To put it straight-forward: Workplace diversity is a complex, contemporary organizational challenge that continues to be the source of misinformation, misguided perception, and uneven research findings (Van De Ven, Rogers, Bechara, Kangyong, 2007; Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). Business leaders, government employees, mid-level practitioners, non-profit members, and even the business start-up owner all have justified questions concerning the morale value, and business utility of workplace diversity. The question no matter how stated, simply boils down to “What is the business value and potential benefit of workplace diversity?”   

Six key points of consideration are hereby presented:   

Point 1 – There is a tendency to equate demographic diversity with federal equal opportunity and affirmative action laws.  This is done in error because of research and organizational initiatives that link the concept of diversity with federal equal opportunity and affirmative action laws.  This error leads to resistance and reinforcement of stereotypes, having a reverse, unintended consequence on justifying the business need for diversity.  

Point 2 – Most workplace diversity initiatives consider only demographic components of diversity.  In considering only the demographic aspects of diversity, organizations do not go far enough.  As a matter of fact, organizations have in many cases only increased the likelihood that any diversity business case and subsequent initiative will be met with resistance.

Point 3 – Cognitive Diversity along with the business need is the root starting point when exploring the organizational benefit of diversity.  Cognitive Diversity, as I define it, is the observed and unobserved attributes that distinguish individuals and their accompanying value and belief system.  Of course there are varying views of Cognitive Diversity; yet, the properties of this definition allow us to include both the demographic components, and beliefs and attitudes components of diversity.    

Point 4: Workplace diversity must be centered on a business need (perceived threat, rare opportunity, or a combination of the two).  The moral case as unfortunate as it may sound is not enough.  Research shows that organizations that succeed at diversity base it on sound business considerations such as entrance or expansion within a market segment, product and services aimed toward diverse segments of the marketplace, exploitation of unexpected demand (or potential for demand) in an untapped or under-performing market (Note: Under-performing in the sense that demand for product or service was not foreseen; yet is empirically proven to show consideration for increase “presence”).

Point 5: Not all organizations should pursue diversity, especially based upon demographic consideration.  Diversity should not be pursued (despite what many tell you) to correct moral wrongs or to “reflect society.”   There are laws (both passed and under consideration) and other causes that serve such purposes.  As for “reflecting society;” your market may only represent a unique, defined niche of our collective society and any efforts to “represent society” will be viewed as insincere or not justifiable if your products and services appeal only to specific segments of the marketplace. 

Point 6:  If organizational diversity initiatives are pursued, it is essential to focus more on cognitive diversity vice the demographic components of diversity.  Highlighting differences, based on research and experience of organizations that pursue diversity (successful and otherwise), show that when demographic understanding is sought, the inverse happens – more confusion and increased hostility often results (Van de Ven, Rogers, & Kangyong, 2008; Jayne & Dipboye, 2004).  Furthermore, appreciation of demographic diversity naturally results when diversity is pursued at the deeper, cognitive level.   

 So what are the benefits of diversity if the business case warrants worthy of pursuit?  There is no shortage of benefits, if your organizational business case (considering the above) is conducted with rigor.  Some of the benefits of workplace diversity may include:

Goodwill of the Community. If diverse segments of your customer base are diverse and your organization reflects this diversity, your efforts will not go unnoticed. 

Potential increase in earnings and profitability.  Directly related to the above benefit, customers show appreciation represented via “buying power” and increased sales.  Quite simply: They buy more from you and less from your competitors. 

Increase readiness.  If you are a government organization, diversity efforts are appreciated through increased contribution or increased willingness to join your organization or cause. 

Outreach into potential talent pools.  With increased outreach and appreciation of diversity, you have increased individuals looking to contribute their talents to your organization.  If competitive advantage is embedded within human capital, which I argue this is so, than deeper, richer pools of talent with unique ideas and perspectives will enable you to leverage this diversity – resulting in, ideally, innovative products and services delivered faster and better than your competitors – for the foreseeable future. 

References/Further Reading

Jayne, M., & Dipboye, R. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Research findings and recommendations for organizations. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 409-424.

Van de Ven, A., Rogers, R., Bechara, J., & Kangyong, S. (2008). Organizational diversity, integration and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29 (3), 335-354. doi:10.1002/job.511.

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.

Note:  This is just a humorous look on my unscientific approach; however, please take the time to realize that being an effective leader does not mean you follow any set pattern of leadership or some preconceived notion of someone’s notion of being an effective leader.  Effective leaders are found with varying personalities and traits.  They possess a keen sense of who they are and are aware of their strengths and weakness, maximizing the former and supplementing the latter.

Auto-follows on keywords/Auto Tweets:

Strength:  Someone that values automation and one time effort to gain leverage.  Once system in place and/or value discovered, it is likely that you don’t want to reinvent the wheel.  In addition, you are extremely well-organized (there is a word for that), and you are also very methodical.  You will quickly move-on from one project to the next and likely are very good at starting businesses, setting a system, and moving on to the next project/phase.  Likely considered a very efficient leader who makes decisions in an effective manner.

Weakness:  Details make your eyes glaze and sometimes you are too quick to delegate.  Because you often have more than one project/program/concept going, those working on supporting initiatives are often confused as to just what is your priority.

Tweets Less Than Once Per Week:

Strength:  One who focuses on projects and prioritizes based on competing demands.  You can handle multiple tasks; however, those that seem less important to you likely get pushed to the back-burner.  Out of 3-5 competing projects, you will likely pick 1 that is worthy of your time, delegate projects 2-3, sit-on project 4, and dump project 5.

Weakness:  Leaders, co-workers, and subordinates often think you forget about them because they don’t always have your personal attention.  You don’t necessarily announce that you are tracking through delegation, and really feel that your time is to valuable to explain everything that you are doing – or defend your worldview.

Tweets More Than Once Per Week:

Strength:  A quick mind who keeps a “Daily 1-R” log of activities that must be done – in other words: You are viewed as someone who can complete multiple projects and still get the “little things” done.  Your leadership style is one that values details and demands that the perceived minor activities do not get overlooked.  You are likely a leader who has (or prefers) a dashboard view of organization and takes a round-robin approach to ensuring that all bases are covered.  You value input from the quiet person sitting in the back of the room and want to know what she has to say.

Weakness:  You can be perceived as going to deep and if you are a senior leader, often viewed as one “in the weeds.”  When briefed on major issues, subordinates often think that you are focused on strategic-high level information, but you quickly dive into details at a technical-journeyman level.  They adjust and go into detail, and you counter by quickly pulling the stick back to the “big-picture.”

Quick to Un-follow:

Strength:  Aggressive, Alpha-type personality with a “time is money” approach to leadership, projects, and tasks.  Your leadership style invites plenty of people to the table, giving them a chance to show their worth – the bad news for them is that they only have one shot and they may not know it.  You have a knack (and gift) for discovering value quickly.  Likely seen as detached by subordinates, you prefer summarized information, and make decisions based on .5 gut and .5 fact.  Your subordinates and co-workers view you as someone who gets bored easily and you will often pursue several initiatives at once in an effort to see which ones stick (provide value) and which ones can be discarded.  You are also considered a change agent; however, the “change initiative” must be significant and provide early indication worthy of your time and effort.

Weakness:  Because you are quick to move, you often frustrate those that may have received late notice that you were interested in one of their projects/programs, and did not have time to prepare adequately to capture your interest.  You also see no value in incremental changes thus settings in which continuous improvement is the primary culture are not a fit for you – you have no patience for semi-annual updates and prefer results that can be immediately gleaned from quarterly reports.  You often are viewed as a leader that has read one too many “Harvard Business Review” articles yet does not have a defining philosophy that has time to settle and take hold within your organization, project, program, etc.

Slow to Un-follow:

Strength:  A loyal leader that likely delivers bad news slow and utilizes negative counseling/discipline as a last resort.  You are a leader that will be slow to hire and even slower to “fire” giving someone all chances to prove themselves before you “throw them to the wolves.”  You are also empathic and when all subordinates and peers tell you to pull the plug, you will “stay the course” to see when and if value is ahead (this is from a personal and project perspective).  When presenting and the audience is getting frustrated by persistent questions from “that one” who always asks questions – consistently, you will stay with the person until the question is answered, leaving everyone amazed at your patience and concern for others.

Weakness:  You often spend too much time trying to save people or projects that are draining resources (time, money, material, etc.)  You often are criticized for delivering projects in late and/or over-budget and though are very good at what you do (often considered the best), not necessarily the most efficient leader in the area of scheduling. Your saving grace is that you are able to garner large support from the “grass-root” and “deck-plate” levels, and excel on quality and program effectiveness.

Tweets Both Business/Professional Updates:

Strength:  You are likely a leader that can build relationships across the organization, maintaining a human quality, yet gaining the necessary respect and fellowship when required.  You seek to balance morale with organizational objectives and make it point to see that your subordinates/employees have fun at work.  You are also one that given a microphone (or maybe without one) and a PowerPoint presentation can make even the dullest presentations come alive with both empirical data and strong anecdotes to tell a story that would be boring presented by someone with a different personality.  Personal and professional relationships are important to you and you are a master networker.

Weakness:  Data oriented-peers, co-workers, and subordinates often feel your “personal touch” is intrusive or unnecessary.  Your style may unknowingly make subordinates uncomfortable with peers seeing your style as going into irrelevant areas, having nothing to do with the business at hand.  You are also often viewed as someone who could obtain the same results in a more compressed time-frame.  You do possess a high-sense of self-awareness and realize this perceived weakness, but you accept the trade-off much to the chagrin of your peers, co-workers, and subordinates.

Tweets Only Business Updates:

Strength:  You are a no-nonsense leader that believes in focusing on critical activities.  Someone that could hold marathon brain-storming sessions on critical business proposals and activities.  You also enjoy what you do and are the type of leader in which subordinates often say to themselves: “He lives here.”  You  associate yourself (and often your ego) with your work and have large amounts of concentration/focus.  People like you often fill the ranks of senior business leaders within an organization and you advance quickly on a given career-path.  You also know the “nuts-and-bolts” of the business and how it relates to delivery on business objectives and meeting business goals.

Weakness:  You may be seen as dull and calculating.  Meetings and projects that you chair and/or are a critical team member are often seen as “no flash” ordeals.  Though you are a great leader within an established framework, you may resist entrepreneurship/business opportunities, perceiving them as reap with unnecessary and avoidable risk with no defined “systems” in place (however, if teamed with business-personal tweeter that can be remedied – of course, they have to get to you.)

Tweets Only Personal (with a Professional Profile):

Strength:  You are a social butterfly.  The one that when approached by subordinates with situations they view as serious or emergent, quickly put them at ease.  Leadership style makes nervous subordinates feel comfortable. Though you are very social, you do know your business and your work, but it does not define you.  Also one to ensure that others participate in hobbies and recreational activities.  Strong believer in re-charging the batteries.

Weakness:  May be viewed as the popular leader and may need a strong “second” to offset open-leadership style.  You sometimes upset others within your organization because you may be distracted easily and may be perceived to lack focus.  You may get away with more than many other peers because of your ability to search out and find common bonds – your peers often view this as relationship management taking precedence over results-oriented and documented performance.

Followers Greater Than Those Following (by a significant margin):

Strength:  You are the type of leader that everyone talks about and gathers around when walking the “deck-plate” and”front-lines.”  Extremely poplar, you may have large groups of people clamoring for your time, because you are seen as invaluable or a star-performer among your peers.  Even seniors view you with admiration at what appears to be a natural ability within you to motivate others with relatively ease.

Weakness:  Though you are very poplar (and appreciate the fact that people gravitate toward you), you also consult with a small group of advisers and peers when making key decisions.  Because you possess such a strong following of peers and subordinates, you will often have others give bad news, maintaining your personal reputation and brand, even if it means damaging someone else.  Also there is a false sense that you have an open-door policy, when in fact, there is a considerable bureaucratic process that one has to go through to often get to your level.

Following Greater Than Followers (delta of 20% or more):

Strength:  You are a great entrepreneur and will not take “no” for an answer.  You are the type of person who writes down his or her goals, which appear to be dreams to observers (i.e., meet consult with world leaders or sit on prestigious boards).  You have an ability to come up with innovative concepts or work proven models to perfection.  If your concepts come into reality, you are likely to progress to the aforementioned stage.

Weakness:  Many may perceive you as annoying, or as a dreamer, or as someone to avoid.  Others may see you as a threat and protect information from you and/or see you as an outcast with no room for your concepts or ideas.  Because you are persistent, you may also be viewed as someone to avoid.

Considering all the factors above, my argument-opinion is simple: Performance Reviews-Appraisals are not your enemy.  The performance review-appraisal process cannot and should not become the scapegoat reason for delaying performance feedback nor management’s resistance to utilizing it as a legitimate performance management tool.

Having read opinions that stretch across the spectrum on this issue, the point is that the primary issue with performance reviews/appraisals is the planning that goes behind the process.  The performance review-performance appraisal process, as a component of performance management, should be an essential ingredient in setting and managing expectations within your organization; and, if we, as HR-Business leaders, think that condemning the process is “an out” then my message is ” that dog won’t hunt.”  Such protests are merely excuses to not fully develop and refine the process, so the easy out becomes to blame the tools utilized versus the more accurate inability to employ a robust and effective performance management system.

So the question becomes, “How can we make it better?”  How can we employ our organization’s performance review-performance appraisal process in a method that works consistently and receives the creditability needed to contribute to individual development and delivery of organizational goals and objectives.  Here are some quick – very quick – ways to make it work:

1) Know the desired outcome of the incumbent position.  When we think of performance appraisals,  many managers quickly think, “How will my employees stack against each other?”  However, you must remember that the role of the performance appraisal is to measure the incumbent’s performance against defined outcomes measured carefully against developed performance standards,  position objectives, and the job analysis product the job description, captured by senior managers/leaders and job analysis functional specialists – clinical psychologists, during the workforce planning process.  The standards set forth in performance reviews-appraisals are, but should not be measured against a nominal employee that exceeds the standard(s) – at least, arguably, initially.  In essence: Performance standards are initially defined during the larger strategic planning-mapping process (again, workforce planning) and/or doing scheduled reviews – ideally.

2) Capture concrete performance objectives and consistently communicate these objectives to employees.  One of the (justified) continued complaints against HR is lack of concrete measurements and performance objectives despite all the evidence that demonstrates increased value creation when concrete performance and properly aligned objectives are defined and executed upon. The lack of clearly defined performance objectives are not confined to HR.  Line managers, senior leadership and HR must share in the responsibility and work in answering the question, “Just what constitutes non-satisfactory, satisfactory, and superior performance?”  Capturing specific job performance measurements within the performance appraisal itself may work; however, it is not necessary and may make your forms dated.  Instead, ensure that job incumbents know the definition of performance success (or failure) and when objectives are considered met in quantifiable language supplemented by specific work instances ((I personally recommend that time consistent job performance measurements be captured and supplemented by current (and flexible) positional performance objective criteria defined during through the workforce planning and/or workforce review processes) .  However captured, ensure that objective measures are communicated consistently to your workforce down to the individual level with formal-informal milestones suggested below.

3) Offset compensation performance measures with ethical performance measures.  The most common example of this is of course the banking and financial industries and how conflict often occurs when up-sales are not being made, loans are not being processed, or insurance products are not being sold.  However, to blame this on performance measures is not taking responsibility for adequately developing the very thing being complained about.  Performance measures tied to compensation such as merit or incentive pay, should have an ethical dimension to the performance factor, reminding employees that their ability to meet or exceed performance goals is not to be done at the expense of legal requirements and ethical considerations.  Though some advocate that incentive pay, merit pay, gain-sharing, etc.  should not be attached to performance standards, this misses the point that the linkage of the two are often necessary to adequately measure performance. The decision rests with senior leadership; the context through with such goals are interpreted are translated via the organization’s culture.  In other words: If your organization makes the decision to include monetary product-service levels within performance standards, your cultural tone will define at what lengths employees will take to achieve those standards, ethically and legally.

4) Remember that performance-appraisal reviews are a part of the process and not the process.  Here is where many managers lose sight of knowing the purpose of performance appraisals.  Performance appraisals are one of the tools at management disposal within the larger (and hopefully well defined) performance management process.  If you’re waiting until the six- and twelve month points to let employees know where they stand in meeting performance objectives then the performance appraisal nor the employee are your enemy – you are.  It is your role as an HR-Business leader to ensure that your professional peers and subordinates understand that High Performance Work Systems – in which HR processes play a critical role – includes a well-executed performance management process that is  consistently communicated, and that employee performance management is an on-going process. One of the most effective ways to accomplish this is to provide performance feedback that exceeds organizational requirements.  Thus if there is an annual/semi-annual formal performance review process, you should look and consider a quarterly feedback process that not only comments on performance, but shows how the job incumbent-employee can improve or sustain required performance.

5) Shared goal-setting – the often forgotten, proven benchmark. As professionals we read and may even directly observe-participate in effective goal setting against developed performance objectives; however, we often forget the effectiveness of accomplishing this in a systematic way – perhaps it is missing within the guidelines of managing the performance management process. However, when employees are empowered to help shape the goals that contribute directly to job requirements and performance objectives, the increased acceptance and legitimacy of the performance review process is increase.

There are supplementary measures and techniques individual to organizations that have proven effective.  Just remember what works for one organization, may not work for your organization.  The debate continues and will continue on the most effective among these techniques, which include separating salary discussion from performance reviews, providing peer-incumbent input “accomplishments” to formal performance reviews, and validating performance reviews through a two-party formal review process that often includes the direct supervisor and work-team-functional supervisor (as one example).  In  the end, it is my belief that all these may prove effective to a specific organization; however, are not effective for all organizations.  And that’s my key point: Your performance review-appraisal process must be consistent with your organizational culture.  If you have an open culture with free-flowing communication and a team-based atmosphere then peer validation and accomplishments may be warranted.  In contrast, matrix organizations and/or organizations where direct reports are separated geographically and/or direct observation is limited by the direct supervisor then the two-party review process may be warranted.  Is it fair to rank?  The answer to that question resides within your organization, your organizational culture, your performance criteria, and your process in which you promote and retain employees.

In conclusion, remember know this: The performance-appraisal review is not the problem (nor your enemy or scapegoat).  The problem is in the proper and relevant design, delivery, management, and execution within the larger context of your organizational performance management process that is the problem and that’ something and that’s something you can control.

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.