Category: HR FAQ’s

With the evolution of technology into the field of Human Resources, HR is being knitted well into the mound of technology and automation with increased quantities of data, artificial intelligence and virtual communication. However, this kind of technology integration requires up-skilling with the latest trends in addition to the core HR specialization.

Thus, being a “jack of all trades and master of none” generalist type professionals will no longer suffice. The generalist type are termed as “Hyphenated resources” who possess no specific domain skills with full competence but have broad range of skills across domains. Startup organizations have limited resources, thus they have no place for hyphenated resources. However, organizations that require team functionalities over expertise skills rely heavily on Hyphenated resources.

We will also come across highly expertise professionals, termed as “I-shaped resources”, with deep knowledge in a specific competency. These experts are most valuable to clear bottlenecks. However, not every task requires an expert. Offloading non-expert tasks to non-experts frees up expert time to be available for bottlenecks. Firms employ I-shaped resources that primarily focus on niche research in science and technology.

“Multi-skilled, generalizing specialists” becomes the need of the hour. These are professionals who possess a broad range of skills across domains and are experts in a specific competency. They are termed as “T-shaped resources” who can tackle diverse projects with creativity and their knowledge across disciplines are highly effective. Large firms require lot of domain experts with industry knowledge who can operate across other domains.

“Pi-shaped”, “M-shaped”, and “Comb-shaped” metaphors extend T-shaped by indicating an increasing number of specializations.

Why T-Shaped HR Professionals?

• Maximum Resource utilization: T-shaped people means more can be done with the same number of people or the same can be done with less people. If a person is skilled only in one particular skill, and if developing a product requires n skills, then n people are needed to develop the product. However, if people know more than 1 skill, then you will need <n people.
• Effective Communication: T-shaped people help to communicate more effectively. By learning each other’s skills, other’s domain-specific language is also adopted. This will enable more effective communication as an understanding of different perspectives is developed.
• Adaptability: T-shaped people is about embracing human adaptability. A skill that is well known to one may be mundane to him, however this mundane task might be very interesting and challenging to the other who doesn’t know that skill. Thus, Cross-training to be more T-shaped enables this learning and growth mindset.

How to develop T-shaped people?

Cross Training is the most useful technique to build T-shaped skills. Creating T-shaped people is not instantaneous. Cross-training at adjacent activities helps smooth out hand-offs in the workflow, that is, any point where we have one role handing off to another one. 

• Cross-train on similar skills-It’s easier to learn skills and technologies that are similar to the known ones by building a network of people with complementary expertise. By organizing knowledge transfer workshops and document how key activities are performed by specialized resources is another approach for a team to start trying out cross-training.

• Make cross-training gaps visible-A Cross-training matrix shows where cross-training would help reduce key person dependency and expose the skill gaps on the team. This encourages people to cross-train where there is the least capability.

• Pairing facilitates rapid cross-training-Pairing facilitates cross-training very quickly particularly on tasks where only 1 or 2 people have the relevant skills. Leveraging the knowledge of experts, is right for building competence across disciplines.

• Cross-functional work items encourage cross-training-When work is broken down based on incremental outcomes, they tend to require multiple skills which encourage cross-training and specialization.

• Generalized encourage cross-training-Specialized job titles encourage people to specialize only in a specific area. Instead, a more general title, keeps things open, thus de-emphasizing specialization and encouraging cross-training.

The multiplicity and complexity of professions and work scenarios puts us in front of a continuous need for reskilling, up-skilling and the need to constantly adapt.

To develop skills of any kind be it specialized or a combination with transversal skills, it is essential to have an adequate mindset and a constant learning mentality.

Share your thoughts if you have identified other types of skills that are can adapt to the ever-changing demands of work culture.

We have heard about color coding for the purpose of environmental health and safety, workplace hygiene, electrical wiring, to denote position in an organization chart etc. However, some organizations go to the extent of categorizing their employees on the basis of their performance and abilities. In general practice, the employees are tagged as A players, B players and C Players by their team leaders.

A players are star performers. They are employees who put their profession upfront ahead of their families and personal lives because they are striving to accomplish more or move upward in the organization. A players are the risk-takers, the “high potentials,” and employers enjoy finding and hiring them. They are also the players most likely to leave the organization for opportunities elsewhere.

B players are competent, steady performers who balance their work and personal lives while committed to their job responsibilities. B players are steady, don’t require a lot of attention, and they get the job done. Because B players stay, they tend to carry the corporate history with them.

C players are performers who are not achieving enough to satisfy their employers and are most likely to be asked to move along.

Coding the employees and associating them with colors help to simplify the process they were to categorize their associates into one of three categories:

The categories usually refers to “A” players, “B” players, and “C” players. The tendency is to see this as a negative practice, but it’s really a way for companies to determine where to spend their limited training and development budgets. The practice also plays a role in succession planning.

Can you stick a label on each person to identify them as an A, B, or C? More importantly, should you?

Do you spend your training budget on a “C” player who is disengaged or would you invest on an “A” player who is a superstar performer?

For some developmental large projects, it’s a necessity. You need to know who your go-to people are in a pinch. You need to know the go-getter to make sure things get accomplished, no matter how much effort it takes. (A players!).You also need to know who is going to be a strong choice for that long term project. It’s not particularly interesting or high profile, but it requires some who is steady and reliable. (B players!). And definitely at all times you need to know if there are any non-performers that need to be removed. (C players!)

But maybe it’s not the best way to “box” your people in? Are you tagging a label based on their current performance/situation which will change over time? Are you differentiating the employees based on their performance?

On the contrary, by not differentiating employees based on performance, you can create a culture that supports and encourages poor performance. If you don’t treat the “green” employees (A players) differently from the “red” employees (C players), the good ones will naturally trend lower with regard to performance.

Furthermore, how does the A and B players feel about C (and D) players?

The A and B players resent the C (and D) players. They feel like they are a complete wastage of the company resources and need to be removed. Of course if one of them slipped into C territory for any reason, they’d expect leniency.

Do we really need some of each? I’d say yes. Even if you’re hiring all “A” players you are going to eventually have some of them settle in as “B” players on the long run. At that point do you kick them out even though they are still a valuable contributor? What if one of them has a tough time dealing with some loss or some emergency and drifts into “C” player territory for a short time?

These labels are be temporary ratings. People change, they grow, they get grumpy, they lose interest and therefore you need to reevaluate them quarterly or at least annually. Ratings enable us to determine who we should invest the most in developing. The goal is to convert D players (not meeting the job requirements) into C (average performers who meet the minimum standards) or B (solid performers that consistently perform) players. As they are temporary, the C players might just be A/B players who need a shift in their focus or rather more reinforcement.

Learning and growth are the ultimate retention mechanism for these key people – so we should do our best to give them opportunities to do both.

We are all different with different needs and interests while we may be offered all the same equal opportunities, all employees shouldn’t be treated exactly the same. We cannot treat the “A Players” the same as “C players”, then there won’t be A players much longer.

I’d love to hear some ideas on how you might have handled this differently or if you think it was the right way to go.

The HR Value Chain model helps to link HR to business outcomes. This model will enable HR professionals to convince the management about their contributions as a department to the overall growth of business.

 In order to prove the analytics value using the HR Value Chain, a clear definition of input and output variables are required. We can consider the input variable as an Independent variable and the output variable as the dependent variable and a mediator variable in between both.

HR Value Chain shows that you have a number of HR activities & processes (input variable) which leads to HR outcomes (mediator variable) which in turn leads to Organizational objectives/ outcomes (output variable).

For instance, we increase the training budget like number of days in training, training costs which is an HR activity and it fits in the efficiency box, does that lead to better employee performance? That’s an HR outcome which measures the effectiveness of the HR program. Does this increase in performance lead to increase in sale? If you can prove that connectivity then it has a strong organizational outcome or it has achieved organizational objectives.

Additionally, if we compensate people fairly which is an HR process; efficiency metric, does that lead to higher employee retention, which is an HR outcome. Which in turn can lead to lower cost which is an organizational objective.

Research demonstrates that positive relationships have to be established between HRM practices, HRM outcomes, and organizational outcomes which eventually will lead to the recognition of the HR value.

So why is HR still struggling to show its added value?

Partially, it’s because every organization is unique. The HR outcomes in one organization may have positive impact on their organizational objectives however that may not be the case in another organization. The HR impact and effectiveness varies across industries and their business objectives differ from one to another.

The second reason is that it’s hard to show added value in a very practical way as the value is added through various HR practices. At this juncture, analytics become crucial.

HR serves the business and should follow the organizational objectives. All HR outcomes and activities that HR focuses on should lead to these business outcomes. Analytics is a great tool to measure the effectiveness of the HR interventions aimed at reaching these business outcomes.

The tangible analytics evidence connects what we do in HR to tangible financial business outcomes, proving once again the added value of HR. This framework of evidences prove the Analytics value using the HR Value chain.

Courtesy: AIHR -Academy to innovate HR

The introduction of some simple motivational and reward strategies can help us reduce the turnover rates remarkably and retain the key employees successfully. Employee retention can be effectively improved by proactive interventions from the management.

According to Herzberg’s “Two Factor Theory”, there are two sets of factors that influence motivation in the workplace. These factors either enhance employee satisfaction or hinder it. They are also the factors for an employee to leave or stay at an organization.

Some tested and proven strategies that can be implemented are:

1. Recognition -The employees need to be recognized for their efforts and contributions toward the company. When they are being recognized and appreciated for their contributions to the company, they tend to be more responsible and proactive in their job roles. It can be as simple as an Appreciation email with notification to the top management or an Appreciation certificate, or they can be invited to provide a training to their team and share their success story. Recognition titles like “Employee of the month/Year”, “Brand Ambassador” can be organized as part of a motivational program. A public applause or an article about the employee displaying his achievements in the internal magazine will boost up their confidence and motivate them to perform better.
2. Rewards-Other than the monetary incentives, bonuses, or other additional allowances being offered to them, rewards in the non-monetary form like gift vouchers, travel tickets, a paid day off, tangible gifts with company logo like a souvenir or a memento also play a role in employee retention.
3. Cooperative work environment-A positive work environment and work culture enables the employee to bring out the best in him, thereby increases his productivity .It enables him to be more innovative and creative in bringing out new methodologies.
4. Supportive supervisor-A supportive immediate supervisor who will defend his team at all times will tend to have long term relations with his team and thereby motivate them. Many employees tend to quit because of their superiors attitude and dominant nature. They quit working with them and not the companies!
5. Stable management-A steady and stable management with strong policies and procedures will go a long way in retaining good employees. An instable environment will make the employees feel insecure and the fear of job security will push them toward new opportunities.
6. Positive criticism-The employee should be given enough space to make decisions, implement them and to learn from the mistakes. These mistakes have to be corrected by his immediate supervisor with a positive note so that he can learn effectively from his failures and make this his next stepping stone.
7. Career Development-Employees should be given opportunities to challenge and prove themselves in their areas of interest. These challenges will enable them to identify their strengths and promote career growth or it will reveal their shortcomings and pave way for effective training and development.

These strategies may vary across different industries, domains and more importantly it’s based on the internal policies and work culture that the organization wants to build up.

What are the different strategies used in your organization to foster a positive work environment? What were the implications of these strategies? Do share in the comments below.

 Feel free to view the further comments/discussion on this topic through this link:

https://specialties.bayt.com/en/specialties/q/187907/how-to-improve-employee-retention/?feed=answers

Is it right to label a candidate as “OVERQUALIFIED” and reject him at an interview even before his skills are tested?

The candidates for a job role are labelled as overqualified due to various internal and external factors and may not be limited to the credentials of the candidate alone. The educational qualifications and experience level of the candidate are just one side of the coin.

In some cases, the direct reporting line may not be as qualified as the candidate himself and therefore to avoid complexities within the department and to protect the less qualified staff, many managers tend to sideline these overqualified candidates.

In terms of cost per hire, yes, these overqualified candidates can come as an additional cost to the HR budget which can be easily accommodated with lesser qualified candidates.

In my opinion, we should be open minded to give them an opportunity and see what add-ons they can bring to the table. All that matters are the skills, will power and “can do” attitude. If the candidate adheres to the terms & conditions of employment, the nature of job offered, duties and responsibilities, then he is well qualified for the job. Qualification is a basic criteria but the skill set is what matters the most.

Feel free to view the further comments/discussion on this topic through this link: https://specialties.bayt.com/en/specialties/q/139328/is-it-right-to-label-a-candidate-as-quot-over-qualified-quot-and-reject-him-at-an-interview-even-before-his-skills-are-tested/

References:

Reasons why are CV’s of Overqualified Candidates Rejected?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2011/12/19/are-you-really-overqualified-or-is-something-else-going-wrong/#411941685092

I have heard this punch line much through my career path “HR is the punching bag!”. But truly, is HR the punch bag between the employees and the management? Punch bags aren’t just heavy bags designed to take in the repeated blows, instead its a therapist, a psychiatrist and a holistic healer, the intrinsic attributes of a passionate HR.

• 

HR was never meant to be this way; we are an independent function with rights and responsibilities very much like any other department.

Buried beneath the queries of staff and under the analytical eyes of management, when will we ever recover?

The tireless efforts of HR often goes undervalued and unappreciated. Their long hours of work to change policies and work practices for their employees in accordance with the changing environment and the safety measures in the present scenario alongside the increased stress levels, all seem to go unnoticed.

HR professionals need to value the years of experience and the hours they have put in for their learning and development. We need to get the results for our values and what we bring to the table. If we don’t value ourselves, nobody else will. If we aren’t kind to ourselves, nobody else will. Whatever we do starts with us.

Therefore, before we ask others to see our value, we as HR, need to see the value in ourselves-values that we have created; values we have added to the organization. And definitely, we are worth the investment! Its high time that HR does step up and reveal its true value and worth especially during these uncertain times and become more than a mere “Punchbag”!

Agree or Disagree? Do leave your comments below.

Inspired by an article by Ms.Kelly Swingler, “HR, What’s Your Value?” https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hr-whats-your-value-kelly-swingler