Do you know to what your employees are unwittingly exposing your company?

Posted on February 15, 2012 by GhostPartnership

 

Today,  in all companies who are “positively embracing social media” there is a big ticking time bomb for corporate legislature to defuse.
 
Informal email chitchat  carried out on company issues  and then held on file forever, can  be retrieved at a later date and potentially used out of context.
We have all probably seen pictures of computers being seized in enquiries or heard of the “for Neville” email. The point being that it is largely impossible to remove all traces of an email once it has been sent, rightly so. 
 
Defining implementing and policing electronic communications policies has never been more important for either the company or the employee. 
 
A well-managed process can form the backbone of winning employee sponsorship of a communication and involvement  programme. Managed badly and it will drive an invisible wall of mistrust through all levels of an organisation.
 
Never before in history has just about everyone in an organisation had the ability to communicate 140 characters globally, for no cost, and with little thought, to then wreak havoc upon the business from which it was sent. 
 
Governance and oversight are two words that currently don’t translate well into new age media speak. A clear strategy and an active management programme for the use of social media in the workplace are vital without which the saying “act in haste repent at leisure” has never been more true.
Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is it an oversight to have no oversight?

Posted on February 13, 2012 by GhostPartnership

 

With the exponential growth of the internet, the workplace is blending inexorably with our personal lives.
 
The excuse of being “at work” to shield one’s self from the rigours of immediate family matters, simply does not wash anymore.
 
Communication today is immediate.  Mobile internet communication brings the world pinging into your life in a seemingly inescapable fashion. So much so that it seems we no longer have distinct periods of time whilst we are working, to be out of contact. Indeed in some industries the notion of not receiving or providing an instant response to an email is now unthinkable.  
 
Perhaps it is this lack of thinking time and oversight that is forcing businesses to reconsider how to communicate more profitably today? 
 
The trend to instant reciprocal communication is placing some new and uncharted challenges into the workplace as traditional business practice and policies struggle to legislate or to keep apace.
The chances are that your average baby boomer Brit was brought up in an environment where the boss opened, read and annotated all the post before it was distributed. They would have approved all submissions to the typing pool, and had a copy of the previous day’s “Day File” presented for review with the post. Many highly successful business leaders state this as their winning strategy.
 
Those, for whom success is achieved from structure, order and discipline, find today’s new workplaces  a complete anathema. 
That is not to say that the old ways are without value, but those who have adopted similar principles of oversight have developed a reputation of snooping and mistrust, driving informal communication out of the workplace.
 
The new age boomers who overtly “get” social media (and who get other people to do it for them) are rapidly being overtaken by media savvy, computer literate Generation X-Y’S. Their younger differing views have yet to make it into serious protocols or policies, but they are re-defining the ways in which we work.
Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Why do struggling companies get pushed into the biggest risk of all, a restructure?

Posted on February 8, 2012 by GhostPartnership

 

Risk and risk management has long been on the board agenda.
 
Assessing and quantifying risk is a major part of the role of a board. Very large businesses have now established risk teams who identify and measure the scale of risk to which a company is exposed. But when the corporate back is against the wall, the board agenda will focus on remaining solvent and executing whatever tactics possible to remain so. 
 
For a board to consider undertaking a major restructuring programme there is usually a catalyst or vector that is triggering the response. That may be shareholder disappointment, banking risks changing, breaking or broken covenants, lack of or abundance of credit, loss or gain of new business.
Suffice  to say that a restructure is usually driven by a sequence of external events. It is rarely implemented just because a business can.
 
Keeping a company in a permanent state of imminent restructuring  (like trying to keep armed forces in a constant state of high alert) is ultimately unsustainable. It is perhaps not surprising that research shows that globally the best performing businesses have a sustained systemic  employee engagement philosophy. 
 
Engaged employees who are involved with the performance of the company, informed of the opportunities and challenges, will sustain a state of preparedness for far longer to do what is required from them at a moment’s notice.
Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is your bank a supplier, a customer or an employee?

Posted on February 6, 2012 by GhostPartnership

 

The answer to the question is that your bank can be all three….. 
 
A company’s relationship with its bank (s) is a complex multi-level arrangement. Having an agreed plan as to how the relationship with its financiers will be managed by the whole business is good business planning.  
 
The relative strength and tone of a banking relationship will clearly depend on the agreements made, (the level of risk involved for either party) the current (and anticipated) performance coupled with a heap of personal chemistry.
 
All too often there is a mismatch of expectation. When credit was  flowing easily banks were perceived as suppliers, but held the expectations of a major customer; now the market is tight the banks are suppliers of a precious commodity with an ambitious pricing structure that reflects the perceived demand.
 
Irrespective of where the supply and demand of money may be, treating the bank as an engaged employee is both desirable and achievable. An employee engagement philosophy, that is constructed to unlock the discretionary effort from within the workforce, has exactly the same impact with a bank (or major stakeholder). A financier who is in step with the mission, vision and values of a business, who is treated with dignity and respect, and communicated with on the good and the bad openly, will approach their task with confidence.  
 
The management team can in turn focus on working the problems, not wasting time on the issues.As the competition increases for funds it is not enough just to have credible business plan. A company looking for investment, whose board demonstrates to their bank that it lives by its values , has an engaged workforce, and a strong communication plan is in a large part creating its own success. 
Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Can a business restructure improve employee / employer relations?

Posted on January 30, 2012 by GhostPartnership

 A proactive company that has a history of honest communication with its employees will only further strengthen employee relations if communication remains transparent, irrespective of how dramatic the restructure maybe.

After all, greatest critics of a restructure are the employees themselves. 
 

The businesses who have invested in establishing an open and trustworthy covenant with its employees will strengthen on the basis of honesty alone.
 

Businesses without the credibility of consistent honest communication with their employees can make a clean start by communicating effectively throughout a restructure and then sustaining it beyond. This demonstration by the company of commitment to live by its values will be acknowledged by employees, but it will be a long time before the suspicion (that the old ways will return) subsides. A ‘high say – high do’ culture will eradicate that suspicion over time.
 

An organisation in which employee communication has been consistently poor that then attempts a radical restructure may successfully achieve the desired new physical structure, but by further alienating its employees in the process. Embarking into a new world without the hearts and minds of your staff will make an already complex job doubly difficult to achieve.   
 

A board or leadership team that lives by its values and demands the highest standard of employee relations exponentially increases its chance of completing a restructure successfully.
 

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Employee share ownership

Posted on January 19, 2012 by GhostPartnership

 

Nick Clegg has suggested that all companies should adopt the John Lewis Partnership (JLP) model and allow employees to acquire shares. A good idea?
 
Not necessarily. This has all the hallmarks of a political sound-bite; a cause-and-effect, one-size-fits-all solution to a much more complex issue.
 
The JLP model works because it is part of the fabric of the organisation, it has been there since inception and it is part of the culture. Many other (usually large) companies have employee share schemes which operate on a save-as-you-earn basis, allowing employees to buy shares at one point in the year at a discount over a pre-agreed price point. Some other companies gave shares in lieu of cash bonuses. They can work quite well – until the shares lose value and the employee shareholding is ‘under water’. Ask bank employees who participated in such schemes what they think!
 
Picture the medium-sized company who out of the blue decides to introduce such a scheme where there has been no history of participation on the part of employees. The type of company Clegg is trying to encourage. The result is likely to be one of suspicion or cynicism; employees will feel there must be a catch, particularly when pay rises are pegged to 1% or non-existent. A few years ago, a company in the transport business, in conducting a management buy-out awarded all employees shares. That didn’t stop the same employees striking over pay the following year.
 
The culture and climate in the organisation have to provide fertile ground for such an initiative. That’s not impossible to achieve but it isn’t a quick fix. Clegg’s reasoning is one of ‘engagement’. Owning shares does not of itself create engagement. Employees need a clear vision and line-of-sight between what they do and what the business is trying to achieve. They need leadership, communication, performance feedback, and they need to be properly developed and, yes rewarded; but rewarded in line with the market and their culture. 
 
Neither is owning shares a retention issue. On leaving, shares can be cashed out. In larger organisations, the head-hunting company will at least match shareholding to secure the appointment.
Many of those companies who introduced such schemes with much fanfare have quietly allowed them to disappear.
 
Engagement Mr Clegg, is a much more complex, systemic issue. Leave it to those who understand the real world.
Posted in General | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The answer?…………..Human Capital

Posted on December 9, 2011 by GhostPartnership

Instead of representing Human Capital as shepherds of a resource that the business calls upon when needed, it's time for HR practitioners to start thinking and promoting ourselves as being responsible for the wealth of the business.

This is the opportunity for us to both recognise and demand that not only are metrics related to people both easy to identify and produce, but properly led and with the supporting processes correctly managed, people do make a difference to the bottom line.

We have the toolkit.  Anyone involved in business should read Alan Crozier’s book “The Engagement Manifesto” in which Alan clearly articulates the case for the role that an engagement philosophy can play in achieving sustainable performance and competitive advantage through people. 

Human capital represents the value of the knowledge, competencies, expertise, experience and disposition of an organisation’s employees and taken in this context Human Capital management is NOT a synonym for Human Resources.

Adopting this approach as the underpinning philosophy for a Human Capital dimension in your organisation will create the environment for those of us who truly believe our place is at the top table and as a member of the c-suite, to flourish.

It lies in our own hands!
 

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why with all the communication tools do we still not understand?

Posted on December 7, 2011 by GhostPartnership

The language of business is and always will be, finance. 

This is defined by capital, either financial or material, either way there is a value placed on it that can be added, subtracted, balanced, transferred, bought and sold, its use maximised and the return on investment used as a measure of relative success.

The time is now right to start using the vocabulary of the business to include the human dimension.  We already have it, and need to use it.  Human Capital is a perfectly well known and understood term that for some reason has been eschewed by HR practitioners, and one reason for that could well be that with its use comes an obligation to be measured, for capital is something that not only CAN be measured, measurement is at its core.

Why do we focus on employees being a cost to the business, without at the same time adding the fact that they are also the means of generating revenue?

“What gets measured gets done!”  More importantly what gets measured gets recognised and ultimately recognition leads to reward.

Let’s look at the implications of being responsible for “Human Capital” as opposed to “Human Resources”.  Here are 2 dictionary definitions –

Resource: a source of supply especially one that can be readily drawn upon when needed
Capital:  the wealth, owned or employed in business

Both are perfectly valid as a means of describing the people who work in an organisation, but which better represents the importance of these same people?  A resource that may be required when needed, or the wealth of the business?

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Is there a case for C – apital investment?

Posted on December 2, 2011 by GhostPartnership

The time is right for HR practitioners to start to talk the language of the C-suite. 

It is the only way that we will finally be able to reach the aspiration of being at the top table.  For those of us who frequent the Linked in website, one of the most frequently asked questions on the HR sites is “What is the biggest challenge facing HR professionals (sic)”, the answer to which  is most often, “Being included in developing the organisation’s business strategy.” 

When success in any organisation is dependent upon people, when the average cost of people related issues represents around 35% of the business’s total costs, and when all the evidence shows that an engaged workforce will have a significant measurable impact on the bottom line, does it not beg the question as to why HR is rarely represented at the top table?

We have only ourselves to blame. 

I was recently told by an HR Director that she had no need to know what the business strategy was as “She was only responsible for HR!”, now that’s an extreme case and I doubt very much if she’s long for this HR world, but it’s an attitude that many business leaders believe pervades all HR departments.

There are many in HR who do work in departments which are seen as genuinely partners with the business and whose leaders are consulted at all stages, wherein lies the difference?

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

When is a profession NOT a profession?

Posted on November 30, 2011 by GhostPartnership

For many working in the field of HR the need to be defined as a “professional” has overridden the reality that it is insufficient to merely call yourself a professional. 

It is necessary to demonstrate both an understanding of the environment in which we are working and also bring an expertise to the table that is unique and which offers real impact and measurable added value to the organisation.

Human resources, while certainly in command of the former, frequently fails to demonstrate ownership of any expertise that arguably should always be in the toolkit of anyone in the organisation tasked with the leadership of people.

It is in this area that we need to recapture our sense of what a group of people with an understanding of, and an expertise in, delivering on what has become known as “the people agenda” actually stands for in today’s world.  Instead we have become the “risk avoiders” and “safe pairs of hands”, rather than looking at how we can help the organisation achieve a competitive advantage through our people, we focus on avoiding being challenged for our people practices.

We need to look beyond (yet another) name change and get to the heart of what matters.  Around 1994 Dave Ulrich posited the concept of the “HR Business Partner”, a view that gave credibility to the idea that in order to be successful organisations needed to harness the expertise of the operational technical specialist, with a specialist in people management.  For many this has succeeded and remains current, but elsewhere it has withered on the vine. 

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment