by Triangle Performance Staff | Apr 13, 2009 | Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
Well, is it??
A company needs human resources (people, talent, etc.) to survive. It does not, necessarily, need Human Resources (the department). The challenge for HR, then, is to become the real expert and leader in those things positively impacting the organization’s human capital — creating value, improving productivity, increasing returns, etc.
If HR’s sole claim to fame is compliance, they’ll generally be seen as a barrier, and can be replaced by a $50 CD. Equally, if they simply act as a broker of others’ efforts (vendors, consultants, outsourcers, etc.), this adds minimal value.
(more…)
by Triangle Performance Staff | Dec 10, 2008 | Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
I recently had a discussion with a client about “merit” pay increases. Never mind the current concerns over giving ANY pay increases; we were discussing how to divvy up the dollars. She asked me how, if we budget for across-the-board adjustments, do we also recognize performance…? (more…)
by Triangle Performance Staff | Sep 26, 2008 | Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
Frequently, we wonder Why don’t these people get it? Can’t they understand that this change is good? That we all will be better for it??
Well, in a word, NO.
“They” don’t understand because we’ve done a lousy job explaining this change to them. And probably the three thousand changes that occurred just before this one. Yes, our folks did notice those myriad changes before.
Some of which were successful, many were not.
Remember, there’s only two people who really, truly, no-kidding,appreciate change at face value: The person controlling the change, and the person(s) personally benefiting from it.
Everyone else needs to be sold on the advantages, purpose, and reasons for the change(s). Note to Leader: That’s your job.
As usual, success in leadership distills down into the most basic form — communication.
Until later…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jun 28, 2008 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Human Resources, Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
Most managers hear “retention plan,” they immediately think “stay bonus.” And to be sure, those bonuses could very well be a real part of most retention plans.
A well-thought retention plan, however, is much more than simply “money.”
Retention plans can be necessary for critical continuity during turbulent, transitional, or heavy-change times. When necessary, and well-thought, retention plans create real, measurable value to an organization when it needs it most. The key, of course, is the “well-thought” part.
During the sorts of times mentioned above – the times that drive the thinking behind retention plans – it’s easy to look to those who have done so much up to now, and convince yourself that a reward is in order. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t, but a retention plan isn’t the way to go about it.
A retention plan should never be used to reward prior performance; its sole purpose should be to ensure retention of those employees critical for the future success of the organization, both during and after the retention period.
So, what exactly is a retention plan? Think 3 things:
1. Communications,
2. Employee Development, and
3. Bonus Compensation.
All three of these are necessary for effective retention, and for emerging mostly unscathed after an organization’s transition.
For Communications, think open, relevant, and frequent.
Employee Development is part of the future promise of “things to come,” that will provide future leverage.
Bonus Compensation is just that – a cash “carrot” paid out in such a manner as to be worthwhile to both the employee and the organization.
Retention plans can be critical for future success – but they aren’t simply a promise of payment to a large group of people. Think through carefully what you need, and implement a plan accordingly.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | May 28, 2008 | Brazen Leader, Human Resources, Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
For my money, a well-thought, well-implemented gainsharing effort is the holy grail of productivity and efficiency incentives: Paying for performance with money you never would have had anyway, without the improved performance. An incentive plan that funds itself.
For the unenlightened, “Gainsharing” is an incentive plan that, using etsablished, historical threshholds of performance, pays incentives for “gains” based on that thresshold. Usually defined in some fashio of a “split,” such as 50% for the company, 50% for employee incentives.
An example: Company has historically spent $2.00 for every widget it produces. Under a gainsharing plan (oversimplified here for clarity), if the employee effort resulted in making widgets at $1.50 per, then the $0.50 savings, or “Gains,” would be shared equally between the company and employees.
Their are keys to an effective Gainsharing effort:
1. Get it right. Determine the critical lever(s) involved that the gainsharing will apply. These are likely the final productivity measure, e.g., cost per lb., hours per process, waste, rework, etc. Do not use simple payroll dollars. And use a recent trend data point (1 yr, 3 yrs), not some arbitrary “goal.”
2. Keep it simple. If you can’t explain it to the lowest level impacted worker in less than 5 minutes — so they really understand — it’s too complicated.
3. Communicate. You cannot overcommunicate with a gainsharing effort. You must be open and free with sensitive financial data — if you feel you cannot, don’t use gainsharing.
4. Educate. Participants must be able to “connect the dots” between today and “better,” and they need new knowledge tools to do that. Financials, process, etc.
5. Reward. Timely payouts are a must. Monthly for typical blue-collar, perhaps quarterly for more sophisticated workers. You may have to prime the pump at first.
Gainsharing is not a “template” compensation scheme where you can take someone else’s and fill in the blanks. Things like holdback/reconcile, thresholds, buy-downs, etc. all need to be determined, to say nothing of the original pland design.
If done correctly, however, there is nothing better.
But that’s just me…
by Triangle Performance Staff | Apr 15, 2008 | Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
Not to be left out of the “Let Me Show How Stupid I Am” competition (described in earlier blog post below), Continental Pilots take a preemptive strike against the hint of a potential merger:
…unionized pilots from United and Continental said they would not permit a merger of the carriers unless the pilots support the terms of any proposal. “The management teams of United and Continental must understand one hard fact,” the union leaders said. “The pilots of our respective airlines will not allow any merger unless management meets or exceeds our demands to be treated fairly and equitably. “Our concerns will be addressed before we ever agree to allow our airlines to merge.”
(more…)
