A case for goal setting

Before January is over I wanted to make a case for Goal setting and encourage you to consider taking a moment to invest in yourself in the new year.  Personally, I’ve never been a fan of new year resolutions but goal setting makes sense to me.  Goals are targets you give yourself, which by definition show a commitment and a belief in your abilities.  In fact, I think Lululemon has it right in their mainifesto where they say

“Write down your short and long-term GOALS four times a year. Two personal, two business and two health goals for the next 2, 5 and 10 years. Goal setting triggers your subconscious computer. “

It’s possible that setting goals is just wasting your time.  It’s possible that  you are not disciplined enough to follow through.  But it also just might be possible that, by virtue of writing down your goals you will remind yourself of what is really important and will take action to focus some effort on those things that really matter. 

Sure, there is a corporate benefit to aligning and cascading goals which I also believe in, but I think the benefits for ourselves is not to be ignored.  So, take a moment and set some goals before January is done.  I think you can!

If you love someone set them free

Yes, the topic today is “Talent Mobility”. 

But Meg, you say, Mark already covered this topic a few weeks ago.  Yes, I know he did, but I’ve made a career out of repeating what Mark has to say, I don’t see why I should stop doing that now that I have a blog goal of an entry every week.

So the question is, how do managers deal with the conflicting priorities of wanting to succeed against their own objectives vs. the goals of their team members for career development?  Especially when the next career progression for an individual is not an opportunity that the manager has on their team?   How does an HR group encourage the idea of individual career development if they have managers who are incented to hoard talent?

One of the first problems to address is how you incent your managers.  If their incentives are exclusively project based and not based on growing their people you are probably going to have limited success in driving the kind of employee engagement that we have been talking about here at TalentedApps.

Another key factor will be showing talent mobility as a core value.  Are those managers who develop and share talent known in your organization?  Does your organization see these managers as more valuable?  They should.  Managers who are able to develop and share talent are going to provide more long term value to your company than those managers who are only concerned about their own personal objectives.  In addition, those managers who are good at spreading talent across your organization are probably those managers who have a more effective network in the organization, certainly a more loyal one.

So, as you look to set your own objectives this January think about how putting opportunities for those who work for you ahead of opportunities for yourself.   Not only does the golden rule tell you to do this, but in the end you and your company will benefit more as a result. 

Also, consider thanking someone who was influential in your own career by helping you achieve your own career goals, especially when that involved being open to the idea of you working somewhere else if that was necessary.  To that end I would like to thank my last two bosses (you know who you are and are probably thrilled to have me mention you publicly) who have made personal sacrifices to help me grow professionally.  This, in addition to having to put up with me as an employee, certainly disserves a good karmic return.

8 things you hate about Meg

 ok, not really things to hate, but facts you didn’t really want to know anyway.  Thanks to Jake’s experiment on a blog chain letter, I am now going to tell you eight things you didn’t know about me (probably for a good reason) and then force others to do the same.   I’m not sure I know another eight bloggers that would be willing to participate, so I expect this is going to work exactly as those panty chain letters I often got in college, where someone I don’t know got a nice pair of panties and I got nuthin… but I digress and for this post that is saying a lot. So without any further stalling here are eight things you probably don’t know about me

1. I’m sixth generation in the bay area.  My grandmother’s family came out pre-gold rush and both my grandmother and her mother were members of Native Daughters of the Golden West
2. I’m an expert in Bible trivia.  While not a follower of any organized religion myself, I attended private school and had born-again bible thumping parents for a period of about 10 years growing up.
3. I have bought groceries with food stamps in my lifetime.  Not a great experience, but one that does build character.
4. I am writing this entry from Park City, Utah where I have been skiing for a week.  I recommend Utah snow for anyone who is a “terminal intermediate” skier.  I like to refer to the experience as  “ego skiing”.
5. I have a job for which I am unqualified, at least in the technical sense.  I’m probably not alone in that statement but somehow I manage development teams while my formal training is in Business (Economics and Entrepreneurship), I had exactly one semester of anything even close to a computer class.
6. I have never been to South America.
7. I attended 10 different schools before completing K-12.  This is even more scary when you consider I skipped a grade and 7 of the 10 were in the same town.
8. I have a severe “sense of direction” disability which I overcome by memorizing a painful amount of information and taking a lot of u-turns.

So there you have it, eight boring facts about Meg.  And now for the process of attempting to tag eight other bloggers… I tag Mark, Amy, Gretchen and Rich as those are the only ones I know that were not tagged by Jake in the first place, and I’m sure some of them have been tagged already… doh!

Getting SaaS-y

I know what you are thinking, but I’m not planning to talk about this, well covered thread.  Nor, even this, catchy-titled observation.  I’m going to go back to basics a bit and talk about my thoughts about Software as a service (SaaS) and Human Capital management (HCM)/Talent Management.

Smart people, who I admire, have talked for quite some time on how Saas is important and how HCM has been playing in this space for quite some time.  Jason, Jason, Jim, Christa, to name a few, have been keen to point out some of the thinking and momentum for SaaS in our market.  I just thought it would be useful to take this dialogue a bit further, or maybe I was bored, you decide.

What is great about SaaS

The real advantage is that SaaS has provided a solution that customers can take advantage of easily.  There is limited commitment, adoption is quick and innovation can happen rapidly.  It lends itself nicely to the Talent marketplace where there is fragmentation, both in the vendor landscape, and within HR itself. 

What’s not great about SaaS

It seems (to me) that many are confusing a means of delivery and a sales revenue model with a solution to a business problem.  This is especially true in the Talent space where vendors, who are looking for a viable business model in a time of rapid consolidation, are all moving to SaaS as their only delivery vehicle. 

We all know that some of the larger benefits of a talent strategy cannot be realized with the level of integration that is possible with the current vendors in the market today, at least not without significant effort on the part of the customer.   Today most SaaS vendors take a necessarily simple approach to integration doing the minimal data integration necessary to make the process work.  This ignores the harder problems like when a business process spans multiple functional and technical disciplines and applications.   Of course, we often talk of OnBoarding and Off Boarding as examples where it quickly gets complicated.  There are even processes within the HR function like calibration, promotions and compensation where tasks require a holistic picture of not just the current data but the historical data as well.

What does it really mean? 

The current push of the market to SaaS will ultimately help all vendors as it will help draw attention to the need for a real focus on web services, service oriented architecture (SOA), ease of implementation and ability to realize the benefits we’ve been talking about for years for things like zero down time and selective upgrades. 

Companies need to be careful that they are leveraging what is good about SaaS, vs. getting themselves in deeper with a tangled IT landscape that has plagued the LMS implementations since the introduction of eLearning.  As Oracle uses the SaaS momentum as the competitive motivator it is, our customers need to make sure that they consider SaaS as a means to an end and not the strategy itself.

Hey Santa, what I really want is…

 Well I haven’t completed my list yet, but I’m sure it’s not a vacuum.  Turns out though, that for some people a new vacuum was exactly what made the difference between feeling appreciated vs. taken advantage of as an employee.

Then it got me thinking.  Over the last year, I have heard several similar stories from friends, colleagues and family members suggesting that sometimes [most times] it’s the little items that really can get us down.  For some, it might be having an approved business-use PDA be rejected from higher up the expense approval chain, or maybe something as simple as having to pay for a favorite notepad used exclusively for work out of your own pocket.  Others, have noted that the removal of aspirin from the company first-aid kit rubbed them wrong and some have had to personally pay for frames for employee appreciation certificates. In most cases, it is not the cost of the item but the perceived lack of consideration for the individual, that presents the issue. 

In my own experience, I once worked for a company that was so seriously cheap that we felt compelled to bring our own office supplies from home for fear of not having things like sticky notes or paper.  In fact, it has only been this last year that I have given up on the practice of buying my own pens.  Oh and don’t get me started on the excellent decor of this startup, orange shag carpet and authentic 70’s wood paneling — sexy!

You can imagine how nice it was for me working out of the PeopleSoft HQ with its Potterybarn inspired decor, I even felt good about my interior cave of an office in such a nice facility.  Then, after the acquisition, I moved to Oracle HQ and was over the moon at the beautiful facilities.  A gym that is beyond description and a cafe with an unbelievable array of pastries and the wonderful smell of fresh bread and coffee in the morning.  Last week, and I am not making this up, there was even a holiday concerto in the lobby.  Why?  I’m not sure, and unfortunately couldn’t attend, but just the idea amazes me. 

So what is the point?  Why the post?  Some time back Jake mentioned the fact that building 300 is being remodeled.  And here is where we come back to my Christmas wish to Santa, that is about to be granted.  For me, one of the biggest things I want is some decent chairs. 

Now, my own office chair is not too bad, not anything to write home about but not an ergo or comfort issue.  Every other chair on the floors I frequent, however, are not so lucky.  The guest chairs in my office have had several near injuries of co-workers.  The conference room chairs really defy description.  I’ve come to think of the 2nd and 3rd floors of building 300 as the burial grounds of the chairs at Oracle, and I’m really looking forward to that issue being fixed. 

So, thanks Santa, for getting my letter and taking it seriously enough to schedule a refurbishment of this building, to include some decent chairs.  I truly hope that I make it until we all move back into the new floor before I take out any additional hostility on the chairs that are left.  I realize its not their fault that they died years ago and no one gave them a proper send-off. 

Here’s hoping that you and your co-workers are as well considered this holiday season because some times it really is the little things that make the big difference.

The value of teams

Back in school (go cats), it was all the rage in the business program to have the majority of our work be team-based.  The thinking being, that in a work environment, it is really more about teams then individuals. 

Lately, I’ve been reading and thinking about teams and Talent Management.  Of course, this has taken me all over the place a bit but I’ll do my best to make a point vs. forcing you all to wonder all over the place like I have been. 

One place I ended up was this article on emotional intelligence of teams.   To summarize, its not just important for individuals to have emotional intelligence but its also useful for teams (duh!). 

This article points to the HBR study that gives three contributing factors to high functioning teams.

Trust among members

A sense of group identity

A sense of group efficacy

Ok, so teams need to trust each other, define themselves in terms of the group and they must feel, that as a team, they have the ability to actually get something done.  Again, duh!

Turns out that for some cultures (and for some people) a team dynamic is not just a nice to have.  Thanks to Mark for pointing me to this article that suggests that in Asia the team might be the biggest factor in engagement (see, I told you I’d attempt to bring this to a point).

In talking to customers about teams, there are several head scratching elements that HR groups face in trying to build teams that work well together.  Why do some teams work well and others not?  Is it one person?  How do we predict which teams will succeed? and so on. 

In my mind, it is for teams that the value of the social network can be brought to real business benefit. I would like to predict that companies that learn to leverage their social networks as both a productivity tool for teams, and as a tool for proactively identifying team members, will find a new competitive advantage for their talent.  And, if the insight into Asia is accurate, there might be exponential benefit to this strategy as well.

girl on a rant

Warning!  Any relationship with HR and Talent in this post is going to be accidental. 

I was complaining about something yesterday to a friend (for anonymity sake lets call him “Rich”) and he suggested that it might be time for a blog entry, entirely possible this was a “change the subject and shut her up” tactic but I decided to take him literally anyway.

As a bit of background, I should confess that I’m not a particularly good representative for the female norm.  While I do understand some stereotypically female things such as how a “charger” could relate to a table setting vs. just electronic devices, many traditional female “strengths” are lacking for me. 

For example, I have always preferred sleep over complex grooming rituals, I have never enjoyed talking on the phone, I prioritize foot comfort in shoe selection and [gasp] I do not enjoy anything about shopping. 

In addition, I really can’t complain about personal discrimination.  Any “glass ceiling” that I have experienced in my professional life has to be attributed to my gift for inserting my foot into my mouth, more then any bias against my gender.  As a general rule, working in high tech is a good place for a woman to be, maybe since there are so few of us, general expectations tend to be low… probably should think about that but don’t plan to today.

I was, however, surprised to find that the OpenWorld conference had a very strong gender bias.  I was surprised by this since, I personally saw a good attendance of females at the conference.  I know we were there because I was actively using the conference as personal fashion research (was the short skirt and tall boots a good choice?  turns out yes) and I didn’t have any trouble finding a representative sample. 

So, why was it, that the restrooms at Moscone were configured (yes it was news to me as well that there was the ability to configure the restrooms) to have a significantly smaller number of women’s stalls then men’s?  Those of us who had the misfortune to wait in line for facilities were left wondering, was this a bias based on registration numbers?  Or had those who planned the conference not heard about the Women’s Restroom Equity Bill? 

Then there was the question of the Cow Palace (the venue of the concert/appreciation party).  While standing in the line after the concert this topic came up.  One person in line suggested that since this building was old that maybe it was built before … suggesting it was built before people have been made aware of the need to have a different male-to-female ratio in facility planning.  But, my sharp colleague, who was standing next to me, asked the wise question of “what? the building was constructed before there were women?”

So, I ask the question, should I just realize that tech conferences at Oracle have a male bias?  Or, should I add this to the list of things that women need achieve in technology?  Makes me wonder if a similar restroom bias exists in SAP conferences?  Apple Conferences?  Anyone know?

Is Employee Engagement a managers job?

We’ve been talking about Employee Engagement for some time.  How do we engage people, why do we need to engage people – all that touchy/feely stuff that causes some of us to feel warm and fuzzy and others of us to hold back a gag reflex.

I’ve also been thinking about a Manager’s role in the overall Talent story for some time.  I think that to really do innovative things in Talent you not only need software and a HR vision but you really need solid line managers.  Initiatives like building, sharing and retaining talent fall down quickly with bad managers.  As the saying goes people join a company but they quit their manager.

I’ve read a few things lately that are food for thought for those of us who are managers.  Now I do not intend to suggest that we as individuals yield our own responsibility to define, nurture and grow our own careers but for those of us who are managers it can’t hurt to check in and see if we could be doing more.

Here is a quick article that talks about employee engagement and how “managing with a human touch” is a necessary ingredient for that to happen. 

I also recently read Three signs of a miserable job and found an interesting assertion on the responsibility of a manager.  This book focuses on how a manager is responsible to make the job of their employees something that they can feel positive about.  The most interesting thing that he points out is that the work is not really the most significant factor.  In other words, a movie star, a super model, a professional athlete can be less engaged in their job then a cashier a janitor or a factory worker.   His core points were that

1. People need to be recognized – he used the word Anonymity as the problem.  Managers need to engage with their teams as people first and employees second.  Yes, here is where the touchy/feely part comes in – if it makes you squirm as a manager then guess what?  Maybe you shouldn’t be in management.  People often confuse what is not legal to ask in an interview process with what they should not ask an employee.  So the question is: do you like your team?  Do you know them?  Do you care about them as people? Do you send them birthday gifts on Facebook? (ok that last part was a joke but you get the idea)
2. People need to be able to measure their work (Immeasurement)– If you can’t measure what you do or worse if you are measured on something that has no clear connection with what you do then you are probably less satisfied with your job.
3. People need to see a value in their contribution (Irrelevance)– People want/need to know that they make a difference in the lives of others with their contributions.  One very interesting point he raised is that managers are often not comfortable being clear to their teams that they need them. => So in case there is any doubt for my team – ohmygod do I need you guys

HR Transformation — are we sick of it yet?

I’ve been thinking about HR Transformation for quite some time and I’m starting to wonder how we can move on from HR transformation to “Beyond HR” when we never actually transformed in the first place. 

I have some concern that maybe we are just distracting ourselves to avoid actual measurement and accountability.  Are we witnessing a real desire to change the role of HR or are we just a manifestation of Corporate ADD?

It’s an OD problem, no it’s a recruitment (excuse me talent acquisition) problem, no it’s a performance management problem, wait it’s a succession planning problem, oh no I think it’s a web.20/community problem.  And don’t even get me started on the idea that it might be an analytics problem!

The more I study this market and talk to companies attempting to truly transform their organizations I come to realize that it is, and always was, a leadership problem.  I know I risk a good ducking here, but I believe that chasing the latest software fad without real vision and leadership will fail.  Not dissimilar to how a weight loss program that doesn’t involve diet and exercise  will ultimately fail for you (it might work for someone else, but it will not work for you, trust me on this one!).

So where to start and what to do?  First and foremost you need to find leadership.  Hopefully you can find that leadership in yourself but if not there, find someone who has it first.  Once you have acquired the will to lead then you can begin to benefit from the flywheel effect and realize results. 

If you cannot find the will to lead then I suggest you stop now before you spend important resources and energies on the hard part of a transformation (the starting) and never actually receive the benefits of the work.  At the risk of stating the obvious, I also suggest you use the same philosophy for your holiday (or post holiday) diet plan. 

Quit spending your time trying to find the silver bullet out there, you know that it doesn’t exist.  Instead, first analyze your own capabilities and then look to see how you can use technology to implement your vision.

Managers, the weak link of a talent strategy

I’ve been noodling for some time on the role of managers in a talent strategy.  Specifically, how they can seriously screw it up.  Being a manager myself I understand that I’m violating the glass house principle, but you know that hasn’t stopped me before.

Lets take an easy example to prove my point.  Lets say that your goal as an organization is to develop and engage talent.  Seems that as an HR organization, you would focus your energies on building individual development programs and follow up on employee engagement surveys, right?

Sure, but how does that actually work when you have managers who wont let their teams attend the training?  How does any program provided by HR break past this group that is clearly motivated to horde talent? 

 I’ve long been pondering the idea that for any talent strategy to really work you must first address the pivotal role of manager and find a way to align managers personal goals with the overall talent strategy. 

I would love to hear of cases where companies have been able to effectively make this happen.  Ideas? Experiences?