The NHRD conference was organized in Chennai this time around. The participation was really high even though we had the incident in Mumbai and Chennai was in two feet of water. There were student delegates, industry professionals, Academia but my sensed is that delegates from HR service providers outnumbered other groups.
The topic's seemed interesting and the speakers from respected organizations with tons of experience in HR. However the overall experience was not so great as many speakers did seemed to have been briefed well about the topic of discussion or they simply did not spend time preparing.
The topics and speakers list is on NHRD Chennai website: http://www.nhrdnconference2008.com/
I am not going to write about what everyone spoke about or said....... There were some sparks of delight when Prabhakar spoke about the future of trade unions, when Gurucharan Das spoke about India and its growth or when the topic of shaping the new HR manager and role of Hr in uncertainty was presented. There were other good speakers too, but they were really few and far between……….what the conference really taught me was “what not to do” when presenting or speaking about a topic in front of people who already know a lot……….
- Listen to the brief carefully and understand what you are being asked to speak about (personal views / org practices / strategy / research)
- Think about whether you are really the right person for the topic
- Even if the same topic is to be presented, there will be a lot of difference in the way you present it depending on the angle you take (personal views, org practices, strategy, research etc)
- Prepare and practice……….you audience can see it
- Keep it brief and simple (no one complains if its brief)
- Present balanced views and in a calm and composed fashion…people are not paying 12k to hear you rant and rave
- Last but not the least, don’t let the podium get in the way of your interaction with the audience, move around (the color mike is just a ask away)
- If you are not a confident speaker a big conference is not the stage to practice……
So that’s my round up of the NHRD Conference 08, I hope and wish that the next year would be better experience and learning.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
Why year end feedback does not make sense.
Most organizations have a feedback / appraisal session between the manager and his employee at the end of the performance year. Its the much dreaded time of the year, most managers and employees are stressed out at the prospect of writing and discussing how the year went by.....The HR manager would have done the mandatory process training and spent a hour or so on "how to give and write feedback", and managers would have attended this workshop feeling "easier said then done".......
The reason I think most people feel stressed out about giving feedback is due to the fear of being opposed / not liked / or seen as critical. If one has not been in the habit of having a regular rhythm with their team to review work and performance, then the end of the year exercise will most definitely be a stressful time as its like "breaking the surprise".
Its humanly impossible to remember what the person did during the last 12 months if regular reviews were not there to track progress, achievements and misses, and especially if one manages a large team and the manager has not kept notes or track then it would mostly be a discussion on recent events which is unfair to the employee.
Year-end feedback session is a wrap up exercise of what has already been discussed and achieved. It cannot be a postmortem of how things went or revealing the climax of sorts.
If the culture of regular feedbacks has been missing, most definitely year-end appraisals are a time for stress and heart-burn. One important aspect which we miss is also about focusing on building trust, we know that its always easier to take feedback and give feedback where there is trust between people.
Here’s wishing all those who have the tough job of giving and taking feedback all the best! J
The reason I think most people feel stressed out about giving feedback is due to the fear of being opposed / not liked / or seen as critical. If one has not been in the habit of having a regular rhythm with their team to review work and performance, then the end of the year exercise will most definitely be a stressful time as its like "breaking the surprise".
Its humanly impossible to remember what the person did during the last 12 months if regular reviews were not there to track progress, achievements and misses, and especially if one manages a large team and the manager has not kept notes or track then it would mostly be a discussion on recent events which is unfair to the employee.
Year-end feedback session is a wrap up exercise of what has already been discussed and achieved. It cannot be a postmortem of how things went or revealing the climax of sorts.
If the culture of regular feedbacks has been missing, most definitely year-end appraisals are a time for stress and heart-burn. One important aspect which we miss is also about focusing on building trust, we know that its always easier to take feedback and give feedback where there is trust between people.
Here’s wishing all those who have the tough job of giving and taking feedback all the best! J
Why every manager cannot be a leader?
A leader puts team first and thinks through impact of decisions....
A leader does not shy away from taking tough decisions
A leader works with stewardship...long term impact rather than short-term gain
A leader shares personal viewpoint and not organizational spiel
A leader puts his own insecurity / fear / disappointment behind quickly and thinks how he can help the team overcome this tough situation
Being a leader is tough during the times we are in, but as someone rightly said "tough times clear the grey lines between leadership and management"
A leader does not shy away from taking tough decisions
A leader works with stewardship...long term impact rather than short-term gain
A leader shares personal viewpoint and not organizational spiel
A leader puts his own insecurity / fear / disappointment behind quickly and thinks how he can help the team overcome this tough situation
Being a leader is tough during the times we are in, but as someone rightly said "tough times clear the grey lines between leadership and management"
Monday, October 13, 2008
Are women bad at negotiating salaries??
I read an article recently in a popular women’s magazine on how women should negotiate salaries when applying for jobs and that women are bad at negotiating a salary. Most of the data cited there was based on studies and surveys done in North America. However it was interesting to see the stats that were cited in the article on how much women lose if they don’t negotiate!
Perhaps what women look for in a good organization goes beyond just the salary it offers or may be they just don’t like to negotiate. I also think that many women candidates don’t negotiate as its difficult to talk about money, secondly they may worry that they are perceived as aggressive or needy when it comes to money. To negotiate one needs to overcome these personal barriers as well as possess the skills required to negotiate, but coming to think of it, I saw my mother bargaining all the time and some how that tells me that while you cannot equate bargaining to negotiating a salary, at a level they are the same. Its largely boils down to knowing the what you are worth, the pay range for the job and ability to convince the hiring origination that you deserve that pay (relate this to how your mother always told that vegetable vendor “that’s what others in the market are selling this xyz veg for”, “I always bought veggies from you from “xyz” years”, “the quality of these veggies is not so good to deserve that price”) J
I have personally not seen too many women candidates in India I have hired negotiate hard and but mostly the one’s who had did not go beyond basic level of negotiation. My recruiting friends also think the same and agree that they have been exceptions but really they are few and far between. This gets me thinking on two things:
1)What would come out of analyzing data of last one year on salary offered to women and male candidates for the same type of jobs?
2)Do we as HR professionals act differently considering the that most women candidates don’t negotiate their offers (in the context that male candidates negotiate and may drive up the salary offer made) ?
I think we should look hard at each offer we make especially if the analysis above shows that indeed the salary offered is lower for the same type of job in the case of women candidates given the same level of experience as male candidates and competency as assessed in the interview. A robust system of evaluating experience, competence and a data driven approach to salary positioning will reduce the probability that women candidates get lower salary then male candidates, but I wonder what has your experience been as a hiring manager or recruiter in this regard!
Perhaps what women look for in a good organization goes beyond just the salary it offers or may be they just don’t like to negotiate. I also think that many women candidates don’t negotiate as its difficult to talk about money, secondly they may worry that they are perceived as aggressive or needy when it comes to money. To negotiate one needs to overcome these personal barriers as well as possess the skills required to negotiate, but coming to think of it, I saw my mother bargaining all the time and some how that tells me that while you cannot equate bargaining to negotiating a salary, at a level they are the same. Its largely boils down to knowing the what you are worth, the pay range for the job and ability to convince the hiring origination that you deserve that pay (relate this to how your mother always told that vegetable vendor “that’s what others in the market are selling this xyz veg for”, “I always bought veggies from you from “xyz” years”, “the quality of these veggies is not so good to deserve that price”) J
I have personally not seen too many women candidates in India I have hired negotiate hard and but mostly the one’s who had did not go beyond basic level of negotiation. My recruiting friends also think the same and agree that they have been exceptions but really they are few and far between. This gets me thinking on two things:
1)What would come out of analyzing data of last one year on salary offered to women and male candidates for the same type of jobs?
2)Do we as HR professionals act differently considering the that most women candidates don’t negotiate their offers (in the context that male candidates negotiate and may drive up the salary offer made) ?
I think we should look hard at each offer we make especially if the analysis above shows that indeed the salary offered is lower for the same type of job in the case of women candidates given the same level of experience as male candidates and competency as assessed in the interview. A robust system of evaluating experience, competence and a data driven approach to salary positioning will reduce the probability that women candidates get lower salary then male candidates, but I wonder what has your experience been as a hiring manager or recruiter in this regard!
Uncertainty and testing times……….and the learning process
No matter which country you are in or which industry you are part of its uncertainty and testing times all around. Whether it’s the US economy in the debt trap or our own India facing slower than expected growth in terms of GDP, these are times where confidence is low and financial results are not so great…
For someone like me who started their career after the economic boom in India, downturn was not something one thought of…India was booming and jobs and pay were great. I suspect its still the same but its just that there is so much uncertainty that everyone is going slow on hiring and candidates ability to negotiate has come down to a certain extent due to the lower number of jobs up there for them to apply.
I remember a time when I was working with consulting and services firm when a European manager on a assignment to India asked the India HR team how they would face a economic downturn. There was pin drop silence in the team and I guess that’s because many of us in that room did not ever hear of what a downturn was or how it would be to operate in a situation like that. I am glad now that 4 years later, I am going through these testing and uncertain times as this is going to help me and my team learn that there are business cycles and what we as HR can do and how we do what we do has to change to support the situation the business is in.
Bad times teach us a lot and what you learn through this experience is what matters when you look back a few years down the line and reminisce.
For someone like me who started their career after the economic boom in India, downturn was not something one thought of…India was booming and jobs and pay were great. I suspect its still the same but its just that there is so much uncertainty that everyone is going slow on hiring and candidates ability to negotiate has come down to a certain extent due to the lower number of jobs up there for them to apply.
I remember a time when I was working with consulting and services firm when a European manager on a assignment to India asked the India HR team how they would face a economic downturn. There was pin drop silence in the team and I guess that’s because many of us in that room did not ever hear of what a downturn was or how it would be to operate in a situation like that. I am glad now that 4 years later, I am going through these testing and uncertain times as this is going to help me and my team learn that there are business cycles and what we as HR can do and how we do what we do has to change to support the situation the business is in.
Bad times teach us a lot and what you learn through this experience is what matters when you look back a few years down the line and reminisce.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
A great manager is a talent scout!
What makes a manager a great manager is the ability to scout for talent and then groom them. Talk to people and ask them what they look for in their manager and most often you would hear them say “someone who brings the best in me”.
But is it really possible to bring the best out of each and every individual in the team?? Many would tell you that its your duty as a manager to bring the best out of your people and you should give equal importance to bringing up those who are lagging behind or need that extra push / coaching to be their best.
I am not so sure though! I don’t believe that everyone can be a star and therefore as a manager one needs to conscious that the best of each person wont make him or her the star of the team. More often than not, I have wondered who needs the maximum effort from my end as a manger, is it the top talent or the solid soldiers or those who are failing to meet the minimal expectations. I really have not worked this out yet, but I slowly realized that effort spent on top talent pays more than trying to be socialist in my approach to developing everyone. Of course, you need to understand the strengths of each individual and help them build on that, give them a fair chance to perform and give them the coaching and feedback they need but, trying to distribute projects, rewards and much coveted assignments in a socialist way will only harm the motivation of the top talent and bring down the overall performance of the team.
It pays to be like a talent scout who knows that every talent that walks up to give their audition is not a star and only a select few have what it takes……..
But is it really possible to bring the best out of each and every individual in the team?? Many would tell you that its your duty as a manager to bring the best out of your people and you should give equal importance to bringing up those who are lagging behind or need that extra push / coaching to be their best.
I am not so sure though! I don’t believe that everyone can be a star and therefore as a manager one needs to conscious that the best of each person wont make him or her the star of the team. More often than not, I have wondered who needs the maximum effort from my end as a manger, is it the top talent or the solid soldiers or those who are failing to meet the minimal expectations. I really have not worked this out yet, but I slowly realized that effort spent on top talent pays more than trying to be socialist in my approach to developing everyone. Of course, you need to understand the strengths of each individual and help them build on that, give them a fair chance to perform and give them the coaching and feedback they need but, trying to distribute projects, rewards and much coveted assignments in a socialist way will only harm the motivation of the top talent and bring down the overall performance of the team.
It pays to be like a talent scout who knows that every talent that walks up to give their audition is not a star and only a select few have what it takes……..
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
HR competencies…
I was working on a HR reward and recognition model recently and while doing so referred to the HR competency framework in the organization I work for and research that Dave Ulrich, professor of business administration at the University of Michigan, and his associate Wayne Brockbank, also a professor of business at the University of Michigan did. Last year they released an all-new 2007 Human Resource Competency Study (HRCS). They came up with findings and analysis that tries to unravel the new set of skills that high achieving HR people need have in next few years to come. Here is a look at the competency model: http://www.shrm.org/competencies/
What's great to see in the model is how it has evolved over the years and kept pace with the dynamic nature of the function. Ulrich states that someone who was a successful HR person even 10 years ago may be wont be so successful unless they have some of the new competencies the model talks about.
The model places credible activist at the pinnacle. The Credible Activist is respected, admired, listened to and offers a point of view, takes a position and challenges assumptions.
Ulrich says if you have to prioritize then its the Credible Activist. And one cannot agree more, while all others are important, I cannot imagine an HR personal without credibility. It’s practically dangerous to have HR leader without credibility or strong ethics. Imagine a great strategist but with poor ethics and you have a time bomb waiting to go off.
What's great to see in the model is how it has evolved over the years and kept pace with the dynamic nature of the function. Ulrich states that someone who was a successful HR person even 10 years ago may be wont be so successful unless they have some of the new competencies the model talks about.
The model places credible activist at the pinnacle. The Credible Activist is respected, admired, listened to and offers a point of view, takes a position and challenges assumptions.
Ulrich says if you have to prioritize then its the Credible Activist. And one cannot agree more, while all others are important, I cannot imagine an HR personal without credibility. It’s practically dangerous to have HR leader without credibility or strong ethics. Imagine a great strategist but with poor ethics and you have a time bomb waiting to go off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
