ROI Tag Archive

Systems diagnostics are essential to create high performance

December 18, 2017| Organizations, Systems|

I have spent the better part of two decades helping organizations solve big, complex challenges that hold back performance and create problems with strategy execution. The problems have varied from talent to teams to the operating model and workforce management. And the solutions have ranged from compensation, to communication, to work redesign, matrix decision making, leadership behaviors, and much more. But the one thing that has been a critical part of the diagnosis and finding solutions in all cases has been systems thinking.

Systems thinking has roots that trace back over six decades ago to Kurt Lewin (1951), and include approaches promoted by prominent authors including Leavitt (1965), Galbraith (1977), Tichy (1983), and many more. At its most fundamental, this approach demands that we look at the entire organizational system when diagnosing the sources of performance problems to identify solutions that work.

(more…)

Read More →

Workforce Planning That Really Is Strategic

August 17, 2017| People, Systems|

Most workforce planning efforts are fairly short sighted and narrow, and could more accurately be called 12 month hiring plans. Strategic workforce planning promises to deliver greater value by using a longer time horizon and a talent supply chain approach. The problem, however, is that even then it’s still too narrowly focused on the low hanging fruit of butts in seats. In order for HR to really raise its game, workforce planning has to be much more focused on addressing holistically the systemic talent issues that impede business performance. (more…)

Read More →

High Performance Work Design Trumps Employee Engagement

April 6, 2017| People, Systems|

People usually equate high performance with employee engagement. Yet engagement is not the same as productivity and performance. How engaged people are depends on the work design, and the work design itself can promote productivity separately from employee engagement. Individual ability also is a critical contributor. Together they are the three main contributors to job performance: state of mind, ability, and job design. Engagement refers only to the first, yet the other two are arguably more important, especially for sustained performance over an extended time.

(more…)

Read More →

Strategic Analytics is a team sport

November 10, 2015| People, Systems|

Right now senior leadership in both the business and in HR are leaving value on the table. We have to end the “business as usual,” nonintegrated way enterprise analytics and human capital analytics are conducted.

The lack of coordination is understandable at first glance. People are very busy: dividing business and HR process management and the accompanying analytics up into separate domains makes it easier to tackle the tasks. That way the leadership of the business and the leadership of HR stick to what they know best, including the analytics needed to monitor and assess progress. But the divide-and-conquer approach is precisely where things go wrong. (more…)

Read More →

Choose impact, not process: Evaluate HR program intent, not just the design

September 26, 2015| People, Systems|

In my previous post I argued that HR needs to stop focusing on “best practices” and making its processes world class. A related problem happens when it comes to evaluating how HR is doing, and what criteria should be used. The problem is that HR too often focuses on the programs as designed, not whether they really address what the business needs. Three examples illustrate this point: compensation, leadership development and competency models, and training and development.

Compensation. A key issue in evaluating an HR program is whether you evaluate the program’s design or its intent. For example, merit raises are supposed to motivate people to perform. The design goal of the program is to differentiate compensation based on performance, which is one target measurement. The program’s intent—providing increased motivation to perform—is separate and much more difficult to measure. (more…)

Read More →

ROI falls short for evaluating human capital and HR

July 29, 2015| People, Systems|

In my previous post I discussed why ROI falls short as a tool for making business decisions. Here I address why ROI doesn’t live up to the promise it’s supposed to have for evaluating human capital and HR.

HR is often asked to show the ROI of its programs and processes. Think about how this usually plays out. When applied to human capital or HR, ROI is almost always used defensively to justify programs and policies for which there is not enthusiastic support. At the same time, there often is unwavering support for people and processes that key stakeholders “know” are critical for strategic success. So if ROI is not the preferred method for understanding how people and processes contribute to strategic success, what is? And how can organizations better diagnose what levers they need to pull to improve strategy execution and organizational effectiveness? (more…)

Read More →

The ROI monster under the bed

July 15, 2015| People|

Return on investment (ROI) is perhaps the most universally applied tool ever created in the history of finance. It is a standard measurement used to evaluate the financial return from an investment or project.

For all its power, though, ROI is a lot like the monster or bogeyman hiding under the bed that young children fear. It can seem big and scary, even at times all powerful, when we are young. But when we grow up and can see things with a broader perspective, we understand the reality and can put our youthful fears to rest. ROI today is used like a litmus test for HR—if HR cannot show a high enough ROI, then Finance will never approve what HR wants to do. And HR is like the young child fearing the ROI bogeyman under the bed: it doesn’t have the right perspective on the limitations of ROI and what should be done instead. (more…)

Read More →

Employee engagement does not cause performance

March 13, 2015| People, Systems|

We know from decades of research and practice that performance leads to job satisfaction. When people are productive, accomplish their objectives, get good feedback on their performance, and are rewarded for being productive, they usually are satisfied with their jobs.

The counter argument – employee engagement causes performance – makes intuitive sense yet does not necessarily hold empirically. The easiest way to make most employees happy is to keep their compensation the same and cut their responsibilities in half. However, doing so would completely destroy profits. Thus employee engagement does not always “cause” improved organizational performance.

(more…)

Read More →
↑