Every so often there’s a serious debate about calling HR something else. I used to think that would be OK and perhaps inevitable. We get tired of terms and the baggage they carry and want something with a new connotation. Hence, the hated, administrative-sounding “Personnel” was replaced by HR over many years and now is rarely heard or seen. However, it coincided with real change in expectations of the function. Now we aren’t changing expectations as much as bemoaning the fact they were rarely met.

There’s another route. Rehabilitation is possible. I don’t object to organizations that have started to use Chief People Officer or Human Capital department. I just think they missed the point… and an opportunity. I love William Lutz’ article Life under the Chief Doublespeak Officer. It can’t be just a cosmetic name change. “A rose by any other name….”

In fact the objective this time is to make HR live up to the initial expectations that it would operate at a higher level, be strategic and deliver real value. Some organizations have achieved that. If you want to signal that yours didn’t and now you’re fixing that by changing the name, just make sure you actually modernize what HR does to the latest knowledge about what works.

All the elements we want are available to us under the title HR. The fact they haven’t been allowed to develop properly isn’t entirely, or at least not always, HR’s fault. Some feel in changing the name, we should perhaps re-title every underlying element. In part we’re seeing that - Recruiting has morphed into Talent Acquisition. I see the point if the new term Talent Management. It covers the complete flow from “acquisition” through orientation, training, leadership development, succession planning and more. In fact, it can refer to the complete employee life cycle - including performance management (itself a far broader term than annual evaluation, for instance). Understanding that the processes should be linked under these broader headings actually contributes to advancing strategy. But Talent Acquisition for Recruiting… I’m not sure… except perhaps that it fits into the broader ideas. I can’t see anything new is added.

Anyway, at the gym I’m constantly reminded there are more meanings to the acronym “HR” - ones that might just help in revitalizing the tired old punching bag we love to criticize. There, when I’m pumping away on the treadmill or exercycle, “HR” stands for something different yet strangely relevant - Heart Rate. Wouldn’t it be great if HR in organizations included the meaning the we should pay attention to everyone heart rates. In two senses: first, we want people pumped up, excited, keen and fully “engaged” and energized - high heart rate, and second, we want people to manage their stress levels, not let their heart rates become unstable, uncontrollably rapid, because therein lies the end of the line for employees through burnout as the Japanese term “Karoshi” or death by overwork signifies at the extreme. One group on the positive side uses the term “Heart Math.” Perhaps if we start rehabilitating HR with some positive references, the name won’t seem so bad. I’m not being entirely facetious here.

Of course America’s grand old game has yet another meaning for the term HR, right? Also not a bad thing to associate with the purpose of the human resources function. After all aren’t we in the business of helping and coaching teams to create “Home Runs?” Again, laugh it off if you wish, but optics and PR being what they are, perhaps it’s time for those of us in HR to point out these serendipitous meanings of the acronym that others seem to overlook.

Again today I found myself giving a would-be human resources (HR) manager the same advice I give all job hunters - the new boss is the most important factor in any job you’re considering. A great boss can encourage you, give you projects, mentor, coach, guide and introduce you to a world of further possibilities. In other words, they can make your job exciting, worthwhile and a continual learning experience… or they can pigeon-hole you from day 1 and demand nothing, but routine, even menial results.

You can spot the good ones because they are alive, people with plans themselves for things that need to be or could be done that aren’t yet. They will talk about possibilities not only for you, but for themselves, their teams and the organization. You can feel them inviting you into the process. Others in the company will speak highly of them as coaches and cooperative supporters. Just ask around.

By contrast I very often get to hear (from people looking for new jobs) about current bosses who can’t imagine their report ever progressing. No one in their opinion is ever ready. They’ll consider hiring outside in almost every situation before looking at anyone internally… or they’ll constantly pick people they believe will simply follow orders. “Loyalty” plays big with the latter type. Cross them (ie: have a new idea they didn’t tell you to pursue) and you’re on the hit list forever. Bosses who aren’t interested in growing people abound. Which makes it easy to be a great boss.

After several weeks sorting out how to get the blog running well, I realize I have so much material about what’s effective in Human Resources (HR) and leadership I could fill a dozen books not to mention a daily blog. Time to get going! Every day brings more confirmation that people are finally understanding how powerfully these topics affect results.,, but not necessarily how to manage them most effectively.

I’m happy to say there are more new communities on these topics shaping up. Just this past week I’ve joined a couple and may report further once I assess their value and openness to being identified. Each one brings a flood of new information, though, which can be challenging. What to believe, what to focus on? We can’t pay attention to everything, but HR and leadership are ascending today.

Case in point, one of the new links’ newsletters pointed to a summary of an interesting study by Booz & Company who follow the world’s largest 2500 companies and report only 2.1% of CEOs among them have been fired for poor performance while average tenure has been 9.4 years over the ten year period they looked at.

Assuming the data are correct, that’s far less turnover than the widely reported 2.6 year average tenure for CEOs in general. So, do big companies really have better people? Given that stats also show most big companies (with certain distinct exceptions) fall from grace over any 20 year you want to look at, it would appear more likely that Boards simply aren’t acting on big company CEOs as often as they should.

What most research of this sort raises is the question of which stats to pay attention to and how to interpret them when they appear more or less in a vacuum, unconnected to related information that contradicts or reinforces them.

How do you judge? That’s a question we will increasingly ask ourselves as the Internet continues to deluge us with such questions. I’m interested in opinions….

News of a CEO who flags and fines people for checking their blackberries during meetings hit the papers last month raising interesting questions. Sure, it’s almost certainly impolite to others.

But why does it happen and what right does a CEO have to enforce his brand of courtesy? Perhaps even more importantly, what is the likely outcome? One is suggested on another ad agency CEO’s blog. He’ll steal your angry staff in a heart beat (while doing shameless promotion at the same time).

Did I fail to mention this was a unit of an ad agency… where CEOs like to live up to the reputation of flaring tempers and imperial command? We’re dealing here with evolving generational etiquette as well as everyone under pressure to keep up. Why risk driving valuable staff into the arms of hungry competitors?

Well, when you brag you’re the best I suppose you imagine you can do whatever you want? But isn’t there a better way? As a victim who had to sit through monthly and often weekly three hour meetings with 25 people for many years, the first questions ought to be what use the meetings are, why so many silent people have to endure them and what sort of boss demands that.

If you set up meetings so attendees aren’t engaged, chances are you’ve set that pattern for your entire company. Better to spend a few minutes at the beginning or end questioning whether the meeting was useful and how it could be more so. Are there are reasons for them being there other than hearing updates they could probably read faster – maybe on their blackberries at other boring meetings?

Most meetings could be focused on decisions and over in less than half an hour, but, heck, since we have everyone there… finally, since it’s so hard to get them when they have so many other meetings… why not deluge them with “other stuff.” Build up that agenda with routine reports and pages of numbers on slides that most can hardly see instead of supplying the information ahead so they can bring thought-out comments.

Bosses who actually ask for regular input on how useful meetings are and how they might become more so are rare. It really isn’t so hard to do.

My friends at Verity International produced a panel of senior human resource people from four major corporations Tuesday morning, with remarkable results - and more importantly - remarkable consistency. Whenever big companies present, everyone asks if the lessons are applicable to smaller organizations. The answer is emphatically yes - every organization can do the central things they outlined!

Verity has grown and evolved from pure outplacement or "career management" as we now say, to advising senior executives and talent/organizational consulting. Assembling today’s panel showed the insight that has helped them grow. Targeting what it takes to sustain competitive advantage in organizations, all four described how they develop leaders who, everyone agreed, are what makes the difference.

But can small organizations achieve similar results when these giants, GE, IBM, Hudson’s Bay Company and Scotiabank have millions to spend on programs covering every imaginable area? All it takes is a bit of imagination and attention to the basics that underlie their successes. The panel distilled it nicely.

First and foremost, there has to be a commitment throughout the organization at every level, from every leader, to develop people to the fullest extent of their ability. Leaders have to be prepared to tell the truth about performance, to be clear about what’s expected of staff and especially of other leaders themselves, and provide support. Every leader’s role in developing, coaching, mentoring, guiding, assessing and being honest with people has to be reviewed at least annually, with compensation and promotions dependent on those factors as much as on ability to achieve "the numbers." This has to be embedded throughout the organization via a culture built of habits for developing and growing people.

People who seem to have high potential need to be singled out for attention, conversation and development more than others. These fall in three groups - a) what everyone called "emerging leaders" (ie: newer employees), b) executives - those moving significantly up or newly hired into the organization who need heavy emphasis on fitting themselves into the culture, especially this necessary culture of cooperation and development (or new entrants will almost certainly fail as everyone noted) and c) leaders in the top team, who must drive the programs, ensure at least annual (or usually more frequent) reviews of who’s being developed by whom and must model commitment to coaching and development skills themselves.

The primary method of developing leaders is to rotate them through stretch assignments, not courses - challenging opportunities in real jobs in which they are supported by coaching, mentoring and honest evaluation that helps them improve. GE especially noted they’re moving toward keeping their high potentials longer than the old "12 to 36 months in a job" model everyone used to expect and this new cultural evolution is hard for some aggressive upward movers to get used to. People need time, support and conversation to learn. As long as the challenge is maintained (and pointed out) in the job, longer assignments provide people a chance to see themselves improve year over year.

Listeners could have chosen to focus on the myriad programs these companies can afford - elearning systems, outside consultants and trainers who customize coaching, management training and team-building programs. You’d be missing the points they emphasized. The greatest learning occurs right on the stretch job with on-the-job coaching by line executives. The rest you fit in when and if you can. For these big companies operating in today’s global environment this includes expensive global projects, staffed by highly diverse global teams including wide age and culture diversity for maximum learning about relationships and people, plus being exposed to a wide range of learning tools and courses. But all of that isn’t mandatory.

What every one of these four senior professionals emphasized was: every leader must coach and develop, and companies must get rid of the ones who won’t or can’t… and sooner rather than later… because later is too late! Hence the strong need today for those who can provide training and guidance in how coaching works for executives who don’t always naturally have those skills.

Nothing the panelists listed prevents every company of every size applying the same core principles with the same simple goals. Developing people needs to become a daily part of everyone’s job, with as much honesty, clarity and commitment to a growth culture as each can muster. What could be simpler or more cost efficient?

Just back from vacation, thinking about how much we depend on, but perhaps over-emphasize the value of research. After all, much of it is either too narrowly focused to be helpful except as idea-starters or is questionably based. Yet it is a concept we’re seeing applied in wide-ranging situations and everyone pays attention.

Here are two links related to the value of research very broadly. Both by Kris Dunn, a 10-year HR exec, who may represent the "youth" element in HR executives and what they’re thinking on the topic of "research" - some useful, some not so much:

http://www.hrcapitalist.com/2008/02/social-networki.html - a post from his blog on how he’s courageously going to research the use of Social Networking software inside his company, a 250-employee medical software company. He rails at HR being too "liability conscious" and then discovers there’s logic to it after all… all in the same post. Interesting take on research.

http://www.workforce.com/section/01/feature/25/36/49/index.html - his article in this week’s Workforce Management… entitled Avoid Hiring an HR Dud. Great idea. But I’m struck (dumb-struck?) by the questions he wants to ask new HR hires. Again, very specific, not applicable to everyone by any means. Research figures in the question entitled "Performance Consultant" in an indirect way. (This one takes a free registration if you aren’t a site-member.)

This is clearly a real up-and-coming HR exec who’s developed buckets of confidence… and thinks things should fit his way. It’s a blog I’ll certainly follow for a while at least.

It’s fine to say you need Knowledge as well as Awareness, Desire, Ability and Reinforcement to carry through organizational change (ADKAR by Prosci) . The question then becomes how do you develop the knowledge?

One challenge is there is so much information today it’s difficult to sort through and decide exactly the kind of knowledge you need.  It works better if you first choose a strategy, not only for how to get the knowledge you’re seeking, but for succeeding at each step to reach an overall goal you have in mind. 

Only when you start to pursue your goal seriously through action will you begin to pay close enough attention to notice the types of knowledge you need.

An example would be when you decide you’re going to take over another organization - a major change for people in the other organization and for your own people as well.  From experience I can say the most important factor (apart from obvious factual items: financial and strategic fit between the organizations) is that both groups of people must feel continuing respect from the other, feel included and believe the end result will provide value to them - and by "them" I mean each individual in each group.

80% of mergers and acquisitions fail for "lack of culture fit."  In other words the people didn’t get along, respect each other or find ways to work together.

To follow the ADKAR model, as you go forward you begin to become Aware of more of these new challenges that you may not have anticipated at first.  Each can become a block to progress.  You may have to scramble to develop new knowledge throughout the process.  Now you have a new test of the strength of your Desire and need to Reinforce it.  The overall strategy looked sensible, but do you want to dig into each roadblock you’ve discovered.  You must do so with good will and confidence, believing you have a positive chance of success, or you will end up with failure.  So Desire has to be renewed and developed further day by day.  In other words the general concepts of Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability and Reinforcement are helpful guides, but not sufficient to handle the details.  Underlying each are habits to develop.  Doing so requires you to be Positive, Honest, think Strategically and so on according to my model.

Each step can be the deal-breaker.  You will have to develop many new Abilities along the way.  Each requires Reinforcement through practice to build habits in the new area.  It really doesn’t take much to shift the ADKAR change model toward practical skills you need in order to succeed: Balance, in being Positive, being Honest, choosing the best Strategies and building Habits to achieve them.  My efforts have simply been aimed at finding the easiest words that most directly help guide one’s behavior in each situation.  By following them you develop Knowledge as you go.

So begins the name of a new book by Patricia Addesso reviewed recently in an excellent Globe and Mail article by Wallace Immen, which unfortunately is only viewable online with a paid membership. It’s a follow up to her first book, Management Would Be Easy… If It Weren’t For The People.   

Both offer examples of management practices that should just stop… and ones that need to be developed. You can imagine the gist. Bosses have power, which means to a degree they can keep getting away with bad behavior. No one wants to be the messenger who gives them the bad news that their actions are turning people off or, in the case of "Outer Space," failing to draw the best from everyone. Dr. Addesso’s most important point is that bosses, more than ever, need to be able to recognize and encourage how people differ and the value different people bring to work - diversity in other words.

As we move deeper into an age when every employee at every level should be able to contribute opinions, we can no longer tolerate managers who cut some people out of the picture because they can’t relate to their styles. As well as race, religion and gender hat means older managers have to understand and value members of younger generations… and vice versa - younger managers need to value and understand the contributions older staff can add… and so on, for every "group" we could define. At the end of the day we’re all just "people" whose efforts can be appreciated and utilized… or wasted because some leader is too limited a thinker to figure out what’s possible.

All it takes is a commitment to this vision - everyone can contribute… and some practice at encouraging them to do so. It takes willingness to listen, consider and try to figure out how to align unique efforts with the whole, but as I can say from personal experience, a diverse team whose members bring a range of skills and viewpoints to a problem can come up with a solution far faster than a team that’s too "cozy." Another expert who says the same is Lynda Gratton of the London Business School, who’s work on exceptional teams makes the same point. Teams struggle at first to learn to work together, to manage their differences and those that succeed win big. We know diverse teams are trickier to manage, but the pay-offs are dramatically better. After a while, Dr. Gratton observes, they get stale. So moving people on is a good thing. But it all falls flat if the team manager can’t handle differences and diversity. Leadership, as always, is the key.

Wow. Every once in a while you find something that creates a contrast you have to see to believe. A newsletter I get had a link I almost missed, to a manual for a system called the People Capability Maturity Model or P-CMM. I gather it is designed to help organizations clearly identify what people need to learn to step up in skills of managing customer and people issues through 5 levels of "People-Capability Maturity" - in other words, stages that people have to grow through to attain high levels of being able to relate to and satisfy customers or other people.

It looks interesting. I’m at page 15 of 735 pages; I’m not going to make it to the end. Yes, you read that right - 735 regular size pages in PDF. On page 7 they ask logically, "If these practices have been well known for a decade or more, why have so many organizations failed to implement them?" Great question, except it’s more like 30 to 40 years or more since research first proved them beyond doubt.

May I suggest that one big barrier to implementation is that we’ve made this stuff too hard for people? I know my guide to the key skills is a summary, but, heck, it fits on two sides of a 3" x 4" card. The rest is stories about how people make the skills work, which I mostly tell in my presentations. Contrast? This illustrates why people believe developing people skills is difficult. My stuff illustrates why it isn’t difficult at all. That’s the point of what I’ve set out to show, in stark contrast.

For anyone brave enough to take a look the PDF is here: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/01.reports/pdf/01mm001.pdf.