Right Tools, Right Technique, Right Experience

I saw an ad on TV awhile back on wall paint, and it stuck with me. Not because I need to paint something, but because professional painters have something to teach all of us. They come equipped with the right tools, from nice brushes and rollers to those fancy sprayers, the right painter’s tape, drop cloths, etc. They then apply the paint in a way that looks totally fabulous! So their technique is great, including prep, which many people don’t think about or don’t do properly. They can also advise you on something you are considering doing, and from their experience, tell you if it will look the way you want it to look.

I then expanded this notion to exercise – right tools, right technique, and right experience. I have been working with a Master Trainer for seven years, and he is very careful about free weights, machines, doing exercises on the bosu, etc., always watching my form and making sure I am doing the exercises correctly. Now I can tell if something I am doing on my own is not right, because I have the muscle memory to back it up. We see some people working out very ineffectively at the gym, and he will comment that they are better off staying home and watching TV, because they will only injure themselves.

I then applied this idea to consulting, and how the right tools, right technique and right experience really make a difference. At Jackson Hole Group, we are a group of former executives who apply tools, techniques and experiences from our executive roles to help clients with their challenges. If there is something that we do not have experience with, or are not sure it will work, we are reluctant to use it. Most of our work is based on 20+ years of experience, and tried and true tools and techniques. In addition, we are constantly updating and revising the tools we use based on better technology, what we learn from our engagements, and what we learn from each other. Our models, processes, and tools are evolving on an ongoing basis. We can tell clients what will work and what won’t based on applying our work to a wide variety of companies and situations. We will tell clients when they don’t need a large initiative, but a smaller, more targeted effort which can have the same impact. We also teach our clients to use the tools and techniques we use, and we transfer our knowledge and previous experience so that they can do it themselves next time.

I don’t know how many times I have seen HR professionals trying to do something themselves that they do not have the proper tools for (analytical tools, project management tools, etc.), don’t know how to do it in a detailed way, haven’t done it for 10+ years, or have no experience doing it at all. Most of the time this work seems fairly straightforward, but like painting, it will not come out as well as if you have someone with previous experience work alongside you the first time. It is better to bring in a professional painter than to live with walls that don’t look good! You would probably redo them in a few years anyway, and bring in a professional painter the second time around, who has to spend more time covering up a bad paint job.

So, bring in the talent and experience you need on the front end, and learn to do it right the first time!

 

The Bar Has Now Been Raised on Leadership, Again

Consider the fall of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, and the internet fueled social uprising that brought an end to his dictatorial leadership. Never before have we witnessed such a powerful viral movement, borne out of social unrest, finding immediate organizing and empowering capabilities via the social web. Could anyone have predicted that Facebook could bring an end to a dictator’s reign in a Middle Eastern country? Well, maybe Mark Zuckerberg would have dreamed that dream, but now that it is a reality the implications are huge. There is no hiding place for wrong doing or ineptitude. The bar has been raised on leadership once again.

Now connect this to a recent story about a legal battle involving an employee who brought suit through the National Labor Relations Board accusing American Medical Response of Connecticut of illegally firing her for posting negative things about her boss and company on Facebook. The legal ruling went in her favor and sent the message loud and clear that Freedom of Speech is alive and well when it comes to communicating displeasure with a company’s leadership or corporate malfeasance.

To be clear, there is a highly legitimate cause for concern in regards to the “malicious” misuse of social communication tools that has resulted in disastrous outcomes from defamation of character to violence and suicides. Such abuse raises the bar for individuals to adopt a new level of accountability for expressing themselves in a manner that is not slanderous, libelous, or criminal in intent. The ground rules here are far from being clear and need further exploration. While it’s clear that misleading, dishonest, and inappropriate things could be said about a company or its leadership in social forums, the fact that freedom of speech in these environments is protected enables employees who have issues (and who may find themselves in top-down, command and control leadership environments that don’t encourage upward feedback) to air them publicly. Is this a good thing? For the most part, yes (with a strong caveat of responsibility and accountability for the nature of their expression). With well run companies whose leadership is in touch with their organizations, it would be rare for an employee to feel that their only path to being heard was Facebook or Twitter. And if the complaints are unjustified, peers would probably diminish their voice accordingly. At the end of the day however, leadership will always be on the hot seat to raise the bar, act with integrity, manage responsibly, empower employees, and encourage upward feedback in ways that mitigate more drastic alternatives that would lead to “social embarrassment” or expressions of no-confidence.

 

Giant Strides

Anytime underdogs, perceived to be lacking in the talent necessary to achieve championship-level performance, win it all, it begs the question, what on earth enabled that outcome?

The theatre of sports can be a dramatic window through which to observe behaviors that produce winners. Basking in the glow of an improbable SF Giants victory that few predicted, let’s reflect upon some of the key factors that combined to produce a winning formula… and ask ourselves, as business leaders, what can we learn from this World Series upset.

1. Team First: if we compiled a video of post-game Giant interviews, you would be overwhelmed by the number of “stars of the game” who answered the interviewers’
post game questions by addressing the performances of others on their team rather than their own. They simply checked their egos at the clubhouse door. This
was a group that understood that no one person (think Barry Bonds) was the whole ball club, and they were going to win as a team or go home as individuals. Not
unlike the code of conduct of troops at war, they had each other’s backs, and trusted others to pick up the slack if their own performances were sub-optimal.

2. Performance based: big salaried stars like Barry Zito didn’t make it into post season play because their performance leading into the playoffs did not justify their
presence on the field. The GM and field manager were honest, as well as empathetic, when it came to addressing those difficult personnel choices, and the players,
including those who were sitting, honored those decisions, and remained supportive of the team and its management.

3. Dynamic: today in sports and in business you need to be able to iterate and evolve dynamically to adjust to the needs of your organization, your competitive
environment. Only one player that started in the field for the Giants on opening day was in the World Series line up. The series of moves and decisions that led to
the final roster was a study in talent acquisition and development.

4. Diversity: From old and discarded players, to young and inexperienced rookies, from homegrown talent to Columbian and Puerto Rican immigrants, from a former
world champion to a man who endured years of obscurity in the minors, this team was as patchwork as patchwork could be. The fact that they weren’t clones of
one another, that they had a mixture of youth and experience, baldies and beards, hippies and crew cuts, demonstrated that you don’t look for a single type, you
look for many types to make a great team.

5. Decisive management: Management gets paid to make tough decisions and stick by them. They might not always be right, but they play it as they see it, they
strive for fairness, appreciate the contributions of those that got them there, put performance first, and directly communicate those decisions to those individuals
impacted. How much complaining did you see out of former Giant starters who sat the bench or didn’t make the roster? Something tells you the players respected
management’s thoughtful decisions enough to support their manager and team before defending themselves.

6. Development: the core talent in the organization was homegrown, drafted in their teens, developed in the minors, and professionally tutored in the big leagues.
Without that talent acquisition and development system, the Giants would not have had a chance to compete at this level. They then filled critical holes around
that core group very strategically. The combination of inside and outside, development and acquisition was brilliant devised and executed.

7. Shared Vision: to a man, there was not a single person in that organization that believed in anything less than the ultimate goal… a World Series ring… nothing short
of that was considered a victory. To a man they thought they could beat the unbeatable in Cliff Lee. To a man, they thought they could shut down the Texas
offense that had so easily wiped out the Yankees. Just goes to show you when you aim high, you achieve beyond anyone’s expectations.

8. Vulnerability and Will: finally, this group coined the word “torture” to describe their brand of baseball. That was humble acknowledgement that this would never be
easy… that they were imperfect in many ways and that they were going to experience the school of hard knocks. It was their acceptance of that fact which
enabled them to remain confident in the low moments. And it was their collective will that drove them to overcome those imperfections in such a glorious way.

If you had your choice between a group of highly talented execs who did not team well together versus a group of overachievers who did act as a team, which would you choose?

I think the Giants just answered that question. What do you think?

 

5Dynamics

It’s been a long time since I found myself getting so excited about an assessment tool.  But recently I’ve had so many successes using the 5Dynamics assessment tool that I feel compelled to get the word out.  After using numerous tools over the course of my career, I’ve never come across anything as powerful as 5Dynamics.  Its impact comes from its simplicity combined with the incredible insights it delivers.  Unlike most tools, it can be easily understood and applied by leaders across different functions and throughout an organization.

5Dynamics measures our energy intensity in the dynamics that tell us a lot about how we do our work and live our lives.  It also can tell us how we learn and where we naturally would be inclined to spend our time.

At the Jackson Hole Group we use the 5Dynamics tool in our executive advising, coaching work, team development, and in general organization advising.  It is an amazing tool and seen as an insightful asset by our clients.  It only takes less than 10 minutes for an individual to take the assessment on-line and the resulting report is incredibly accurate and insightful.

One of the great differentiators of this tool from others is its relevance to business in delivering superior performance through team insights and building trust.  Building more effective teams increases functionality and delivers better performance.

I’ve been using 5Dynamics for over 5 years now and its power only gets stronger.  I find myself looking at life through the lens of 5Dynamics.  Even though the tool is based on how work gets done through the phases of Explore, Excite, Examine, Execute, and Evaluate, I find it has relevance to how we behave in pretty much all situations.  I even found, after many years of marriage, that I can find insights into why my wife and I sometimes struggle with situations.  Through the  insights provided by the tool I have gained a better appreciation for how others see activities, events and facts, which allows me to appreciate the perspectives from others and to gain a better understanding of how to better deal with it.

I am so passionate about the 5Dynamics instrument I have become a Master Trainer.  I find myself telling everyone I can about the tool because I want to give them the opportunity to use it.  For me, 5Dynamics is intuitively obvious and the nice thing about it is that anyone can understand it and use it once you have the basic training.  Learning how to see things from multiple perspectives and to understand our own reactions just makes sense.  It is a powerful insight.

 

An open letter to Philip Knight, Chm of the Board, Nike Inc.

Dear Mr. Knight,

The clock is ticking and Nike is losing credibility by the minute. The company’s decision to retain Tiger Woods as a spokesman is at odds with its vision … to bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world. Just what is it about Tiger that inspires now? Being in the business of advising CEO’s and their teams, we often work with organizations whose values are tested by unforeseen circumstances. How an organization responds to those challenges speaks volumes to its employees , customers and shareholders about what it values.

When Tiger’s personal transgressions became public, and it was apparent that he had lost the moral compass that you and many others presumed that he had, Nike stood by him. Human beings are imperfect, and failure is not unknown to the best of us. Your decision to give him a second chance was commendable. The hope was that he would learn from his mistakes and become a better man for it.

Now in the aftermath of his return to competitive golf at Augusta, that hope seems extinguished. We may never know to what extent he rights his personal life…but what you can and should judge him on is his professional image…his conduct and demeanor while in the public eye. At the Masters, during and after the competition, he let down all those who had hoped a new, more centered and humbled Tiger would emerge.

He claimed that he was going to tone down his anger on the course and show more respect for the game. Apparently that was not a sincere commitment as his profanities were broadcasted to a worldwide audience. Worse yet, in his post Master’s interview, he defended his conduct, expressing his right to be upset with his poor play and laying the blame on others who were in his words “ making way too much of a big deal about this thing…..I don’t know how people think I’m going to be happy about that.”

The interview also confirmed the fundamental fact that he remains stuck in the selfish bubble that got him in trouble in the first place. Showing no humility, and never acknowledging the inspired play of his competitors, his commentary was typical of a sore loser. It was all about Tiger, and the fact that if he decides to enter a tournament, he expects to win it…as if it were his God given right. The message was that other competitors should not be able to win if he is on his game. It’s presumptuous and arrogant, which are not values that Nike aspires to.

This is a young man whose character no longer inspires, whose ability to change (innovate) on the heels of a supposedly painful process of introspection endured during rehab, seems highly doubtful. Nike’s shareholders should not be paying the price for his inability to act with integrity and conduct himself with honor consistent with true sportmanship. Every succeeding day you are party to the lie that is Tiger, your brand stands to lose its integrity. Mr. Knight, on behalf of the company you co-founded, and its shareholders, it’s time to just do it….drop him.

 

“Up In The Air” Crashes

For those of you who are movie buffs and recently watched the Oscars, one of the Best Picture nominations  was for a film called “Up in the Air” starring George Clooney. While the acting was quite sound, I have to confess to happiness that it did not win best picture. Why? Because, for anyone who has ever been involved in the process of letting employees go, the premise was so objectionable and so unrealistic that I found myself totally distracted and non-engaged.

George Clooney plays the part of a consultant who gets hired to fire people (sometimes on mass). Rather than the incumbent manager ( and/or associated HR staffers) within an organization stepping up to the direct responsibility for one of the most sensitive and life-altering communications  imaginable, the duty is farmed out to a third-party consultancy. Worse yet, the consulting company, in an attempt to become more operationally efficient , starts experimenting with video chat as the communications platform for these dismissals versus in-person meetings.

Now movies are movies but this was passed off as a real-life drama. Please tell me none of you ,nor anyone you know, has ever fired or let go of an employee  deploying a 3^rd party consultant  to communicate the dismissal news?

In this day and age, with a weak economy, and unemployment high,  the fact is that many companies are forced to reduce staff. Great companies  however, handle these dismissals with the kind of sensitivity and caring that would motivate the best of these employees to boomerang back into the company if the opportunity were to present itself in more stable times. Other than the death of family and friends, there may not be a more heart- wrenching or stressful moment than the loss of job and financial security. As a manager, if you don’t dread those conversations, you don’t deserve to be a manager. And as a manager, if you are not courageous enough to even be the communicator of your decision-making, you have no business being in the business of managing people.

As for the notion of firing someone over a video monitor, as an employee of a company deploying that tactic, I’d say “hallelujah, I’m gone”. If that is the methodology of choice, I wouldn’t want to spend another day at that god forsaken would-be workplace.

Finally, although the film only dealt with the devastation of job loss from the perspective of the people let go, it completely side-stepped another critical aspect of the collateral damage caused by layoffs…and that is the fragile mindset of the employees who remain in their jobs. Of critical importance in any communications game plan is what is said to the remaining employees in the aftermath of a layoff. Those words can make or break an organization’s future productivity.

Oh well, it wasn’t a documentary thank god.

 

HR Evolution or Revolution: How Do We Address HR’s Missing DNA?

Why is it that top flight college grad’s typically don’t choose Human Resources as the desired target profession? Cynthia Nelson, President of Plan B Executive Search, posed this question while I was contemplating writing this article. Since I have the pen, so to speak, let me answer the question: “HR hasn’t evolved to a unilaterally recognized profession, one that would command such expertise.” It really depends on the company, the leadership and the environment as to the importance placed on the HR function (its leader) and whether an investment of this nature is justified. I don’t think this comment is restricted to a specific industry or geography. I think it depends on whether the CEO and his or her top team believe that a high-performing HR function adds leverage to the business. If this isn’t the prevalent belief then what you find is a personnel director or HR manager that reports to the CFO. The HR team is mainly focused on efficient administration.

Do companies even need an HR function? Some companies go without and appear successful. I recently learned of a manufacturing company where the past CEO “Didn’t believe in the value of an HR function” – that it simply duplicated what he already paid managers to do: Hire and manage the human resource. The company was successful growing from start-up to mid-size. It wasn’t the number one player though – number three. Two years after the founding CEO retired his second in command, who assumed the CEO role, made a radical, strategic decision: Hire a VP of HR sitting at the “C” table to help revitalize the business and evolve company culture. The root motivation seemed to be difficulty attracting and retaining key talent and lack of “espirit de corp” across the company. It just wasn’t a compelling or interesting place to be. Voluntary turnover was 15%. 2009 Great Places to Work Institute, Inc. data shows that in Manufacturing & Production, industry average is 17.5%; companies on the 100 Best Places to work list in this same space average 9.52%. Hmmm. Maybe a talented HR group pushing on Employer of Choice type activities can make a difference.

What is the role most asked for by top management but HR is the least skilled at doing? Not operating partner. Not excellence in HR best practices. Not management of e-HR. Not cost-effectiveness of HR programming and practices. Strategic partner is top on the list. Source: 100 Things You Need to Know: Best People Practices for Managers & HR, Eichinger, Lombardo & Ulrich©2006, Lominger Limited, Inc. This is old news. And, what’s really sad here is that HR often gets a “seat at the table” but blows the moment of truth over and over – by not contributing at a level that meets client expectations and adds to the business value proposition in a meaningful and measurable way.

My hypothesis is simple: The HR profession hasn’t fully evolved. It lacks definition and the full depth and breadth of skills needed to fully define it as a stand-alone business function – including the supporting metrics to validate contribution. Unlike Finance (where there are institutional drivers for the profession), none really exist for HR. Yes, progressive class act HR shops exist in a number of companies across a broad range of industries. But these are hit or miss. The standard for the HR function remains administratively focused, servant of the people, compassion for the weak and defenseless. This is all lumped together into “soft skills” and low value-add for the company. We know this not to be true but let’s save that discussion for a later time. All of the HR transformation swirl over the last 15 years or so has been more like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We have achieved some economies of scale with the new, progressive HR model: Centers of Expertise, HR Business Partners deployed to key clients as a single point of contact for global/matrixed organizations and Shared Services to achieve economies on administrative and other tasks conducive to centralization (in-source, co-source or out-source). But some aspects of this have been a bit of a lost leader since the fundamental issues as to why the HR function is broken in the first place aren’t addressed. And, while explicit cost savings are clearly achieved in the new model work force productivity losses that can dwarf HR cost savings are not adequately tracked. In some cases administrative activities are shifted back on to the employee base which competes with their respective primary work focus. I don’t believe this to be an isolated event. The HR dilemma remains: Key missing skills are solid business and operating fundamentals. With this basis, combined with a full array of HR competencies (with special emphasis on strategy, organization design and work force planning), an incredibly powerful HR function can evolve with significant impact on the Human Capital Management agenda.

If you agree with my general thesis then what’s next? It’s time for HR with an attitude. It is time to do a reset on the HR profession. Let’s learn from our pass but define a strategy going forward that will course correct an otherwise derailed business support function. My limited research on this topic brings me to the conclusion that our entry points into the profession, such as, compensation or people development or recruiting or HR Business Partner, become the lens with which the HR function is managed. As Maslow said, “When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.” So while we are busy being very competent in our specialization which became the ticket to the top HR job and a seat at the table our myopic skill-set is also our disability. Our business context is too limited to provide the functional leverage needed when we are in fact at the table. I guess for the foreseeable future, someone needs to handle the deck chairs. But any HR professional should be losing sleep if caught in this conundrum. As a community, we should be able to help those trapped in these less progressive environments too.

Possible next steps could be: 1) Use this article as a primer. Maybe I’m off track but let’s debate it and clearly define the problem. 2) Convene a special summit meeting with global HR principals to help shape a “go-forward” plan, i.e., Create a strategic plan for an HR revolution, 3) Refine this long-term plan while securing endorsements and involvement from appropriate stakeholders (educational institutions, thought leaders, key executives from established professional HR entities, practitioners, consultants, etc…), 4) Ensure that one outcome is a universal definition of the HR function, business value, and required skills and competencies, 5) Identify a common set of metrics that explicitly connects HR activity to ROI, 6) Agree on criteria that constitutes appropriate HR credentials and 7) Create and implement a communications/branding plan that targets business leaders, the current HR community and upcoming HR professionals. This is easier to fix than the USA Health Care System. We just need the interest and forum to do so.

A Cardiologist once said to me, following a hospital board meeting, “I’m glad all I have to fix are hearts. These are a lot simpler to fix than organizations.” He wasn’t kidding. He was daunted by the variables that I was dealing with in trying to resolve a hospital merger. It included Board conflict, radical restructuring, cost cutting requirements and labor unions galore. I don’t dispute the skill, knowledge and overall intelligence required by a medical professional. What I do dispute is that the HR profession has fully evolved. There are missing links in HR’s DNA. As such, the evolution ceased about two decades ago. When the evolution is complete one acid test of the success of that evolution and the viability of the function will be: “Do name school graduates select HR as the profession of choice?” It’s a tough hill to climb – but isn’t it about time?

 

What is happening to Job Satisfaction?

Employers of all sizes are in a battle for the “hearts and minds” of their workforce these days and many of them don’t seem to care.  In this work of high unemployment, job losses across industries and a fragile economy as a backdrop, there is often a complacency expressed by executives.  “People are lucky to have jobs” says one.  “I can replace anyone who quit” says another.  The fact is, at the moment, they are probably correct.  But something more significant is happening at a macro level and it suggests that acquiring and retaining talent over the long term is becoming harder and harder for companies of all sizes.

The Conference Board released its latest national survey on the American workforce, and the results are not good.  Only 45% of American workers surveyed were actually happy with their jobs versus 61.1% in 1987.  The implications are huge, especially when the economy improves and workers decide to vote with their feet.

Benefits have long been a stabilizing influence on the workforce.  Employees were nervous about changing employers and potentially losing coverage which was important for themselves or for their families.  To keep costs down, employers have gotten very creative in scheduling and raising the “regular hourly schedules” which qualify for benefits at all.  That means fewer employees have benefits and therefore have little to lose in shopping around.  Add to the dynamic the health care changes being discussed at the national level which will make benefit coverage far more transferable between employers.  Benefits alone will not help in either employee retention or in employee satisfaction.   Competitive pay practices certainly help, but here again, desperate employers can recruit talent away if there are no additional bonds with your workforce.

The keys to both attracting a talented workforce and certainly in retaining one is all about establishing a relationship between leadership and employees.  Sharing a vision about the future of the business, feeling as though your contribution is recognized by those above you, having a sense of your work mattering in the larger purpose of the business.  Maslow wrote years ago about a hierarchy of needs which were a key to satisfaction professionally.  His principals remain important today.  Understanding that all of us respond to feeling a sense of self-actualization in our work; to feeling a level of esteem from those around us; by having a sense of “belonging” to a work group or team; by feeling a level of security about our employment status; and by having small things which reinforce our sense of well-being.  Creating a culture or work environment which works on these issues will distinguish employers as “great places to work.”

The key here for employers is deciding whether to actively work this issue on a proactive basis or to wait until the macro trends play themselves out.  The former is a strategy; the latter is a decision which will simply mean you will pay more for a less than full optimized workforce.  Loyalty is a two-way street.  Offer it to employees in a clear, overt way, and they will offer it back in spades.

 

Plan For The Unexpected

As I sat down to write today, I realized there was nothing that jumped out at me that I felt needed to be said.  All of the big news topics have been hashed over and over again.  Should I write about Tiger Woods?  Should I write about the war in Afghanistan?   Should I write more about executive compensation?

For every topic that came to mind I got a quick “no” reply from myself.  Enough is enough.  Then it hit me.  Today is December 7^th, Pearl Harbor day.  Now that’s a meaty topic.  But, after all of these years, what needs to be said other than remembering all of the Americans who lost their lives that day?

So after paying my respect to all of the men and women who lost their lives that day in 1941, I realized there are some great lessons to be learned from that event that should be applied to business and everyday life.

How could anyone ever plan for such an attack?  The same holds true for the attacks on September 11, 2001.  The answer is—you can’t.  What I believe to be the most important lesson to learn is that there will always be events that are totally unexpected.  The key is to recognize that these will be there and do the best we can to have back up plans should the unexpected occur.  This might have been what the ex-Chairman and CEO of Intel, Andy Grove, meant when he said: “only the paranoid survive.”

We must always scan the environment for signs of shifting winds.  It’s important to look outside our own domains.  Your competitor tomorrow may come from a completely different place than your current competitors.  Today change happens at a much faster pace than ever before in history and it will continue to accelerate, making it more important than ever to be prepared.

Strategic planning should take on a whole new dimension in the new world of business.  In addition to the traditional strategic planning, which is still necessary, we need to have teams of thinkers who are thinking totally “out of the box.”  These are people who are looking at what if scenarios that are most likely not even related to their current business, market place, or customer base.  Trying to anticipate the unexpected is worth the time and effort.

The other thing we should be doing is building back up plans should the unexpected happen.  What if we lose 20% market share in one year due to an unforeseen event?  What if one of our products becomes obsolete due to an unexpected new technology?  The list goes on and on.

So, in today’s world, it makes more sense than ever that we should be doing more scenarios planning than ever before.  If the totally unexpected could happen in 1941, it definitely could happen in the upcoming decade.

Building this in as part of normal business operations is something to consider as 2010 approaches.  Maybe this is a good New Year’s resolution we should all consider.

 

How Do You Know?

I have worked in HR, mostly consulting, for more than 15 years.  I am amazed at the number and nature of business decisions in HR that are made based on gut feel or logic, not hard data.  It is not that hard to collect data, or analyze data that you currently have, to see if actions you are about to take will have the desired outcome.

Many times, at the HR Business Partner level, the HR person assumes they know the root cause of a symptom, and rather than do due diligence to find out if it is true, they treat it as true, and proceed from there.  Many solutions suggested by HR miss the mark.

So, how do you collect data, and make decisions based on that?  Sun Microsystems created an HR Lab in 2000, and launched many research projects to collect relevant data prior to making decisions.  The research design, data collection, and analysis were driven by Jay Moldenhauer-Salazar, who was the sole Lab employee.  From studying human factor implications of working at home to social networking analysis, the projects were seen as of strategic significance to Sun.  A cadre of volunteers rotated through the lab, gained insight into how to collect and analyze data, and learned how to structure data collection themselves.  At no additional cost to Sun, they did some major development work, and got the data to make significant decisions.  (See http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/60/ for more details.)

Dana Gaines Robinson, an expert at Performance Consulting, has for many years used her framework to get to the bottom of performance issues as defined by managers and executives.  By using a very methodical approach to probing for information and collecting data, she is able to get to the heart of the issue, and address it in a robust and systemic way.  Taking the time to do this, and not accept a situation or problem at face value, is crucial to the success of the HR Business Partner.  (See book at http://www.amazon.com/Performance-Consulting-Dana-Gaines-Robinson/dp/1881052842, or services at http://www.exemplaryperformance.com/performanceconsulting.html.)

The lesson here is to probe beneath the surface, and take the time and effort to discover the root cause of an issue to come up with a solution.  Any other resolution is short-sighted, ineffective, and a waste of resources.