This site called Ryze is a great place to meet and connect with people!

On ISTT I wrote this:

Cognitive and rational decision making as marketing guys know better
than anyone (HR guys included!) comes a piddly second to the power of
emotional/aspirational appeal !

So how can cold rational logical data like "not being good for
health" compete with a message like "wanna be cool...have x/y/z" ??

Free choice did someone say?

How can choice be free when media is controlled by advertisers and
therefore information that goes out either ignores the 'bad' parts or
is heavily edited ??

In HRavenues I wrote the following on the discussion if HR was a necessary evil !
Let's admit it, HR's credibility has been in question over a long
time not just in India but across the world. People like Dave Ulrich
have even studied what HR needs to do to become more "value-adding"
to the business rather than being an operational department.

While there are many reasons for this, the prime reason has been the
rise of an economy where people's imaginations and ideas are critical
to an organizations growth. Capital and finance does not count for
much.

HR stands at a threshold today.

Of all organizational functions it apparently understands the people
more than other functions. If it cannot translate that understanding
and insight into value for the organization then it will lose even
the apparently low levels of credibility it has today.

But to do that it needs to marry its insight with the needs of the
business. An HR person no longer can be 'just' an HR person. He/she
should be a generalist, with ease of understanding the financial and
customer perspectives. The future belongs to those business leaders
who know the cross-functional perspective and are not 'wedded' to any
function.

In the KMSI group

Well, KM is understood differently by different organizations, and
leads on to different deliverables.

For example, Buckman laboratories had a objective of increasing their
IP by doing KM ...Hughes had a different objective, and BP-Amoco had
different aims.

The key to KM success, in my humble opinion, is to set a objective
that is central to the organization and then build KM processes
around achieving that objective.

So if reducing time of proposals is the KM objective in the next 3-4
months then that objective if shared with all the employees would be
a measurable low-hanging fruit. Very often, if such an objective is
not shared then KM initiatives like creating yellow pages, and
sharing of documents etc are nice to do, but not percieved as
necessary.

Another point to keep in mind is that the objective if clashing with
the existing organizational culture would be a recipe for disaster.

So, if current performance reward systems are based on business units
achieving the target, and the KM objective is to share knowledge
across business units, then you can see which one will fail, unless
the reward system for latter are greater than that of the former.

On ISTT My post :

What gives us Indians an edge in this world is a paradoxical ability
to balance the super-structured with the totally ambiguous !

In my view, no other civilisation (Jung would call it the 'collective
unconscious of a people'), save the Japanese, drills in both the
factors to such an amazing degree. So you have the example of a
Ramanujam who excelled in the so called structured world of maths
relying on mysticism and intuition.

So what, I hear you ask? What does this psycho-babble have to do with strategy? with business? with India Inc.?

Look around you ! The structured world of business as Taylor, Ford
and Sloan knew it is falling (or has fallen) like a house of
cards...and the domino effect is happening around the world. In these
chaotic times the skills that are needed most are the duality to
balance the chaos of the environment with order and structure of the
organization...and yet not be rigid !

The rise of the Knowledge Age...Drucker called it...when individual
expertise is the most coveted...in the Financial Analyst industry
(the "new Jews" is what Indian whiz kids are called on Wall Street),
in the Software industry (too numerous to chronicle), in the still
developing discipline of Management (CKP, Rajat Gupta, Sumantro
Ghosal, Ram Charan are uber-gurus!)

I believe the skills that help us succeed in these diverse fields are embedded in us, in our psyches.

The Continuing McKinsey Mystique
Top-Consultant.com says:
'Positioning' is indeed a key differentiator. The firm goes to incredible lengths to gain the confidence of decision makers in what it believes will be large or strongly growing markets in five years' time or more. That is why McKinsey has been making a strong push in countries such as China and India, which cannot possibly be justified in terms of the immediate return, but which may be looking good when we all grow a little older. The partnership structure helps. 'Gratification or profit deferred' is not a phrase that actually rolls off the lips of McKinsey's top staff when describing their willingness to look to the long term; but it would be just about unthinkable for publicly-quoted firms to take the same long-term view.

The following are my comments on Knowledge Board whether KM is hype or reality:

Well the answer is paradoxical...KM is a needed reality for organisations that are struggling to cut costs and building customer insights.

Let's go back to the mid and late 90s, when the words "KM" started becoming buzzwords from academic discussions, and suddenly everyone wanted a piece of
the pie.

What drove this demand?

I believe it was the belief propelled by the mental model of "plough back".
Let me extrapolate.

Earlier, when human knowledge and expertise was driving the growth of organizations, there was a system a work that was knocking down typical
organizational structures and power systems. People who had knowledge and expertise could and did demand price based on the value they could add to
the organization. And if one firm did not, they walked out of the door carrying their experience and expertise between their ears.

Then suddenly came this mantra called "Knowledge Management" which the CEOs saw as an opportunity to hark back to the older system. They said "Ah! This
is what we want. Let the people go..but we can keep their disembodied knowledge" And the consultants saw this opportunity and propelled this grand
misconception.

However, now the consultants turn to him and say "Sorry , to do KM, you got to keep investing in and developing people" and the CEO is stunned...isn't
that the job of his Training Manager ? But doesn't that means "giving" his people more knowledge? But,wasn't the promise of KM that it would "take" the
knowledge from his people and be free from their whimsical demands...?

And so, the mental model of a "taker" that drives the CEO keeps him very suspicious of fads like Knowledge Management that promised (in his understanding) one thing and now are delivering another...

Thoughts welcome. "

Well, that was then...after those days, have ruminated on it and come to the conclusion that KM will not do.

The road has to lead to Knowledge Creation, and systems that evoke the human imagination, not exploit them....and to do so, KM will need to drop the
mental model of management and take on the role of creation and facilitation.

In effect, it will no longer be enough to ask :

1. Where does this Knowledge reside?
or even,
2. Who knows that?
(these are the questions that IT and Knowledge Repositories had an answer to)

Increasingly we will move to answering questions that are on the lines of:

1. How do we leverage what we know to create bigger, better, faster.....?
2. How do we work with each other across boundaries, breaking out of our silos, learning from each other, confronting each other openly and adding value to ourselves as people and to the organizations we work with?

So here are my mantras for the death of KM ....long live KC (read the short review of the book by Nonaka, Ichijo and Von Krogh "Enabling Knowledge Creation")

1. The mental models will move from "KM Structures and Processes" to "Knowledge Ecologies"
2. From contribution we'll move to collaboration
3. From repositories and databases we'll move to 'places' or 'contexts'
4. From internal to organizations, knowledge sharing will become more inter-organizational
5. From teams we'll move to communities
6. From the IT department knowledge will take its place amongst people who run the business, and learning process owners will lose another opportunity
to influence at a strategic level.
7. Benefits of knowledge sharing will start to move from "cost savings" to "value additions" and "new value"
8. A synergy will emerge between strategic thought that looks at knowledge creation , complexity theory that views knowledge as a complex human process, sensemaking that looks at what humans create in their mind and why and creation of something out of seemingly nothing. :-)

on India Strategy Think Tank I had this to say about Organizational Structure and It's role in Innovation:

The question to ask is :

1.What is the purpose of the structure and processes?

2.Are they serving that purpose?

3. If they are not, what (pardon the word) innovative processes and
structures will facilitate faster communication and better alignment?

I specifically liked the idea of forming a team around a process. A
lot of organizations have such 'cross-functional teams' in place for
specific projects. And a 'extra-constitutional team' often is formed
to help tide over organizational crises.

Why not have a team for each process flow looking after it end-to-
end? Indeed, why not? Why have so many information hand-overs
between otherwise vertical silos?

A cross-functional team around each work process in an
organization??? Amazing thought!

The challenge here would not be to say "my turf-your turf" but "my
outcome...our purpose!"

On India Strategy Think Tank I had this to say about Quality Certifications in Indian s/w industry:

Well I really don't know how CMM certification operates now...but
when I joined one of India's big 5 IT services firm I realised what a
sham the CMM level x certification was.

In those days at least either a particular location of the firm or
particular project could go in for a CMM level x certification and
then the company would go about telling everyone that it had done
it!! Achieved that elusive CMM certification.

And the CMM certification is not like a ISO certification which keeps
getting assessed again and again...once you have it for one project
you can say the whole company has it !!

on world of HR I wrote the following on Bonds/ Contract Letters

This is quite a grey area in the area of training and I don't know
if any companies have managed to institutionalise such a process,
and whether if challenged, it has stood upto scrutiny in a court of
law. Quite a few software companies have such a 'service bond' for
fresh recruits for a period of 2-3 years. You could contact them.

However, I'd wager that any such bond will not be workable in a
course of law.

On the other hand, you'd be sending out a wrong signal to people in
the firm when you make them sign such a bond. It would communicate
to people that the firm does not trust them and is quite
transactional in its dealings. It might even trigger off thoughts of
attrition in people who have had no intention of leaving.

Training however, can be used as a reward mechanism for people. High
end training can be given to people who are high performers and a
clear career path can be made visible to them.

It would be good to keep in mind that causes for attrition are
frequently in the employees immediate work space and trying to clamp
a legal leash on them can be counter productive.

on HRgyan the following post on Induction of Sales People:

There is no ONE defined kind of induction. Before you design any kind of
training/induction intervention you need to clarify the following:

1. Who is the target audience?
2. What is the purpose of the training/ induction?
3. What learning objectives do you want them to go back with?

If you can figure out the above three points then designing the induction
would be comparatively easy.

If you want the outcome to be awareness of each other, learning from each
other, learning about the company (in case they are new hires), its systems
and processes, learning about the industry .in all these cases the content
and delivery methodology would be different.

On Hrgyan the following on LSIP:

LSIP, or Large Scale Interactive Process, is an exercise that groups employees for brainstorming and then formulates action plans to address people-related issues that impact businesses. It is considered by many to be a necessary exercise to create a performance-driven and competitive workforce. This intervention, like many others, involves mix-and-match table groups of eight-to-ten people and usually lasts three days. LSIP first appeared in 1974 in the Annual Review of Psychology, but became a preferred organisational development tool only in the 90s. A relatively new concept in India Inc., I have heard that LSIP is a popular HR tool with companies like
Maruti Udyog Limited, Brittannia Industries, GE India, and Alstom India.

POsted the following on HRGyan on Performance linked component in HR Manager's Pay

Any compensation initiative should tie in to the strategic
objectives and directions of the firm and the group that the change
is to be implemented in. This is because the connotations of
compensation and pay communicated a lot of unsaid assumptions to the
employees.

Therefore it would be a worthwhile exercise on the organizations
path to get the following answers for further directions:

1. What is the overall strategic direction for HR?
2. Hence what are the areas of emphasis that HR needs to concentrate
on?
3. Can clear measurable factors be evolved for these areas?
4. If yes, is there a transparent system to track and monitor the
achievement of these factors?
5. If so, it would be a good decision to link these milestones to
the variable salary portion.

on HRgyan I posted the following for HR due diligence :

my first reaction was ...

Can someone do a cutural compatibility audit?
What about compensation and levels and performance management
systems? How compatible are they?

On doing a search on the internet I came across the following
definition of HR due diligence:

The gathering, analysis, and reporting of the affect of human
resources strategies, financials, practices, policies, and procedures
on the corporate business decision to merge or acquire another
organization.

WHY?

Compare the hr practices of the organizations involved

Determine the cost of amalgamating the hr practices

Determine the complexity of amalgamating the hr practices

Identify issues/opportunities

Set the stage for implementation
Areas to be compared and analysed :
Human Resources Strategy
Human Resources Polices & Practices
Topic/Practice Areas

Human Resources Strategy

Policies & Practices

Group Benefits

Perks/Incentives: Employees

Additional Perks/Incentives:
– Executives; Sr. Management

Performance Management

Salary Administration

Organizational Structure

Employee Development

Culture
Human Resources Strategy
What do they believe in?
What principles do they follow?
What are their values in treating employees?
HR Policies & Practices

Examples
– Business Hours
– Work Week
– Definition of Status
– Breaks
– Vacation Allowance
– Car Allowance
– Allowable time off
– Corporate Attire
– Severance Packages
– Employee Surveys
– HRIS System

Beware of special "deals"
Group Benefits

Benefits Offered
– Include details

Eligibility

Administrator/Carrier

Cost of opting out

Cost: Employee/benefit

Claims experience
– STD, LTD, absenteeism

"Special benefits"

Consider different groups
Perks/incentives:
Employees

Group/Annual Incentive Plan

EFAP

Recognition Program

Christmas Party/Bonus
Perks/Incentives:
Executives/Sr. Mngt.

Incentive Plans
– Group, LTI

Vehicles

LTI

Allowances

Enhanced Benefits
Performance Management

Performance levels

% staff in each level

Turnover ratios

# terminations & reasons

Existing HR legal liabilities

Role definitions

Competencies, performance measurements

Format & process
Salary Administration

Consider total compensation
– Base, incentives, group

Salary structure
– Job bands/grades/job rate
– Market determination

Calculation of merit/other increases

Reasons for increases Salary Administration cont.

Pay timing
– Payroll & adjustments

Salary as a % of assets

Payroll system

"Special" comp. arrangements
Organizational Structure

Obtain structures

Compare to market

Budget/s
Employee Development

Strategy

Budget
– per group or topic

Educational Policies
– Loans & Assistance

Type of training provided
– Statistics
Employee

Training Methods
– Classroom, on-job, E-learning,
Self study

Contractual arrangements

Use of external resources

Link to incentives/recognition

On soft skills training for Software professionals on World of HR :

The first step in the training process is to come out with the
Training Needs. Needs are derived from a process called Training
Need Analysis (TNA).

The TNA is done by the Training department (in a small company by
the HR person) after taking into consideration three factors:

1. Overall business objectives of the firm
2. The objectives of the teams/business units
3. Personal development of the individual.

The needs could be skill based (technical or managerial) or
behavioural (referred as soft-skills, and in my personal view
totally useless in the way it is conducted in most places ;-))

These needs are then compiled and a training calender is usually
drawn up. Nowadays most firms are pushing the onus for managing
training back on to the employees by using e-HR, HRIS or ESS tools.

And more on the same topic of 'self-esteem' enhancement:

I don't think it is making 'things more complicated'...self-
confidence, self-esteem are factors of how a person views
oneself...linked very strongly to one's self-identity and these
areas are not simplistic to deal with broad brush stokes...in fact,
it's our search for simplistic solutions that leads to the rash of
self-help and motivational gurus...
...if only life and work were so simple...!

Or here is a different set of assumptions (am pulling them out of a
hat...no aspersions cast on anyone !):

Company A makes its people work in difficult circumstances, with
difficult targets and minimal development, with the threat of a job
loss whenever a person misses the monthly or quarterly target...and
when an employee is not able to cope and misses those targets...then
the supervisor turns around and blame the employee's 'self-esteem'
in the performance appraisal ...very convenient for an organization
to wash its hands off any responsibility and pass the buck on to the
person's percieved lack of self-esteem/self-confidence/whatever
...and HR lands itself with a Training Needs Analysis
of "Increasing Self Esteem" trying to figure out which trainer can
help the person develop self-esteem and therefore perform...

on IHRC I wrote this about 'self-esteem enhancement techniques'

You can look at self esteem with the following lens:

1. Observable behaviors
2. Process
3. Mental models.

Let's take an example, observable behaviour is when a person asserts
himself when he/she is not taken seriously...would you link that to
self esteem?

On the process front, you get the context into focus...where is this
person not demonstrating self esteem? If in different contexts, then
there is something at the behavioral process level that is being
driven by something more fundamental...

Mental models, are the way we make sense of the world around us and
are formed by our experiences through our primary system. To affect
changes at this level is the level of expertise that very few people
can actually work at...most HR people simply do not have the skill..

on HRgyan I wrote this about 'psychometric tests'

Over the last few days I have been trying to study management
thoughts and concepts and why they succeed. I have come down to these
three reasons, and I believe it also holds true for psychometric
tests..because they are concepts with a tool manifestation.

1. Respectable proponent: Most successful tests are advocated by a
person who has respect and credibility, in the eyes of the customer
client. Or is based upon the theory of a figure like that. This
automatically confers on it the halo effect of credibility.

2. Publicised successes: In the business community the success of
such a tool and technology is widely publicised.

3. Publications: When a tool is near its pinnacle a book is written
about it...after which it passes into common language ...! The
publications also help the tool to become a demand led tool rather
than sales driven :-)