partners; the organizations that get it right in terms of financial performance and long-term business success prove to us that we are getting it right.   We, as HR professionals, and the accompanying-relevant strategies that we bring to the table are entrenched in the fabric of the most successful companies, both large and small.  The question (or statement, depending on how it’s vocalized) is: “Does YOUR organization value the role of HR?”  The follow-on question I have for you is: “What are YOU doing to ensure that this continues (or starts) to be the case.

Various tools (to include Web 2.0) are enablers, which allow HR professionals to share best practices and give informal case studies on what is working (or not working) for their organizations.  It is now common wisdom that strategic (and functional) success comes in the form of an effective HR structure, aligned within your organization’s strategic framework.  If your HR practices point toward improving only HR effectiveness, can you blame your organization for not listening?  However, if you point to the specific benefit that your organization derives in a key business, bottom line method then backs straighten, conversation-dialogue takes place, executable plans are developed, and our prized and loved profession participates in key business activities to include formulating, communication, and executing our relevant roles within the larger, overall business strategy – if not, than it’s not the function; it’s the culture of your organization and if you haven’t made your case by now within it . . .competence, role-focus, openness should come to mind.

So instead of laying out “guidelines” and “what-to-do”, let me say what we’re doing right (what-to-continue to-do):

1) Continue to build upon the HR infrastructure and framework that you have tirelessly worked on.  That framework you’re building upon is consistently answering the questions that include “What metrics and measures provide the necessary analytic/data that drive key business decisions?”

2) Continue making the case for workforce planning and development.  If there is a business outcome that links to workforce planning, continue making your case, even if it sounds redundant.  Believe me, your counterparts don’t have a problem in making a consistent and oft repeated case.

3) Continue to be prepared by having expert insight into various scenarios on business decisions/proposals.  We need to continue to have the impact, trade-offs, pros and cons of scenarios that face our organizations in both the short and long-terms.  This scenario-based planning can be directly related to our function, such as the impact of hiring freezes, implementing-offering “voluntary turnover” packages/incentives, revising sourcing strategies, or actively recruiting in local or national labor markets.  Or the insight can be indirect such as decisions to expand product lines, expand (or contract) R&D, prepare for divestment of business unit/line, etc.  Whatever the scenario or proposed action – continue to be prepared.

4) Continue to communicate as a key change agent.  Even organizations where change occurs on a more slow-paced scale (read incrementally) are experiencing change.  Continue to embrace your role as an invaluable agent of change.  Continue to drive the relevant messages through your organization while pushing the communication up (feedback), pushing the communication down (objectives, goals, policies, etc.), and spreading it all around (key internal/external stakeholders).

5) Finally, continue to focus on service delivery.  Whether you are making relevant and smart use of enabling technologies such as ERP, self-service applications-software, or SaaS, your ability to continue to focus on delivery of HR services are and will remain critical.  Keep it up!  These enabling, technological tools will continue to grow as a whole and mature individually.

So HR professionals, give yourself credit.  For every argument you hear that we are not doing enough or we are missing the boat yet again, realize that (a) our profession has made considerable in-roads since the heyday of introduction (early 20th century and our days of being the “Personnel Department”); (b) the most effective companies get it – it’s not always about you – sometimes it’s actually the perception of your function or the wiliness for your company to realize the valuable role HR plays and contributes to business success (and survival), and (c) you are the reason that we are gaining interest and have become a very creditable profession – because you have demonstrated the ability to show inside and outside  your organization, that HR is a critical business function and deserves credit.

Anytime you doubt anything in this post, I want you to ask yourself? “What other profession do I want to be a part of?”

Is HR the answer?

I thought so.

The complexities of managing this emerging, dynamic workforce and the accompanying labor pool are the diverse needs and aspirations of the people behind the numbers.  I predict that many will find happiness in their new roles and will want to grow with your organization.  Others are already working on consulting projects and/or planning new businesses during their spare time.  There will be others that will try to find happiness in both worlds (with your organization and on their own).  The result will be something more complex than just managing across generations and inherent skill sets; it will mean finding the right plan and approach down to the individual level.

We will witness $80K – $100K professionals “bump” down in pay to $12.00 an hour in non-exempt jobs.  They will be working for a young professional manager that may possess less education, credentials, and experience, but will have to be managed nonetheless.  The challenge in this example is two-fold: What are the goals and aspirations of the individual and just how is your workforce equipped to deal with these employees?

Just as complex, there will be “survival employees” (for lack of a better term for now), that will find pleasure and perhaps discover a “second wind” in their new career/job.  Why?!  Because some of these employees will enjoy the challenge of starting again and moving into roles with considerable impact in the future.  Thus the question:  What does your succession and career development plans have “mapped” for such a scenario?

It doesn’t end there.  You will witness “survival” employees that will bring their egos with them.  Perhaps being accustomed to dealing with what they consider peers – How will your organizational structure respond to an aggressive employee that brought their ego with them – AND – may be a productive employee in one regard, but present challenges in another as they seek to reclaim a life that has since passed (at least in the interim)?

I could go on-and-on about the challenges that HR and other organizational leaders will face: These challenges will include professionals coming out of functional roles that they may have worked in for ten years or greater and adjusting their skill-sets and talents to roles that may require greater technical competence and less managerial skills in the short term.  How is your organization prepared to deal with these employees?

The answer may be in what I call Succession-Career Planning 2.0 and take my word, it will not be a handful of employees, but millions of people when all is said and done.  The challenge for all business professionals in all sectors is to be prepared to welcome these employees, leverage their talents consistent with strategic and tactical objectives, and assess individual needs consistent with organizational requirements.  Sounds easy?!  It will be one of the greatest challenges we will face as HR professionals.  And if you think succession planning is lip service now and are frustrated by leadership’s casual interest in the concept – just wait.  It will be even more challenging and the result may result in lost productivity, under-utilized talent, decreased (or increased) morale, increased (or decreased) cost per-hire, and training challenges.

Your ‘New Economy Survival Employee’ in many cases is going to want to set the world on fire – perhaps.  In other cases, he or she may just be along for the ride looking for something new.  Now is not the time to gloss over the fact, but to plan now for the long-term impact this may have on your organization.  This subject of course is worthy of it’s own work and I am confident that in addition to myself, many other business professionals and HR researchers, consultants, and professionals will write works, observe/share best practices, and excite leadership with the perils and possibilities that will come.  I, for one, am researching and interviewing both employees and leadership that are experiencing this – so more to follow.  However, here are some quick things to think about (and perhaps act upon) now in this new order:

1) Evaluate your recruiting function: Because we find ourselves in a “new world order” operating under “old economy” rules, many competent professionals whose talents, skills, abilities, and competencies will be left out.  On the other side (and extreme), there will be professionals that possess impressive professional backgrounds and credentials, eager to work.

2) Plan for the Career Ladder:  Even if you think the “survival employee” may only be with your company in the short run as he or she gets “back on their feet;” my prediction is that many of these employees will see a challenge.  What are your plans for a highly competent professional that takes a “survival job,” in the short term?  Are you poised to offer a career path?  Is the career path realistic?  Can you engage this hire, so that they see the value in both the short and long-term?

3) Prepare for the Generational-Economic Cross Divide:  Here is where your college intern turn manager and/or your young superstar is managing, in greater numbers, older and accomplished professionals.  What leadership skills are you equipping your young leaders with, so that they are “set up for success?”  How will they handle the new, former superstar that not only may be looking at their supervisor’s job, but beyond.  It’s a common occurrence that will become more common and your young leaders must be able to deal with these employees that will come in greater numbers – and will be hired.

4) Drilling-Down Succession Planning:  The biggest weakness and challenges of succession planning, in my opinion is that not only is it not executed near the levels as we are fascinated with the concept, but it does not go deep enough.  Your new, former high-success/high power superstar, entry-level “survival employee” is going to want a road map – especially if they like their jobs.  The competitive nature and stability in which they seek from their career/job will force you (hopefully) to not only “shore-up” your succession planning, but perhaps go-deeper into the organization to find your next high-pos.

5) Organizational Culture Meet Organizational Discovery.  Have your leadership and front-line supervisors discuss the possibilities for the organization in both the short and long-term for the “survival employee.”  What will be the new perception of not only an older employee – the ground work and law stands as a guide in that case – but, for the older, experienced and highly credential employee within your organization?  Will there be a supportive, firm, stable, inclusive environment in which the “survival employee” can perform?  How about an employee that meets all the aforementioned criteria and is perhaps moving from a middle marketing position to entry-level/mid-level, non-managerial administrative support position?

In the end, the challenges and opportunities, as previously mentioned, are too great for a single post.  Yet, it is something that we should think about.  Many already know that I view the current concept of Talent Management and the accompanying Succession Planning with a slight distaste because in the end, it does not go far or deep enough. So however you want to term it is not the issue – just how far you will go to take advantage of the new workforce that will be left as a result of the economic fallout (or crises if you’re real doom and gloom) should start with you.

Don’t blink.

Any middle-ground has no significant impact.  Many of us can personally attest to this research in the real world as  organizations either put the thumb on us as merely daily tacticians or those that let us flourish.  Here is a time for us to flourish. Before revealing the Five Activities that we, as HR professionals, should be considering-undertaking, I want to share this observation:  A serious lack of judgment, conscious or not, is occurring each and every day amongst us as HR professionals that has potential dire consequences (or at least significant) to our organizations, which can set-up our organizations (and ourselves) up for failure – in some areas. As reported in the January issues of HRMag, EEOC complaints are up, training budgets are down, and complaints will be thrown our way from every angle from recruiting to talent management to outplacement and employee assistance.  These complaints will continue to rise in my view for a couple of compelling reasons: Displaced professionals are frustrated; organizations are forced to deliver on service-product quality while in many cases reducing their workforces, and employees are tense, angry, and maybe feel guilty about surviving when family members are being laid off/”right-sized”.  Of course the phrase: “It’s that dang HR function!” should be ringing in your head, for it surely will come from the mouths of many.

What can we do during these times?  Here are 5 activities that I recommend:

1) Know the business strategy and short-term plans, and how HR impacts its functional counterparts in achieving the objectives of strategic-tactical (survival) planning.  Depending on your level in the organization, the depth of your access may be limited, but at the very least find out what you can.  The reason that this is so important is because this is where you can start to develop or refine your organizational HR goals and strategies to meet our current economic climate. And no matter the function, it is going to involve, in some way, the organizational workforce.  Your relevant access to the business short term-tactical and long-term strategic goals can insure that you remain abreast of the HR/organizational opportunities, threats, strengths, and weaknesses with a goal of being engaged and poised to answer: “What does this mean to our workforce?”  Be prepared to partner with all of your key functional counterparts.  Keep your thought process strategic, yet focused.  The end-result of this goal is to think about what it means to the existing and potential workforce.

2) Review Organizational Job Requirements/Job Description: I have “tweeted” this with my fellow HR professionals.  I sincerely believe that a good number of EEOC/AA/ADA lawsuits will originate because of unclear or irrelevant job descriptions that are not BFOQ for the organizational positions – a gap between KSAs required for the position versus an idealistic interpersonal candidate based upon personal perceptions and “wish list” skills.  The intentions are noble on the surface: Receive a qualified pool of applicants with an ideal skill set in a local labor market; however, the end result is going to be litigation in many cases – I can assure you.  What you can do is ensure that your line manager counterparts adhere to job requirements, so as not to be blindsided by frustrated employees/potential employees that will challenge the job requirements as being essential.  Do not think for one second that your organization will not be challenged during these challenging times.  Instead, expect it and be proactive.  The precedents of organizations that ignored this are of course beyond the scope of this post, but conduct your own research, reviewing SC,  CC, or even your own organization’s legal cases for those that ignored this activity at their own peril.

3) Review and Participate in Your Organization’s Outplacement/Employee Assistance Program Services.  Whether this is an internal function or outsourced, you need to take the time to participate or observe your organizational outplacement and employee assistance program services.  There is a flurry of HR legislation that is going unnoticed (or not being noticed enough) because our plates our full.  Ensure that transitioning employees are aware of legislation that impacts their benefits to include recent amendments do the FMLA and ADAAA.  Also insure that you (or the person you designate) personally observe these critical services as if you are receiving the benefit of the information provided.  Are job search strategies reflective of the latest trends?  Are you conducting robust mock job interviews?  Are employees aware of the hidden job market?  In addition, evaluate to see that information being provided reflect recent changes that have impacted benefits, for example HIPAA and COBRA.  Keep a keen eye on individuals that may fit the new broader definition of an individual with a “disability”.  Finally, what transition coping skills are your assistance and outplacement services providing?  Are alternatives to current career paths being discussed?  The list can go on-and-on, but you get my point.

4) Ensure that succession-replacement planning IS REALLY initiated and/or continues.  Succession planning is well understood in concept yet practiced very little in execution.  If there was ever a need to execute a robust and well-thought out succession plan, now is the time.  Succession planning is not about trying to make your plan fit in an HRIS requirements-delivery structure within COTS/SaaS modules.  It is about insuring your organization has a plan to develop internal talent to meet future HC requirements projected to deliver on strategic objectives – remember HRIS is the enabler not the driver.  That’s it.  It’s not as complicated as many make it out in theory.  Yet, it does involve work (serious work).  It requires that we know the business plan of our organization and take a hard look at our internal talent pool and formulate ways “to grow the workforce” to meet the requirements of our organization.  What I challenge each HR professional involved in this process to do (or at least think about) is – dig deeper than the top tier.  Our new economy will force people out of their comfort zone to stay competitive.  If we take a moment to unearth the benefits to our organizations by developing robust succession plans that reach deep into the organization, we build loyalty and create (or at least stabilize) buy-in.  When the workforce sees/feels/observes their organizations developing and nurturing their skill-set to meet organizational requirements – well, let’s just say there is enough empirical evidence to support the impact on productivity and reduction of involuntary turnover.

5) Review organizational training-development planning. We, as HR professionals, are well aware that a workforce reduction does not equate to sacrificing quality and customer service thus training and developing the workforce should still be at the top of your list, making the case for this common “HR Driver” to be put under thorough review.  Too many organizational leaders make the argument that fiscal disbursement will be focused on key activities and line managers (and us in our eagerness to ensure we are seen as “business oriented”), get to cutting without a through review of how the cuts will impact on the very thing we are trying to deliver in most cases – efficient and effective customer service and/or increased readiness to stakeholders.  The step to remember here is for us to measure the impact of a training reduction in quantifiable measures and costs.  If cutting a program outweighs the benefit of the training taking place, then it should be considered for discontinuation in the short term.  If however, the benefit of the training received outweighs the benefit of discontinuing training then the case must be made to senior leadership to possibly continue the training.  As obvious as this may sound, many of us do the tried and true method of cutting training across the board, often handicapping development and training activities that will see us through these lean times.  Yes, it requires work and does have to be stated within a business context, but this is one of our many exciting roles: To ensure that critical training is conducted in innovative, cost-effective methods despite (yet keenly aware) of the economic climate.  There are several innovative ways to deliver training that you keep that one may want to consider (again beyond the scope of this post).  A couple – I can’t help myself  on something this important – worth mentioning that can increase confidence and build buy-in: Appoint internal consultants to conduct training  where outsourcing may have occurred OR designate that core training be updated employing innovative collaboration tools (Wikipedia style) via peer platforming.  There are several ways to keep it cost effective, but on the table if need be. In the end, these activities are not all inclusive or exclusive.

The point of this post is to ensure that we are continually thinking from a business context, both in the short and long-term, about ways to increase our organizational effectiveness within the stark reality of our current economic climate .  Next, we must remain proactive and take the value to the organization vice our counterparts or supervisors requesting that we “show them the money.”  Take advantage of this challenging time to ensure that we, as HR professionals, continue to shine.

Of course I laughed it off and just thought that his analytical skill set and thought process just wanted black-and-white and binary rule set data that made it all digestible and easy for decision-making.  However, as I progress through subsequent assignments and conduct interviews and conversations with other business professionals and HR leaders, I have come to realize that he had a point.  Specifically, during one meeting, I sat and listened to a senior HR leader explain to me that the company’s goal was to “align the workforce to meet the strategic initiatives of strategic planning so that they could deliver on organizational objectives.”  I thought to myself – huh?  Are you not the face of senior leadership representing the most valued asset of the organization and that’s the answer you are providing?

Now don’t get me wrong.  There is nothing wrong with being able to communicate in contemporary, relevant, common language that can be shared with other professionals internal and external to the organization.  However, to explain to someone who is trying to get to ground truth (with concurrence) in such abstract terms leads to one conclusion: You have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you know what you are talking about?  Can you state in concrete terms what your organizational strategic goals are where it makes sense to anyone listing.  If you communicate like the example I just gave above, I will answer that question for you: You may know, but only you know that you may know.

Allow me to provide an example of concrete strategic objectives in plain language: “Our goal is to reduce involuntary turnover by 30% over the course of the next five years by improving our sourcing-recruiting functions, improve our talent management processes by leveraging our existing succession-replacement planning and improving our knowledge management capturing through the use of HRIM/S technology currently deployed to support the organization’s goal of shaping a workforce to sustain attrition due to retirement eligibility and improve time-to-market for emerging new product lines.”

So if it’s that easy, why don’t more HR professionals communicate in concrete terms?  Because in truth, it is not easy.  It requires us to get our hands dirty and plan the process at the strategic level, while ensuring that we “roll-up sleeves” directly or indirectly at the operational-tactical levels.  Furthermore, we often want to encompass as much as possible thinking that being too specific shows a lack of organizational depth.  Of course mind-mapping, project planning, and cause-and-effect diagramming is fun as we work in a conference room with plenty of water and coffee to keep us awake.  However, to go out and link into our organization’s line functions and know about front-line processes that impact our ability to deliver requires work (of a different sort).  This work is not as “glamorous” or may seem contradictory as we throw elbows at the oft-used phrase “seat at the table.”  As for trying to encompass everything you can to prevent from leaving anything out, here is the rule of any business initiative or goal in execution: If you cannot succinctly define it – it is not defined.

Is there any wonder why heads tilt to the side as you talk to mid-level management about the dashboard view of their divisions and departments when they can’t even get a quiet place to on-board and train their employees?  Is there any wonder why faces bleed with anger as you talk about ERP back-end migration strategies and incremental roll outs when they can’t even get the existing Passport inventory system to properly load data and ensure that accurate inventory arrives JIT?

So in the midst of all our “high level” talk and good intentions, our professional colleagues just want a system that works.  They want enabling technologies to settle, so that they can properly train their employees to use the system without having to worry about an upgrade that is looming around the corner.  Yeah, Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) sounds good in strategic planning sessions, but employees want to know, where is the custom data that they have grown accustomed too.  You are talking hibba-hobba.

It’s important when wearing your change management-change agent hat that you communicate to employees (to include managers and front-line personnel) in terms they understand, value, and relate.  For if you don’t, buy-in is not only hard, it may be a serious barrier to success for successful implementation.  Having worked on my share of change management initiatives, it is not an easy task to incorporate strategic level goals and objectives into concrete language that ties in relevant process; however, our creditability often rests on our ability to do just that.

Many professional may think that “it’s not that serious.”  But if you have been around a while, I want you to think about a couple of questions: How many change management initiatives, goals, processes, policies, etc. have you seen fail?  Now, out of the ones that failed, how many were due to a lack of enabling technology not being able to deliver and/or financial resources-resource allocation not being provided COMPARED TO employees not only not willing understanding, but able to understand (thus execute) and/or the lack of organizational buy-in.

It’s a costly mistake to understate the power of language and communication.

Watching Microsoft slash its workforce and GE profits plummet 46%, we knew the news on employment stability was going to get worse.  But the question we should ask ourselves as Human Resource professionals – with many of us double-hatted as public relations-public affairs/strategic communications professionals – is where would you be in executing (or assisting) your organizational public relation efforts if news was about to break about massive layoffs.

One thing is certain: Many employers (not accusing any named in this article) missed the chance to keep their brand equity intact.

We know that it’s not just about layoffs – Americans know we are in rough economic times.  It’s about the response to the layoffs.  It’s about the restructuring plan that is being talked about at the water cooler.  It’s about the leak of a possible right-sizing effort.  In all this, it’s about employee emotions, perceptions, and anxiety.  Most of us know the value of brand equity.  The Home Depot was in the midst of putting the focus back on the customer after years of corporate mismanagement and strategic dis-alignment only to have the media shape the message, perception, and story.  Sprint was in the midst of trying to shore up its perceived or actual reputation for less than stellar customer service.

It is possible that all those efforts were for naught because of late (or no) response or lack of a proactive response. So my question to you as HR professionals is “What are you and your organization doing during these challenging times – even if your specific organization or industry appears to be safe – to communicate to your employees/stakeholders?  Here are five tips that you can utilize today in plain, executable language!

1) Determine what actions are taking place in your company in which you need information to help you craft or refine your organizational response plan.  For example, are there product-service meetings in which your presence seemed unnecessary or you were filled in on the back-end?  You may want to evaluate your role and presence in such meetings, briefings, off-sites, etc. if there are indications that the workforce may be impacted.

2) Review your current public relations-public response plan to ensure that you are ready to respond (for better or worse) on any matters that may impact the organizational workforce.  Don’t wait for the news “to hit the wire,” before your determine that a critical organization was missing, or that stakeholders need to be updated.  At the writing of this post, Edward Jones, Google, and Cisco were just a few EOC companies that ensured that they shaped their workforce news – acknowledging that good news is easier to deliver.

3) Communicate aggressively with senior leadership, peers, and business partners.  This is one of the most critical areas that I urge my fellow professionals to follow.  Discuss the possibilities of crafting an emergency-urgent response.  Do a mock-exercise to ensure the response plan works.  Work with line managers, senior leadership, and external business partners if there are horizontal supply chain relationships that may impact your organizational workforce.  Communicate – Communicate – Communicate!

4) Speak with your employees consistently.  I can think of few organizations and individuals that are not impacted by our current economic challenges.  Any news on the impact to your organization and collecting employee feedback based upon the overarching response plan of the workforce is better than no plan at all.  Don’t think that your employees assume the best (or worst).  Get out in front of your organizational strategic communications and let your employees-workforce know just how they will or will not be impacted.  Communicate (or propose) to communicate regularly as situations-events warrant.

5) Build partnerships with public relations and ensure that external and internal communications are coherent and uniformed.  If you and your team are responsible for your organization’s communications ensure you update and revise as necessary.  And least be said, ensure that you build the response plan with senior leadership/line management engaged and providing input as appropriate.

The bottom-line is this: Employee anxiety is high.  The anxiety in some sectors or industries is of course higher than others; however, most are “feeling the pinch.”  Your employees, if not witnessing it first hand, likely know someone that is being impacted.  That person may be an immediate family member or it can be a good friend.  In the end, we serve our roles well when we recognize this fact.  We serve our organization well if we play the critical part in protecting organizational brand equity.  And finally, We serve our internal and external customers well, by being prepared.  Better that our organization (with HR at the forefront) give the news rather than the media interpret the news as they see fit.

Protecting your organizational brand is important, and one of our many important roles within an organization.  Forthright and ethical communication allows our organizations to control the message and let the organizational workforce and key stakeholders maintain a level of trust that is critical during these unique times.

In reflecting, I thought about some of her advice to me while growing up and it’s applicable to all HR professionals (my opinion).  Here it goes (Note: My Grandmother grew up in the country.  Her advice is based on lessons handed down.  Her quotes below are not edited for grammar – but presented as exactly as she said them to me – ain’t that nice):

*”Whenever you deal with a person, let them know what you are thinking!”: How many times are we reminded that feedback is important throughout an organization as well as on a professional-personal level.  Rather undertaken a change management initiative, or communicating to one of our employees – don’t leave people guessing about where they stand.  Be honest, truthful, and professional when providing feedback during a performance appraisal review.  Ensure that the organization knows how HR measures up against strategic goals and your developed metrics-measures; communicate the reasons why the organization is undertaking the IT/HCM initiative, and relay the actions being taken to help reduce workplace mishaps.

*If you have an obligation – meet your obligation.  If you can’t, tell em’ why, and say when you can!”  As HR/business professionals, no one is immune from having competing tasks.  But there is a problem among some HR/business professionals that management will somehow figure it out.  Or there is that person waiting to find out the details of a benefit waiting on your advice and expertise, so they can make an important decision.  If you’re lucky, you can get buy with an explanation.  That’s if you’re lucky.  The bottom-line: If you have competing priorities that will force you to delay a prior commitment/obligation, don’t assume that someone can read your mind.

*”Sometimes you get what you pay for.  Sometimes you get more and there will be times you get less!“  This is one of her axioms that I think about often.  How many occasions have we selected or recommended a vendor with the utmost confidence that they will deliver only to fall short of project-program requirements – one instance happened just recently in an organization that I am very familiar with.  This particular vendor promised the world, drew up a compelling RFP, was awarded the bid – just to fall short.  The result: The approval for the replacement vendor moved up to the next level in this organization.  Losing the confidence of senior leadership doesn’t have to happen, if you ethically and accurately communicate on what you can deliver and meet the specifications (exceed if possible) of your client.

*You can’t force the fit -umph, don’t even try!“  Undoubtedly true and one of my favorites.  This applies to so many areas, but one area that stands out is in our recruiting/job analysis-staffing roles.  Rather you are using a competency based or traditional job analysis – another post on that all together – we lead our organizations in this process because we are there to ensure that when it comes to staff-placing a person to the requirement that the “right fit” at the “right price” at the “right time” applies in practice.  This mindset in which we enter this important function is known by most HR professionals that have been around a while; however, in execution, we are often spend too much time thinking trying to fit a “square peg into a round hole.”  Then there are the department/organizational transfers that we try to force, only to set-up the prospective incumbent in our organizations up for failure (or at a minimum disappointment).  Having conducted many job-analysis in my professional career, we undertake this arduous and sometimes complicated process, as an example, to increases our chances of ensuring the right fit.  In essence, we are tasked to ensure HR processes fit the strategic organizational goals and objectives.

*”The truth is always the best way to go!“  My grandmother drilled this into my head on a persistent basis.  However, many get into the habit of stretching the truth.  “Yes, we can meet the deadline;” or “Yes, we did a thorough investigation and the report will show that.”  Only for our fellow professionals to experience a missed deadline has past, or for the safety committee to review a report that was not well thought out or thorough as stated.  It happens at the senior levels of the organization and it has happened recently (there is no need to revisit Enron, we can observe companies/individuals today misstating income, or committing painstaking fraud on behalf of other individuals, such as the case with Bernard Madoff.)  Many view untruths by walking the thin line that often occurs between what is legal and what is ethical.  Only to present a less than truthful opinion or less than accurate account – wrong road to follow.

In the end, “real world” suggests that not all of my Grandmother’s advice is applicable. But her advice is at the least concrete.  It’s not “pie in the sky” talk nor is it theoretically based on research without implementation.  At a minimum, it is practical and sound – and can be applied today – right now from where you sit.

I love you Grandmother – thanks for giving me advice I can use!