Since Monday’s post entitled, “Outsourcers - Let’s Get Ready to Rumble“, much has occurred in the great debate surrounding those who list and rank the best in the industry.  One particular development has caused me tremendous concern.  

As many of you are aware, Phil Fersht of AMR Research had posted a simple survey asking buyers, providers and influencers to “rate the raters”.  This morning, Phil announced that the findings of the survey were tainted by false respondents claiming to be Fortune 500 organizations.  Per Phil’s Horses for Sources blog:

“Unfortunately, I received a very large number of suspicious survey responses from a host of “FORTUNE 500 buyers”, whose IP addresses - for some reason - all seemed to emanate from the couple of locations. I received a very large number of these survey submissions clustered within a short time-frame, and they had no names or email addresses attached. They also all had selected one particular list-maker as “highly credible”, while simultaneously describing the same 2 others as having “poor credibility”.”

As someone who has been in this industry for some time now, I am terribly saddened and disappointed to see such a simple attempt at an open information capture to be fraudulently tainted.  Unfortunately, this type of behavior simply perpetuates an area of the industry wrought with increasing distrust.  It seems to me that once again things will have to get worse before they get better.  

Let’s keep the conversation going and our integrity intact.  

Michael Buffer is well known for this catch phrase, a statement that precedes a typically bloody exchange between the world’s most renowned boxers.  Well strap on your mouth-guards and prepare for the body blows, uppercuts and jabs being thrown on Phil Fersht’s Horses for Sources.  Fersht, Research Director for Sourcing at AMR Research, has a regular brawl on his hands over the extremely controversial issue of industry lists and rankings.  

Although concern surrounding certain list-makers’ methodologies has been brewing for some time, a frenzy erupted when BusinessWeek’s Steve Hamm wrote a very compelling article questioning the practices of Black Book of Outsourcing creators Brown & Wilson.  Per Hamm’s article:

“Claes G. Fornell, a professor at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business who specializes in customer satisfaction surveying, says Brown & Wilson’s methods aren’t sound. First, he says, the firm can’t be sure all the people who respond are qualified. Second, the results could be tilted in favor of companies that urge their customers to participate. ‘You’d be better off not doing anything than doing a survey like this,’ says Fornell.”

Picking up on these concerns, Deborah Kops (CMO for WNS Global Services) repurposed her May 2006 article (”The Book of Lists”) for Fersht’s audience.  Among many insightful statements, Kops questions the value of lists and what they don’t tell us:

“A key component of editorial calendars and other sponsorships in the outsourcing industry, rankings and lists can provide a service to communities by identifying players and trends. But let’s not delude ourselves; they are also a business imperative for publishers, associations and pundits to build membership and/or circulation and sell adverts, publications and reprints, playing on the sell side’s need for recognition. They generally make someone money! This is not necessarily a negative, but is rather the way the world goes around. What’s critical is that that which is editorial and that which is financial should be kept completely independent at all costs. Pay for play in any form must not be the modus operandi.”

I believe Deborah was very gracious by not explicitly referring to those entities whose lists, rankings and awards have tainted the perceived or real value of the industry’s providers.  Those of us who have been in the market for sometime now can easily identify the organizations who have handsomely profited from such point in time, pay-to-play assignments of value.

The Catch-22 of our current industry state is this: In lieu of an attractive alternative, provider marketing organizations will continue to pour precious funding into the pre-existing ranking and rating processes. Thus, the cycle perpetuates itself.  We don’t like the lists yet many are afraid to not be on them.  However, until there is a collective halting of such spend, we can’t expect the system to self-correct. In the interim, we can hold out hope that a better mechanism will emerge that is truly transparent, unbiased and effective. Let’s keep the conversation going.

_________________________________________________

It you want to voice your thoughts on these issues, place your votes by judging the judges.  

You won’t be shocked by the joint findings of EquaTerra and HR Executive stating that public sector HR needs to be more strategic.  This shouldn’t be a surprise given the traditional notion of the public sector lagging the private sector in progressive practices.  Because, let’s face it, HR in the public sector is hard.  

Some of the challenges EquaTerra cites are common to most HR departments, both public and private, including:

• Inadequate resources and lack of executive management attention and support that hamper process improvement efforts; 
• An inability to adequately focus on more strategic activities because of competing demands and insufficient resources;
• Ongoing attrition of skilled/affordable employees needed to address these challenges and an overall aging workforce. (pg. 4)

But others are truly public sector centric, such as:

• Competition from the private sector for employees; 
• Diminishing appeal of the public sector “brand” as a means to attract and retain skilled employees;
• More responsibilities than their counterparts of yesteryear as a result of mandates from the Federal Government and public calls for additional services, including homeland security.  (pg. 4)

If you’re still reading and haven’t fully given up hope just yet, you’re probably interested in hearing what the answer is - the big punch-line, the silver bullet shot forth from the blogosphere that offers that dreamy “ah-ha!” moment of infinite clarity and obvious action.  This blog may not have the ultimate answer, but here is some food for thought.  Perhaps the answer lies in the persistence of public sector HR to not take no for an answer.

We asked Glenn Davidson, Managing Director of EquaTerra Public Sector, to comment on how public entities can stretch tight dollars for key initiatives and transformation:

“Be creative; work smarter.  For instance, a marketing/branding strategy for recruitment, retention and driving behavior doesn’t have to be costly.  Look for alternative ways to get access to technology and services, thereby freeing up resources to do other work.”

Neil Reichenberg, Executive Director of IPMA-HR concluded that:

“This study demonstrates the challenges that public sector HR faces in becoming more strategic, especially in a time of diminishing resources. While the study results indicate that progress is being made, the journey is far from over. The HR department needs to develop innovative strategies and tools that will enable them to become leaders in total talent management within their organizations.” (pg. 19)

The underlying implication is that this is not happening.  But in fact, it is…. slowly.  Those who have a vested and external interest in public sector HR are going to continue to saber rattle and cry from the highest rooftops.  Why?  Because there are billions of dollars in services, licensing, consulting, competitive sourcing and the like to be gained if the internal HR functions could simply “get out of their own way”.  

The problem is that this type of change cannot truly exist without those who feel the pain each and every day electing to stop, take stock of their situation and say enough!  This is hard, and scary, and risky, and sometimes career limiting.  But if you don’t try, you frankly have nothing to complain about.  So take action now and let’s keep the conversation going. 

As I strolled to my local coffee shop and took in an uncharacteristically quiet morning in downtown Washington, DC, I began to wonder about the history of the fourth of July as a national work holiday.

Thanks to James Heintze of American University for his extensive research on the topic. Enjoy your day today everyone and let’s keep the fireworks going! Take it away James:

The act of Congress establishing Fourth of July as a holiday, but without pay, for federal employees and the District of Columbia occurred in 1870. Senator Hannibal Hamlin (Dem. Maine, and previously vice president under Abraham Lincoln) introduced a Senate Bill (referred HR no. 2224), issued through the Committee on the District of Columbia, Forty-first Congress, Session II, on 24 June 1870, and titled “Legal Holidays in the District.” Hamlin presented his rationale for the bill: “There are no legal holidays here, and this bill merely provides for what I think are the legal holidays in every state of the Union.” Apparently there was no opposition to the bill which “was reported to the Senate without amendment; ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.” It was reported in the Congressional Globe, Friday, June 28, 1870, and was printed as Chapter 167:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the following days, to wit: the first day of January, commonly called New Year’s day, the fourth day of July, the twenty-fifth day of December, commonly called Christmas day, and any day appointed or recommended by the President of the United States as a day of public fast or thanksgiving, shall be holidays within the District of Columbia, and shall, for all purposes of presenting for payment or acceptance for the maturity and protest, and giving notice of the dishonor of b ills of exchange, bank checks and promissory notes or other negotiable or commercial paper, be treated and considered as is the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, and all notes, drafts, checks, or other commercial or negotiable paper falling due or maturing on either of said holidays shall be deemed as having matured on the day previous. Approved, June 28, 1870.

On June 29, 1938, by joint resolution of Congress (HJ resolution No. 551; pub. res. no. 127), the Fourth of July was legislated as a Federal holiday with pay for its employees:

Resolved by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that hereafter whenever regular employees of the Federal Government whose compensation is fixed at a rate per day, per hour, or on a piece-work basis are relieved or prevented from working solely because of the occurrence of a holiday such as New Year’s Day, Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, or any other day declared a holiday by Federal statute or Executive order, or any day on which the departments and establishments of the Government are closed by Executive order, they shall receive the same pay for such days as for other days on which an ordinary day’s work is performed. Section 2. The joint resolution of January 6, 1885 (U.S.C., title 5, sec. 86), and all other laws inconsistent or ion conflict with the provision of this Act are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict. Approved, June 29, 1938.

On January 14, 1941, it was brought to the attention of Congress by Robert Ramspeck, Chairman, Committee on the Civil Service of the House of Representatives (see 77th Congress, House of Representatives Report No. 532), that the 1938 Federal holiday law failed to specify that employees of the Government of the District of Columbia also have the Fourth of July designated as a holiday with pay. Harry B. Mitchell, president of the United States Civil Service Commission responded back on April 7 that his office, as well as the Bureau of the Budget, had no objection to amending the 1938 law to include District of Columbia employees. On May 13, 1941, a “Holiday Leave for Per Diem Employees of the District of Columbia” amendment was enacted with the following change made to the 1938 law:

In compliance with paragraph 2a of the Rule XIII, of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law are shown as follows (present law is in roman and new matter is in italics): (Act of June 29, 1938, 52 Stat. 1246) “That hereafter whenever regular employees of the Federal Government or of the district of Columbia whose compensation is fixed at a rate per day, per hour, or on a piece-work basis are relieved or prevented from working solely because of the occurrence of a holiday, such as New Year’s Day, Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Armistice Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, or any other day declar4ed a holiday by Federal statute or Executive order, or any day on which the departments and establishments of the Government or of the District of Columbia are closed by Executive order, they shall receive the same pay for such days as for other days on which an ordinary day’s work is performed.”

On September 22, 1959, an act was passed by Congress (H.R. 5752, Public Law 86-362) that if the Fourth of July and any other established holiday occurs on a Saturday, “the day immediately preceding such Saturday shall be held and considered to be a legal public holiday, in lieu of such day which so occurs on such Saturday, (A) for such officers and employees whose basic workweek is Monday through Friday, and (B) for the purposes of section 205 (d) of the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951 (65 Stat. 681), as amended (5 U.S.C. 2064 (d)). The act also provided for a day of release for employees “whose basic workweek is other than Monday through Friday.”  (James Heintze, American University)

A few months ago, Inflexion posed a question about human resources member-based forums, asking “With whom do you associate?”  The response from the HR industry was swift and overwhelming, with hundreds of messages pouring in from all over the globe.  What was immediately clear is that both HR professionals and corporate sponsors are struggling to sort through the value propositions of dozens of competing Human Resources Professional Organizations (HRPOs).  This is confounded by the fact that there are well over 200 such HRPOs in the US alone, ranging from the Corporate Leadership Council (CLC) and Human Resource Planning Society (HRPS) to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and WorldatWork.

Inflexion would ask that you take 5 minutes to complete our short poll of views.  We will apply the findings from this survey to our broader research initiative comprising profiles and comparisons of over twenty-five leading HRPOs.  Your voice is critical to the success of this groundbreaking study and we thank you in advance for your participation. 

Should any questions or comments arise, please email us at research@inflexionadvisors.com.  Let’s keep the conversation (and industry innovation) going.

Greetings readers.  Inflexion’s recent post about Robin Wolaner’s book, Naked in the Boardroom, reminded me that there are not only differences in the way that men and women lead, but that there are some differences in the way that men and women learn to lead.  Using Wolaner’s metaphor, let’s think of this as Naked in the Leadership Classroom—a look at preferred learning behaviors, based on gender, used in ANY type of learning experience.

While it is somewhat complicated to understand how one learns to lead (because it is measured by personal, tacit and subconscious acts), identifying gender differences may enrich talent management initiatives and leadership development programs.  Currently, there is not much information about the differences in gender-based leadership learning preferences.  If more was known, it would be possible to address gender differences more intelligently.

I recently conducted a study of aspiring leaders, males and females, and asked them which leadership learning behaviors were used most frequently.  Of the thirty behaviors offered, nineteen showed no differences between males and females.  However, there were eleven behaviors which were selected by females as being highly important in their leadership development.  These include:

1. Learning about leadership from a mentor.
2. Performing self-directed leadership development activities.
3. Contemplating what is expected of a leader by planning how leadership concepts, decision making processes and strategies can be used.
4. Using new language, new strategies, and new ideas to solve problems, mediate conflict, manage change or connect leadership theory to generalized situations.

While this study was not large enough to generalize from, these four leadership learning behaviors describe an approach used by females that ranges from self-reliance to co-dependence on a trusted confidant, and from deep thinking about strategizing/decision making to saying what you mean precisely.   Peeling the onion on leadership learning differences by gender holds promise for creating bias-free pathways for leadership development…all the way to the boardroom. 

Let’s keep the conversation going.

Did we mention she has a PhD?  Any questions for “Dr. Shannon” can be emailed to shannon.flumerfelt@inflexionadvisors.com.

Greetings Readers!  I think everyone can relate to Mark’s story of employee apathy.  What bothers me most is that Mark’s experience, repeated billions of times per day, carries with it a great cost.  Frustration to customers, waste of capacity, damage to the brand and the organization’s goodwill, are just a few of the negative consequences of this problematic workplace phenomenon.  While many leaders would love to use a single event or focused approach to solving this problem, as J.B. Kassarjian points out, we have to shed a mindset of simplistic ideals and move beyond the hopes that “prescribing a little blue pill” mentality works. 

Mark, you point out that even though these behaviors are widespread, they must be overcome.  In fact, while employee apathy is common, it is not insurmountable.  Recent research I have done might provide helpful insight into the solutions to employee apathy.  What I have discovered aligns with Brandi’s ideas of leaders helping employees internalize what value is (from the view of stakeholders) and McKeown’s view that leaders must provide the chain of evidence that leads from employee performance to organizational performance.  I have surveyed employees from two levels of the organization, top executives and clerical staff, across multiple firms.  I was surprised to find out that both groups suffered from the same problems, and that these issues caused them to experience stress and be less productive (a situation that often is expressed in employee apathy).  These common problems include:

1.     A lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities

2.     A lack of communication

3.     A lack of strategic planning

4.     A lack of analysis of understanding root causes of problems

(Interestingly, measuring outcomes and taking more action on ethical beliefs were not areas of concern.) 

So, what I have learned to date is that there is a common understanding the outputs of work, namely the outcomes.  There is also an understanding of the parameters of work, and specifically ethical behavior.  What is missing on all levels is an understanding of how to proceed with processes, protocols and structures that make a difference.  Hence, there is no little blue pill solution here.  Rather, acumen for systemic thinking, skills in process-based approaches and the mental discipline needed for sustaining continuous improvement are called for. 

Dr. Shannon Flumerfelt leads the Organizational Development Practice of Inflexion Advisors.

In Friday’s post, As the HRO World Turns, Mark called for buyers to independently tell their stories about experiences with outsourcing providers.  I concur with his plea, as there is a need for this type of dialogue in the marketplace (and the workplace) based on two important factors – (1) the reconceptualization of commoditization and (2) the value of collaborative networking.  

Seth Godin’s book, Meatball Sundae: Is Your Marketing Out of Sync, describes new thinking around commoditization quite well.    Godin explains how emerging trends have changed the rules for marketing.  These trends demand personalizing the message and creating an authentic story.  What is required is for buyers to provide the actual narrative of what they lived through and what was valuable and not valuable for them.  This means that the agreed-to communication from buyers and outsourcing providers focuses on conveying the realities of the service engagement.  So, the idea that an outsourcing provider can “bundle” their organization in a presentation given by buyers is thinking that is outmoded in today’s marketplace.  Instead, when the transaction is described to the HRO World attendees by buyers, that story in itself becomes a commodity.  So, this is one way that the shift in rethinking traditional commoditization play out; that is, from the idea that the service itself is a commodity to the idea that authentic interaction is the commodity.  A second shift in commoditization is that buyers, in fact, buy the provider organization itself as a commodity.  In other words, providers are framed symbolically based on meaning created from the stories that are put forth that people can relate to and affirm.  These stories have to be conveyed considering the soft side of the buyer.  Hence, providers have a perfect opportunity to allow buyers to describe their experiences and explain what the provider is about, a marketing strategy that matches commoditization forces.

The second factor listed above, the value in collaborative networks, seems to be relevant to Mark’s humble request as well.  A recent study published by Wipro and Knowledge@Wharton, Innovation Sourcing:  All Roads Lead to Collaborative Partnership Networks, highlights the importance of effective strategies for innovation and places collaborative networks at the centerpiece of this arrangement (with the caveat that a certain culture and mindset has to be in play for collaborative networks to add value).   The study states that innovation is viewed, “. . . not just as Company A and Company B doing something together, but as innovation being sourced from a network of partnerships.”  Given certain conditions for sourcing innovation, collaborative networks are endorsed in this study.  

The wealth of partnerships present at the HRO World represent the brain trust for the future of HR and outsourcing solutions.  By opening up dialogue in a way that is less protective of the relationship between buyer and provider and more prone to interaction with the audience, all parties can benefit. 

Let’s keep the conversation going.

As a serial entrepreneur, I am constantly seeking new and innovative approaches to a wide variety of market challenges.  Imagine my excitement when a good friend recommended a click over to Springwise.  The hip web 2.0 site engages 8,000 “spotters” who scan the world for new business ideas.  The result is a wide ranging and constantly updated cache of innovation just waiting to be tapped for broader applicability.  

Recent finds include:

• Magazine publisher for the masses: Talks about Issuu, a site that converts your docs into an interactive, magazine-style online publication.  
• Book lending made convenient: Applies the trend of transumerism to BCS, or “book clutter syndrome”, an ailment I have been diagnosed with again and again.
• Cellphone workshops by teenage teachers: Describes Netherlands-based non-profit group Bellendoejezo, which roughly translates into “this is how you make a call”. 

Although some of these may be too farfetched or not applicable to your immediate needs, just wait a day or two.  You never know what might kick off a spark of fresh thinking.

Let’s keep the conversation going. 

A little over two weeks ago we posted on a growing challenge within the HR industry, namely one’s ability to assess which association (or associations) appropriately match the specific needs of your HR staff and leadership.  The interest in this issue was immediate, with over 150 senior HR executives contacting us within twenty four hours of posting.

In response, Inflexion is pleased to announce that we will be launching a formal research initiative to explicitly focus on the value and benefits that each of the leading HR associations bring to our collective market.    Initial segmentation shall be placed on the US market, including employers of all sizes and vertical market orientation, and shall be inclusive of both public and private sector entities.  

As more details emerge, we will gladly keep this audience informed of timelines, project scope and associated deliverables.  Should you or your colleagues be interested in this particular initiative, please email your contact information to associations@inflexionadvisors.com.  And thank you to those who have offered their assistance is bringing another market leading initiative to light.

Let’s keep the conversation (and innovation) going!