So, you’d like to start a Corporate University. Great! I don’t think you’ll regret your decision to do so; but, before we talk about all the great outcomes that a university can provide, let’s take a step back and define a “corporate university.”

There are probably as many definitions as there are organizations that have universities (which is estimated to be about 2,000 today), but the best definition I found was from Mark Allen, Ph.D, and the author of The Corporate University Handbook (AMACOM 2002). Dr. Allen defines it as “…an educational entity that is a strategic tool designed to assist its parent organization in achieving its mission by conducting activities that cultivate both individual and organizational learning, knowledge, and wisdom.”

More than anything, a corporate university strives to align employees’ performance with the strategic direction of the company. The training is connected to competencies, for example, or to specific business objectives. It’s typically built using a leveled approach and with frequent benchmarks to measure success in achieving the corporate mission.

A university is so much more than a name, a new logo, and t-shirts. That’s why it’s critical that you first define what the university is for your organization.

In the coming months, I’ll review a corporate university that we recently developed with one of our clients. I’ll also share other key aspects about this comprehensive training solution, including:

• Defining outcomes
• Crafting a vision
• Achieving support
• Getting funds
• Designing the structure

We’d love to hear what you think about corporate universities, what definition you might offer up and, if you have one, how it works and what advice you can provide.

Linda Dausend is a consultant at FlashPoint. She consults with clients on talent management, helping to align their human resources programs with organizational strategies.

Stay tuned for more from Linda in this blog series about corporate universities. It’s easy to get our blog updates! Just look for Feed Subscription in the right column of our blog and enter your email address. Our blog updates will be delivered to your email inbox.

Image: winnond

This post currently has 1 response.

For many managers, end-of-the-year activities include completing employee reviews as part of a performance management system. Giving year-end feedback is something that some managers view as “checking one more thing off the list.” Some employees view the activity as a “necessary evil.” Often, this is a missed opportunity to start the new year with a bang—especially with high performers. In 2011, the high performers did most things very well; yet, managers often feel compelled to give “developmental” feedback. Managers feel they aren’t doing their job if they can’t find something that is less than awesome. As a result, high performers leave the review slightly miffed that the manager documented an obscure area of improvement just to ensure the review wasn’t too glowing.

I am going to suggest a very radical approach to performance reviews for high performers. Focus on all they did well and … end the review. Resist adding the developmental feedback—unless it is actually a critical success factor.

High performers are high performers because they self-analyze and independently seek to improve. Ask them what they would like to improve in 2012, identify how you can help them, and conclude the review without saying anything negative. Discuss personal growth and development in 2012, but frame it from a perspective of what they want to accomplish and not from the often misused perspective of “no one is perfect,” “we don’t want them too big for their britches,” “everyone has the ability to improve,” etc.

While some of those axioms are true for some people, I believe that high performers will appreciate managers identifying how they can help them move in the direction they want to go. Try ending the review with a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and keep up the great work in 2012.

Jennifer Rufatto is a consultant at FlashPoint. She focuses her consulting in the areas of workplace learning and leadership development.

Image: Keattikorn

This post currently has 2 responses.

I recently came across a couple of articles published by the Society for Human Resource Management, both with the same theme—how performance reviews are ineffective and put organizations at risk (rather than offering legal protection, as most people think). The articles, both written by employment attorneys, highlight the following flaws: 

• Supervisors are not prepared to conduct the reviews
• Supervisors are not honest in their feedback
• The feedback isn’t objective or timely

The authors point out that in their long legal careers, they’ve found that performance reviews most often work against employers and often serve as the plaintiff’s key piece of evidence. One author was forthright—throw the review form in the recycle bin!

Advice such as this seems counterintuitive to most HR professionals and refutes what most of us have learned and advocate. When I read the articles, I had to pause and consider how to reconcile the two positions.

The key reasons the authors list for why performance reviews fail boil down to a common element—supervisors don’t have the skills they need to conduct them. I’m still convinced that a well-developed and well-executed performance review serves a useful role if the organization invests in the process and in preparing supervisors to carry it out. Some areas to focus on include: 

• Creating a well-thought-out form that not only promotes open and meaningful dialogue around the employee’s performance but also provides sections to spell out yearly goals and development plans.
• Outlining a process that includes quarterly update meetings, encourages regular feedback, and involves both employees and supervisors.
• Training supervisors so they understand the review process and tools and how to use them effectively.
• Regularly evaluating completed forms, asking questions, and coaching supervisors on how they can better carry out their reviews.

Sources:
Janove, Jathan. “Reviews—Good for Anything?” HR Magazine, June 2011.
Keyes, Judith Droz. “The Legal Case for Eliminating Performance Reviews.” SHRM Legal Report, April 2011.

George Hanlin is a consultant at FlashPoint.

This post currently has no responses.

In part 1 of, The Secret to Gaining Competitive Advantage, we discussed ways organizations seek to create competitive advantage by optimizing employee performance and engagement. We determined that a fundamental contributor to employee performance/engagement is the work environment¹. I introduced a tool to help us identify the variables that influence the behavior of an employee and to help us diagnose any performance problem—The Human Performance System (HPS)². The HPS is comprised of the five components illustrated below.

In part 1 we examined potential input factors that can impact optimal performance and engagement. In this post I will share potential performer, output, consequences, and feedback factors.

To apply this to your organization, think about an employee who is underperforming. Ask yourself the questions below. Any “no” response indicates a potential problem that bears investigation.  

Performer Factors

• Has the required level of knowledge and skill for each position been identified?
• Is a systematic training program in place?
• Do employees have the willingness to perform (given the incentives available)?

 Consequence Components

• Are there sufficient positive consequences to perform (financial and non-financial)?
• Are incentives meaningful, administered fairly, and in proper relationship to the level of accomplishment?
• Are there any disincentives to perform (the employee is asked to complete the work of co-workers because he/she is more efficient)?

Feedback Components³

• Do managers provide feedback on a consistent, regular basis?
• Is manager feedback specific and performance-based?
• Do managers immediately praise employees for progress against goals?
• Do managers immediately re-direct employees when performance gaps are caused by a lack of competence?
• Do managers immediately reprimand employees when performance gaps are caused by a lack of personal commitment?

References 

1. Thomas F. Gilbert, Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance (San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2007). View this book on Amazon.com
2. Geary A. Rummler, Serious Performance Consulting According to Rummler (San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2007). View this book on Amazon.com
3. Ken Blanchard, Leading at a Higher Level: Blanchard on Leadership and Creating High Performing Organizations, rev. ed. (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: FT Press, 2010). View this book on Amazon.com

Bill Mugavin is a consultant at FlashPoint. He focuses his consulting in the areas of organizational development, and leadership and management development.

This post currently has 2 responses.

Many of the books I am reading emphasize optimizing employee performance and engagement in order to create a competitive advantage. Ideas presented include providing employees with career development plans, designing engagement programs, offering flexible scheduling, etc. All of these play a role in optimizing performance/engagement. Based on my consulting and operations management experience, I recommend managers and human resource professionals also examine a fundamental contributor to employee performance/engagement—the work environment. 

The work environment has a significant influence on employee productivity and goal achievement¹. Goal achievement impacts an employee’s sense of accomplishment; a positive sense of accomplishment increases job satisfaction and engagement².  

Therefore, it is important to identify aspects of the work environment that can impact an employee’s ability to perform and engage. I recommend an excellent tool—the Human Performance System (HPS)³. The HPS describes the variables that influence the behavior of an employee and can be used to diagnose any performance problem. The HPS is comprised of the five components illustrated below.

In this post I will share potential input factors that can impact optimal performance and engagement. In part 2, I will share potential performer, output, consequence, and feedback factors.  

To apply this information to your organization, think about an employee who is underperforming. Ask yourself the questions below. Any “no” response indicates a potential problem that may need investigation.   

Input Factors

• Are competency models and job descriptions available?
• Does the job allow for the use of a variety of skills and abilities, for the freedom to make decisions, and is it considered important inside the organization?
• Are job outputs and standards linked to process requirements?
• Are job steps/tasks in a logical sequence?
• Have clear performance expectations been communicated (SMART Goals)?
• Are the necessary resources available?
• Have the right people been recruited, selected, and placed?

References

1. Thomas F. Gilbert, Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance (San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2007). View this book on Amazon.com
2. Ken Blanchard, Leading at a Higher Level: Blanchard on Leadership and Creating High Performing Organizations, rev. ed. (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: FT Press, 2010). View this book on Amazon.com
3. Geary A. Rummler, Serious Performance Consulting According to Rummler (San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2007). View this book on Amazon.com

Bill Mugavin is a consultant at FlashPoint. He focuses his consulting in the areas of organizational development, and leadership and management development.

This post currently has 1 response.

I recently read an article in a mainstream magazine that took me on quite an emotional adventure. The piece offered tips to job seekers from a human resource professional’s perspective. I laughed (mostly at the Dilbert cartoons), I agreed, but mostly I got mad. The last thing we need in the HR profession, which is already sometimes misunderstood, is a popular publication creating content that reinforces negative HR stereotypes and, in some cases, gives wrong information. Here’s a synopsis of my journey through the article.

I laughed. . . .

A cartoon depicts a horn-haired boss asking his secretary to interview a job candidate. The secretary asks the candidate why he left his last job. After replying that he left because he punched his boss, the secretary promptly recommends the candidate for the job.

I agreed. . . .

The article provides good pointers for job seekers. For example, it advises them to research the organization before they go to interview. It’s frustrating when candidates ask me to tell them about our business. I’ve been tempted to give them 10 minutes alone with our website and then resume the interview. I also agree with the author that having your mother call to renegotiate your job offer is a bad idea.

I got mad. . . .

There is so much wrong with this quote from the article that I don’t know where to begin: “If you’re put on a performance improvement plan, you’re cooked. I might look you in the eye and say we’re going to do everything possible to make this work, but that’s just total BS.” As an organizational development (OD) consultant, this counters what I witness from HR professionals every day. Another quote nearly broke my OD heart: “All those boring training things? We think they’re boring too.” Really? Perhaps there’s something lacking with the trainer or the training content.

Information such as this is unhelpful and perpetuates negative images of the “HR person upstairs.” It reminds me that we have a long way to go as HR professionals in establishing our role as valued members of the leadership team. We know that we can provide great value to employees and can impact our company’s bottom line. We need to get that message across. I can’t wait to see an article published in a mainstream magazine that portrays us as progressive thought leaders. It’s time to get some good PR for HR!

I’m eager to hear what you think. Do you agree with my frustration and/or do you have ideas for changing the negative perception of HR professionals?

Jennifer Rufatto is a consultant at FlashPoint. She focuses her consulting in the areas of workplace learning, leadership development, and strategic planning.

Image: Derek Kimball

This post currently has no responses.

If you’re a manager and helped your employees set goals for the year, did you spend time worrying about setting the “right” goals?

If you did, you’re not alone. I’ve noticed many managers put undue pressure on themselves to craft “perfect goals.” In many cases they delay delivering final goals to their employees until they feel they have crafted worthy ones. Often, once they feel  they have done so, they relax, take a deep breath, and ignore their goal-setting files until the following year.

In situations such as this, goal setting becomes the key focus, and achieving the goal is ignored—the managers view the goal-setting process as the beginning and the end. But what if we focused on goal achievement rather than goal setting? Would that change how we looked at the entire process?

 If we did this, it might look something like this:

Step 1: Set the initial goal
Setting a goal is in essence documenting educated hope. Doing it doesn’t accomplish anything, but it gets you started in the right direction. When working with the employee to set a goal, apply your current knowledge about what is possible and what you need the employee to accomplish. Also consider what the organization must achieve in order to meet its strategic objectives.

Step 2: Regularly discuss progress
Check in regularly with the employee to see how he or she doing. The real work in achieving a goal is following up on progress, dealing with roadblocks, and assessing the viability of the goal. Without this a goal—no matter how “perfect”—is often doomed to fail.

Step 3: Restructure the goal when needed
Given all the things that change in an organization on a daily basis, how realistic is it that the initial goal you set will remain the best goal to achieve? The key is to monitor the goal progress and make adjustments as needed.

Step 4: Enjoy goal achievement
You did it! The goal began as a hope, and through planning, adjusting, and follow-up, the employee—with your guidance—achieved it!

I am interested in your thoughts on goal setting versus goal achievement. Please share!

Jennifer Rufatto is a consultant at FlashPoint. She focuses her consulting in the areas of workplace learning, leadership development, and strategic planning.

Image: Tina Phillips

This post currently has 2 responses.

This is the time of year when goal setting for the upcoming year goes into full swing for most organizations. Often both employees and managers struggle with this, as they try to create effective goals that are measurable and have impact. Many of us know about SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time Bound) and try to create them, but I find that sometimes people lose the spirit of the goal.

In his book Hundred Percenters, Mark Murphy suggests a different way of looking at goal setting. He suggests creating HARD goals, as spelled out below:

H = Heartfelt—Murphy suggests that people want to do something more than just hit a numeric target. They want to do something they believe in. He uses the “NOBLE” formula as a litmus test for the Heartfelt component of the goal: “Name a party Other than ourselves who will Benefit from this goal Like customers or End users.”

A = Animated—I’m sure that a lot of us can relate to Murphy’s next point, which is that many of our goals are boring. For example, consider the following goal: “Create a new inventory system by April 30, 2011, to streamline spending on supplies.” Woo hoo! (I’d be jumping out of bed to get working on that one!) The problem isn’t the goal itself, but rather how it is worded. It is lifeless and lackluster. Murphy says that goals should be inspiring by graphically and vividly describing the results. So instead, try writing the goal above this way: “Work with managers to create and implement a new streamlined inventory system that could give them up to $10,000 back in their budget to put toward whatever area they feel needs more money. Have this system up and running by April 30, 2011, and follow up with managers to see how it is working by August 31, 2011.” In this case, the employee can see how completing the goal will directly impact every manager he works with.

R = Required—When setting a goal, ask why it is necessary. If it isn’t crucial, don’t set it! Goals should drive and direct employees throughout the year. If they aren’t critical to the business, then why have them?

D = Difficult—Research shows that performance increases as goals become tougher. This makes sense. If the goal is easy, how good will the employee feel when she accomplishes it? Not very. If she has to push and stretch, however—if she’s a little afraid she won’t hit it, her commitment and performance increases to meet the challenge. And she feels energized, confident, and proud when she does accomplish that goal.

To learn more about these ideas, check out Murphy’s Hundred Percenters: Challenge Your Employees to Give It Their All, and They’ll Give You Even More (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010). Then as you work on finalizing goals for 2011, try to make them SMART and HARD and see what happens. Let me know what you think!

Jennifer Rufatto is a consultant at FlashPoint. She focuses her consulting in the areas of workplace learning, leadership development, and strategic planning.

Image: Michal Marcol

This post currently has 1 response.

I sat in my kitchen watching the television intently as Lebron (James) stated that he was “taking his talents to South Beach” and joining the Miami Heat, arguably the most talented basketball team currently assembled in the NBA. Sports radio could not leave the topic alone and the debate was not if they would win a title, but how many they would win and could they break the record for most wins in a season.

Reminiscent of the 2004 Dream Team II basketball team that shocked the world by winning only a bronze medal in Athens, the Heat started the season with a dismal 7-9 record. What was going on? You had three of the best players in the league on one team and you couldn’t buy a win. Then it happened. . .eleven wins in a row and now the Heat sit near the top of the NBA food chain.

What do I mean by “it” happened? They started playing as a team. They started to work within the game strategy (offensive and defensive systems), and stopped trying to individually create opportunities. They checked egos. They leveraged talents instead of trying to trump everything with talent. They started listening.

When I take FlashPoint’s message on the road I often state that great systems are better than great people. I say it in part to get people’s attention, but FlashPoint definitely believes that without a great system you will underutilize superstars and eventually lose them.  A great system will also maximize the potential of your average worker by clearly explaining expectations and accountabilities.

What systems am I talking about? Here are just a few:

Talent acquisition system

Onboarding system

Performance management system

Total rewards system

Training and Development

Client engagement system

Succession planning

Even if you don’t have Lebron on your team, if you have great systems in place you can acquire the right talent for your business, maximize their potential, and ultimately make your business more successful.

Jeremy King, SPHR is the Business Development Manager at FlashPoint.

This post currently has no responses.

Here it is again—that wonderful time of the year! No, I’m not talking about the holidays (though they are indeed pretty terrific), but instead the time when many of us conduct annual performance reviews for our employees and provide merit increases for the next year.

If you’re a manager and are budgeting for merit increases, FlashPoint has helpful data for you. Julie Bingham, our senior consultant, regularly keeps up-to-date with the latest compensation-related research and trends. Julie’s a member of WorldatWork, the national compensation and benefits professional association, and she recently received results from WorldatWork’s 2010-11 salary budget survey:

• The national average merit increase in 2010 was 2.5 percent, and the national average projected 2011 increase is 2.9 percent.
• For the central U.S., the average increase in 2010 was 2.5 percent, and the projected 2011 increase is 3.0 percent.
• For Indiana, the average increase in 2010 was 2.5 percent and the projected 2011 increase is 2.9 percent.

According to Julie, this data includes those organizations that offered or plan to offer no increase (that is, it includes zeros), and if you exclude the zeros, the data comes in slightly higher.

Julie also notes that other sources, including the 2010-2011 Mercer U.S. Compensation Planning Report, indicate similar trends.

Earlier this year, Julie wrote an article on regaining control of your compensation programs, with six steps you can take to assess and adjust them. As you consider your merit increases and other compensation-related issues in the new year, it’s a great resource. You can find it here.

Meanwhile, best wishes as you wrap up your year-end HR projects (including those performance reviews—mine is December 15) and as you prepare for 2011. And amid all the hoopla, don’t forget to take time to enjoy the other activities the season has to offer! Happy holidays!

George Hanlin is a consultant at FlashPoint.

Image: nuttakit

This post currently has no responses.