Evaluation

How to Improve Employee Training and Development

by
dizain/Shutterstock

There are three things in life that are always in limited supply: time, energy and money. Whenever an organization runs a training program it is using up those three limited resources: time to train, time away from productive work, the energy required to design and participate in training, and the associated monetary costs allocated to the training. These factors must all be considered when implementing any training programs.

An article published in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) by Keith Ferrazzi, author of the book Who’s Got Your Back?, sheds light on how employee training can be improved. His broad research included training leaders in large organizations and from many different industries. He also consulted with academic leaders in several universities.

Ferrazzi’s research identifies 7 key challenges organizations must understand and address in order to improve their employee training and development.

Click here to read the HBR article, entitled the 7 Ways to Improve Employee Development.

Here is a summary of the themes identified by Ferrazzi. Remember there is a best-before date in training — everything moves so fast in today’s business world that most training has a short shelf life. So, when you think of training, think milk.

Two of the most critical factors in effective training have little to do with the content of the training and everything to do with an organization’s culture and climate. How much do employees trust an organization, and how passionate are managers about developing employees? These factors are critical.

The remaining training improvements focus on specific elements:

  • individual accountability
  • understanding the complex world of different learning styles,
  • and how to develop your virtual teams.

Dr. Edward Hess has asserted that organizations will either “learn or die”. If organizations reflect on Keith Ferrazzi’s ideas about to improve employee development, I believe they might just remain in rude health.

Discussion Questions:

  1. After reading the HBR Article reflect on the following:
  2. What is your opinion on the validity of Keith Ferrazzi’s ideas on how to improve employee development? Do you agree or disagree with the ideas? Support your position with evidence and your own ideas.
  3. From Ferrazzi’s 7 training improvement ideas pick the two that you feel are the most important and defend your position as to why.

A Tiny Insight Into Executive Pay

by
Pranch/Shutterstock

As we study the multiple concepts that go into the development of a company’s compensation strategy, we do not often have an opportunity to delve into the complexities of how executive level compensation is determined.

A recent announcement by the shareholders of Canadian Pacific Railway Limited (CP)provides us with an opportunity to dig a little deeper into how executive compensation is either curtailed or increased.

Click here to read the article.

A number of compensation-related questions arise from the reading of this announcement. Who determines the executive levels of compensation? How are the levels determined in a pay-for-performance strategy? How does the shareholder influence executive compensation? Why is there a need to focus on safety as part of a pay-for-performance strategy?

Some of the answers to these questions may be found in CP’s public documents, such as the April 2016 NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS AND PROXY STATEMENT. This document is available in the public domain. It provides us with an opportunity to explore, just a little bit, the role of governance structures and shareholder decision making linked to the determination of changing executive-level pay metrics.

Click here to read CP’s shareholder document.

CP also posts executive-related metrics as part of its fiduciary responsibilities as a publicly traded company.

For the 2016 Executive Compensation metrics linked to stock valuations, click here.

As the shareholder document was issued prior to the decision to curtail the levels of executive compensation, it provides us with clear expectations of the pay-for-performance philosophy, which was identified as part of the organization’s governance structures and metrics. Further, this public report offers insight into the levels of compensation structures for both internal executives and shareholders benefiting from the ongoing profitability of the company. Profitability came from effective operations, according to the 2016 report. The posted pay metrics were linked to stock values. These documents confirm that pay-for-performance was directly linked to profit levels and both executives and shareholders benefited accordingly.

We can only surmise that, as a result of the information provided in these documents, along with other internal sources, shareholders made the decision to re-shape the performance drivers by introducing ‘safety and operating income’ as metrics for determining compensation levels and rewards.

This appears to reflect a shift in focus. One wonders if the compensation and performance levels will shift accordingly. The results from the next set of public documents will tell that tale.

Discussion Questions:

  1. After reading the CP shareholder document, identify the compensation strategies that link pay for performance.
  2. What benefits do shareholders who serve as directors for CP receive?
  3. From a compensation analyst perspective, how could the decision to cut executive-level perks influence compensation planning for the rest of the organization?
  4. As a consumer, what do you think about the changes to executive-level compensation for CP?

Perilous Productivity

by
productivity chart sign on blackboard
woaiss/Shutterstock

In our strategic HR planning discussions, we focus heavily on the cost-benefit relationships of Human Resources operations to the organization. Using the human capital approach, the value that employees as a commodity bring into any organization is linked directly to the output that is produced for the organization. We assess employee value by ensuring that human productivity is constantly measured, evaluated and monitored as part of a best practice approach to human resources management.

It all makes sense from a pure HR planning perspective. When we move from theoretical planning to actual implementation, however, the human element of the human resources equation pops up again to remind us that we are always dealing with people, not just products.

In a recent research article the authors explore the negative impact of the incessant need modern organizations have to monitor employee productivity.

Click here to read the article.

As noted in this article, it seems that the Human Resources function has been trapped into measuring and promoting policies that contribute to increased employee anxiety. Increased employee anxiety leads to lower productivity and more employee dis-engagement. Are we, as HR professionals, responsible for contributing to the ‘mirage’ of successful productivity by avoiding the real implications of constant workplace pressure on our fellow human beings? In an effort to measure what people do, are we also contributing to the mechanism of who gets blamed when the results of what is measured go wrong?

Human Resources champions have fought long and hard for a seat at the corporate table. We argue that Human Resources has the strategic edge to brings the business numbers and the people numbers together so that decision-making produces organizational benefit. While our Human Resources champions do not want to give up that seat or that fight, we must be reminded of why we wanted to contribute to organizational success in the first place.

We represent the Humans in any organization. Human Resources must champion human achievement and organizational success, but not at the cost of worsening the human condition in the workplace.

Discussion Questions:

  1. What types of employee productivity measures do you think contribute to increased employee anxiety?
  2. Why would organizations (like the example of Volkswagen mentioned in the article) knowingly engage in the ‘misrepresentation’ of productivity data?
  3. In your opinion, does an ‘accountability culture’ breed a trust environment in the workplace? Why or why not?

Measuring What is Needed

by

 

Image of young businesswoman sitting on chair under spot of light
Sergey Nivens/Shutterstock

The Human Resources professional’s role is not always in the organizational spotlight. That space is reserved for the organizational leader. Once in the spotlight, all of the characteristics of the leader are highlighted, from both a positive and a negative perspective. In either case, there is increased focus on the need for the leader to improve upon any perceived negative leadership traits in order to increase the level of positive leadership.

 

Where then should the focus be in order to support positive leadership development?

We need to let the statistics do the talking.

As noted in a recent article provided by the Society for Human Resource Management, there is an alarming rate of leadership development programs resulting in failure for the very leaders these programs are intended to assist.

Why? The statistics seem to indicate that the professional development being provided is not in line with the practical needs of the leader. What is needed by the leader is not what is evaluated by the organization. Evaluation comes with measuring real results and adjusting the organizational course when it is clear that those results do not meet organizational needs.

Click here to read the article.

The article raises an important distinction between ‘edu-trainment’ and true learning based on objective measures for the development of sustainable leadership capabilities. The Human Resources role is integral in maintaining learning programs where results are intentional, observable and measurable, ensuring the right kind of leadership development programs for all leadership roles within the organization.

As Human Resources professionals, we have the capacity to observe what is needed outside of the glare of the spotlight. From that perspective, we can see what is real; where the problems are; discern the difference between insipid inspiration and true leadership competencies; and establish learning outcomes for leaders that are measurable and sustainable. The Human Resources professional has the capacity and the obligation to ensure that valid organizational metrics are established. These should evaluate leadership development through a direct connection to the performance of employees and the results of the organization that the leader serves.

Human Resources will have its time in the spotlight when it is needed. In the meantime, there is always leadership work to be designed and done.

Discussion Questions:

  1. From your reading of the article, why do you think the author recommends that we ‘stop chasing inspiration’ as part of leadership development?
  2. Identify five specific metrics that an organization should implement that measure leadership development and provide a connection to organizational impact.
  3. Do you agree that HR is able to design programs that leadership development in a positive way? Why or why not?

Education, Skills and Experience – Willing to Relocate?

by

Maybe Not!

Source: Slavoljub Pantelic/Shutterstock
Source: Slavoljub Pantelic/Shutterstock

It seems to be a ridiculous notion, that, by having to move from one location to another, one might become less valuable in the economic marketplace.  This concept becomes even more ridiculous when considering the level of highly competent individuals who have worked diligently to earn formal professional credentials and carry with them years of professional training, expertise, and experience.  Yet, when these highly competent and trained individuals move from their home location to a new part of Canada, this is exactly what happens.

A recent report, Brain Gain 2015: The State of Canada’s Learning Recognition System issued by the Conference Board of Canada focuses on this issue.

Click Here to Read the Full Report

Click Here to Read a Summary Article

As noted in this article, Canadian workers stand to gain billions of dollars in economic gains should provinces recognize formal accreditation, training, and standards acquired from different places around the world.  When Canadian workers gain economically, there is a direct connection to the Canadian economy gaining as a whole.  However, this seems to be an untapped area of possibilities and opportunities.

This lack of recognition of credentials and learned expertise is not a new concept.  We see, hear, and read numerous accounts about the loss of employment credentials particularly focused on internationally trained immigrants coming to Canada.  There are numerous stories of dedicated and trained professionals landing in Canada who end up taking employment opportunities well below their career capacities.

What is not often highlighted, however, is the notion of province to province employment migration resulting in a similarly significant potential loss of credential recognition.

As Human Resources professionals, we too must face this challenge.  For those of us practicing in Ontario, we are able to earn credentials through the Human Resources Professionals Association resulting in one of three Canadian designations; CHRP, CHRL or CHRE.  Other provinces have their own credentialing bodies or professional association requirements.

It would certainly be a shame to lose the credibility of these earned credentials if one moved from Ontario to another province or vice versa.  Should fully trained, competent Human Resources professionals with years of experience, knowledge, expertise, and credentials expect to lose economically when transferring from one province to another?

There does not seem to be any benefit from this potential loss to anyone. The gains, on the other hand, from recognizing what has been legitimately earned seem to be significant.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Would you move to another location/country for work purposes if you knew your earned credentials or learned experience would not be recognized?
  2. How would provincial economies benefit from recognizing external credentials?
  3. Why do you think out of province and/or out of country credentials are not recognized?
  4. What is the value of learned experience from your perspective?
  5. Would you rather get advice from an HR professional who has ‘education’ credentials and ‘minimal’ experience or from an HR Professional who has years of experience and ‘minimal’ credentials?