Was 2007 a successful year for your L&D department? Was your company able to arrange and run effective English language trainings that received good reviews, satisfied your learning objectives, were highly applicable, and delivered an impact to your business? If so, Congratulations!
If not, then the following steps will assist your department to ensure effective trainings in 2008.
1. Ask, “Why do we offer English language training?”
Ask the above question in order to confirm that your company views training as an investment.
2. Spell out business needs
Review goals realized and unrealized, employee performance, and customer surveys to identify performance gaps and areas that must be changed. Be specific and tangible about the nature of your company’s lackluster performance. Choose a level of performance (benchmark) before any learning intervention occurs. Preferably, use existing business measures like:
• Error rates (measured as the number of applications that have to redirected due to data mistakes),
• Costs of miscommunication,
• Service time, and
• Customer satisfaction.
3. Question whether English language training is the correct intervention
First, evaluate either mediocre language skills are the cause of performance gaps. Frequently instead, personal skills as communication skills and interpersonal skills, or behavioral characteristics as a very modest level of confidence and boldness are the true performance barriers. In addition, performance gaps may be a result of different perceptions of how work should be executed, an inappropriate organizational environment, or uninspiring rewards.
Second, assess either training is the correct intervention to close performance gaps. Lackluster talent or personality traits cannot be changed through ESL training but instead requires other intervention.
4. Define training objectives
Determine Business Impact Objectives (level 4), Application Objectives (level 3), Learning Objectives (level 2), and Reaction/Satisfaction Objectives (level 1) for your training. Based on the sample business needs listed above, examples of Business Impact Objectives are:
• Decreasing the error rate by x percent,
• Eliminating costs associated with improper language skills and/or miscommunication,
• Shortening service time by x percent, and
• Increasing customer satisfaction by x percent or raising scores related to staff interaction by x percent.
5. Design the training
Seek out actual and true tailor-made training solutions. If you do not have an in-house design team, develop a set of criteria for selecting an English language training provider that can best meet your needs. Expect them to follow the above four steps and continue shopping around if they do not. Once you engage an ESL provider, work with them closely to define key areas to be addressed in the course and to translate your training objectives into course material imperatives. Do not rush this stage forward, it takes planning, discussions (frank and open), and assessment.
6. Secure employees buy-in
Secure employees’ buy-in by involving them in performance-training dynamics. Develop a corresponding set of HR practices for greater learning impact. Furthermore, ensure that new skills gained by employees through their training are applied and tested in daily work.
7. Perform post-course evaluation
Once the training is over, evaluate the entire process with the provider against previously set criteria. Measure performance again, measure how well skills are applied on-the-job, the learning effect, and reactions of participants.
You can consider skipping lower level objectives and measurements and instead focus on business impact and performance issues only. However, all four levels help define the course objectives more precisely and link the course material to training imperatives more effectively.
Measuring training effectiveness essentially focuses on a range of pre-course sub-processes. If you or the ESL provider cannot execute this important step or you are interested in a third party’s point of view; then engage a consultant with the skills and knowledge to guide this process. A third-party can help you to design and implement effective ESL training and thereby assist your department in making a valid business case for training to the Board and other Executives.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
ESL Training: Expense or Investment?
When companies consider English language training for their employees in China and Hong Kong, they increasingly seek out a positive Return on Investment (ROI). However, oftentimes companies do not link this training with the on-the-job-performance. This causes difficulty in assessing the effectiveness of the trainings and frustration for companies and English language training providers alike.
Before exerting efforts to measure training effectiveness, companies should recognize their genuine motives for supplying English Training. This exercise will help to determine either ROI is an essential measure or should be refrained from.
Simply asking, Why do we offer English language training?, allows you to clarify whether your company views English language training as an expense (tactical approach) or investment (strategic approach) and what are the ensuing complementary steps.
If you agree with one or more of the following statements, then your company most likely perceives training as an expense and probably provides English language training each year regardless of the business impact:
• English language training is a type of reward for the best performers.
• English language training is part of a development plan for employees with leadership and/or management potential.
• English language training is part of the company’s retention strategy and employer branding.
• English language training is pursued because competitors are providing this training already.
• The company has an annual budget allocated for employee training initiatives.
• Employees have communicated eagerness to attend English language training in employee surveys.
In this case, measuring satisfaction levels among participants and shopping for cost-effective solutions is appropriate.
On the contrary, if the following reasons apply to you, your company views training as an investment and thus conducts training programs aimed at creating significant measurable difference in on-the-job performance:
• During performance appraisals, employees have identified weak English skills as barriers to their individual performance.
• Supervisors recognize weak English skills as key barriers preventing individuals from achieving goals/objectives and greater performance levels.
In this case, you should certainly strive to calculate ROI after first linking training objectives with the on-the-job performance.
Understanding your approach can help you to effectively manage expectations, and improve your entire training experience and engagement with English language training providers.
Before exerting efforts to measure training effectiveness, companies should recognize their genuine motives for supplying English Training. This exercise will help to determine either ROI is an essential measure or should be refrained from.
Simply asking, Why do we offer English language training?, allows you to clarify whether your company views English language training as an expense (tactical approach) or investment (strategic approach) and what are the ensuing complementary steps.
If you agree with one or more of the following statements, then your company most likely perceives training as an expense and probably provides English language training each year regardless of the business impact:
• English language training is a type of reward for the best performers.
• English language training is part of a development plan for employees with leadership and/or management potential.
• English language training is part of the company’s retention strategy and employer branding.
• English language training is pursued because competitors are providing this training already.
• The company has an annual budget allocated for employee training initiatives.
• Employees have communicated eagerness to attend English language training in employee surveys.
In this case, measuring satisfaction levels among participants and shopping for cost-effective solutions is appropriate.
On the contrary, if the following reasons apply to you, your company views training as an investment and thus conducts training programs aimed at creating significant measurable difference in on-the-job performance:
• During performance appraisals, employees have identified weak English skills as barriers to their individual performance.
• Supervisors recognize weak English skills as key barriers preventing individuals from achieving goals/objectives and greater performance levels.
In this case, you should certainly strive to calculate ROI after first linking training objectives with the on-the-job performance.
Understanding your approach can help you to effectively manage expectations, and improve your entire training experience and engagement with English language training providers.
Friday, December 21, 2007
HR Business Partner Positions in Asia
Traditionally, most HR positions were filled with industrial-organizational psychologists, industrial labor relations experts, and liberal arts majors; none of which had much exposure to business and management. However, these days, HR professionals are increasingly required to have an advanced commercial understanding, be more numbers keen instead of numbers phobic, deliver results instead of activities, and act proactively instead of reactively.
As a result, ambiguous HR managers are attending MBA courses or pursuing MSc in psychology or organisational change to gain respect from other functional Executives or to get noticed by the CEO. In the meantime, to offset the meager business IQ in HR departments, former finance professionals (example: Janet LeClair, HR XCEL) or OD specialists (example: Ralph Christensen, Hallmark) are leading the HR transformation.
The future of HR is clearly business focused and value-driven. The most established model to drive value-creation in the HR department is Ulrich’s HR Business Partner model composed of four roles; strategic partner, change agent, employee advocate, and administrative expert.
In Asia, more and more HR departments create “a position” of “HR Business Partner”. Below is an average post assembled after reviewing just a few vacant positions advertised in November 2007 on monster.com for analysis. It is worthwhile to review how Ulrich’s model has been adopted and which and how roles defined by this model are addressed with this position.
For every responsibility and requirement of “HR Business Partner”, I ascribed a number or letter which will be referred to in the detailed review below:
Review:
Strategic Partner Role
The responsibility identified as (1) focuses on a candidate’s ability to contribute as a Strategic Partner. The obvious requirements connected to this role are (i) while (a) and (b) are very desirable but not essential. Although this role may benefit from solid generalist HR expertise, a strong understanding of the business unit and credibility with senior business leaders are the prerequisites to success. However, both of them have not been included under requirements. Other key competencies omitted include:
• Ability to design and deliver a culture-based HR strategy that links the internal culture to the requirements of external customers and the business strategy,
• Track record of contributing to business decision making by critiquing the existing strategy through creating a personal vision for the future of the business and by raising the standard of strategic thinking in the management team,
• Capacity to develop knowledge of each component of the business value chain and its integration quickly,
• Ability to develop knowledge of how the company creates value through portfolio management and meeting requirements of the competitive marketplace, and
• Toolkit to measure results of every stage of the HR value proposition.
Also, the key behaviors needed to be successful in this role include for example organizational awareness, problem-solving skills, working effectively in teams, and risk taking. The jobholder needs to focus on added-value and tailored solutions. However, none of these requirements have been listed.
Employee Champion Role
The responsibility identified as (2) focuses on acting as an employee champion which requires deep HR technical expertise within a particular discipline. The important requirements essential for this role include (a), (d), (e), (f), and (g). Mistakenly however, this role places too much emphasis on the employees’ needs and therefore pushes organizational learning and development in the background.
The key behaviors needed are inner drive, influencing skills, analytical thinking, and an ability to build trusting relationships, none of which have been mentioned. The jobholder needs to focus on assessing and balancing competing values (company versus employees) while ensuring compliance; not mentioned either.
Change Agent Role
The responsibility identified as (3) clearly points out the role of a change agent. The corresponding requirements listed include (f), (g), (h), (i) and certainly (c) which would require further details to be of value in the screening process and thereby allow a more precise assessment of the scope of experience.
Important elements of this role excluded from the requirements are:
• Internal consultant’s abilities, analytical skills, influencing/negotiation skills, teamwork capability, and creative thinking,
• Behavioral characteristics like innovativeness/flexibility, proactiveness, and risk taking, and
• Jobholder’s focus on planning and implementing intervention to achieve change quickly.
Administrative Expert Role
The responsibility identified as (4) refers to an administrative expert role which requires manager’s know-how to deliver tangible outputs within budgetary and resource constraints. The critical requirements for this post involve (f), (g), (h), and (i). The key behaviors needed to do so are team leadership, initiative, and holding people accountable. The jobholder’s focus needs to be on delivery and cost control. Both aspects have been left out however.
In conclusion, all four roles are squeezed into one position creating a set of unrealistic responsibilities along with different skills and behaviors. Furthermore, such HR Business Partner positions are simply “old wine in a new bottle” rather than positions designed to deliver value-added HR. As long as business acumen or a track record of impacting an organization’s value creation is not part of the person specification, then there is no need to introduce a new term for HR posts.
As a result, ambiguous HR managers are attending MBA courses or pursuing MSc in psychology or organisational change to gain respect from other functional Executives or to get noticed by the CEO. In the meantime, to offset the meager business IQ in HR departments, former finance professionals (example: Janet LeClair, HR XCEL) or OD specialists (example: Ralph Christensen, Hallmark) are leading the HR transformation.
The future of HR is clearly business focused and value-driven. The most established model to drive value-creation in the HR department is Ulrich’s HR Business Partner model composed of four roles; strategic partner, change agent, employee advocate, and administrative expert.
In Asia, more and more HR departments create “a position” of “HR Business Partner”. Below is an average post assembled after reviewing just a few vacant positions advertised in November 2007 on monster.com for analysis. It is worthwhile to review how Ulrich’s model has been adopted and which and how roles defined by this model are addressed with this position.
For every responsibility and requirement of “HR Business Partner”, I ascribed a number or letter which will be referred to in the detailed review below:
Key Responsibilities:
• Act as a strategic HR business partner/subject matter expert to the business units to achieve organizational strategies and objectives (1)(2),
• Provide value-added services for efficient & smooth management of the business (1),
• Provide front line coverage to a portfolio of internal clients including recruitment, employee relations, C&B, performance management, coaching, and training and development to satisfy their needs (2),
• Champion employee engagement and provide support for employees' growth and development (2),
• Facilitate and coach change management and organizational development initiatives (3), and
• Manage the day-to-day HR operation (4).
Key Requirements:
• Degree in Human Resource Management (a),
• Minimum of 4 years experience as a HR generalist (b),
• Experience in Change Management is preferred (c),
• Solid knowledge of labor law and HR policies, processes, and procedures (d),
• Comprehensive knowledge of progressive compensation practices and strategies (e),
• Excellent communication and interpersonal skills (f),
• Customer focused and service oriented with a pleasant and assertive personality (g),
• Self-driven individual with creative approach to resolving work issues (h), and
• Hands-on and results-oriented (i).
Review:
Strategic Partner Role
The responsibility identified as (1) focuses on a candidate’s ability to contribute as a Strategic Partner. The obvious requirements connected to this role are (i) while (a) and (b) are very desirable but not essential. Although this role may benefit from solid generalist HR expertise, a strong understanding of the business unit and credibility with senior business leaders are the prerequisites to success. However, both of them have not been included under requirements. Other key competencies omitted include:
• Ability to design and deliver a culture-based HR strategy that links the internal culture to the requirements of external customers and the business strategy,
• Track record of contributing to business decision making by critiquing the existing strategy through creating a personal vision for the future of the business and by raising the standard of strategic thinking in the management team,
• Capacity to develop knowledge of each component of the business value chain and its integration quickly,
• Ability to develop knowledge of how the company creates value through portfolio management and meeting requirements of the competitive marketplace, and
• Toolkit to measure results of every stage of the HR value proposition.
Also, the key behaviors needed to be successful in this role include for example organizational awareness, problem-solving skills, working effectively in teams, and risk taking. The jobholder needs to focus on added-value and tailored solutions. However, none of these requirements have been listed.
Employee Champion Role
The responsibility identified as (2) focuses on acting as an employee champion which requires deep HR technical expertise within a particular discipline. The important requirements essential for this role include (a), (d), (e), (f), and (g). Mistakenly however, this role places too much emphasis on the employees’ needs and therefore pushes organizational learning and development in the background.
The key behaviors needed are inner drive, influencing skills, analytical thinking, and an ability to build trusting relationships, none of which have been mentioned. The jobholder needs to focus on assessing and balancing competing values (company versus employees) while ensuring compliance; not mentioned either.
Change Agent Role
The responsibility identified as (3) clearly points out the role of a change agent. The corresponding requirements listed include (f), (g), (h), (i) and certainly (c) which would require further details to be of value in the screening process and thereby allow a more precise assessment of the scope of experience.
Important elements of this role excluded from the requirements are:
• Internal consultant’s abilities, analytical skills, influencing/negotiation skills, teamwork capability, and creative thinking,
• Behavioral characteristics like innovativeness/flexibility, proactiveness, and risk taking, and
• Jobholder’s focus on planning and implementing intervention to achieve change quickly.
Administrative Expert Role
The responsibility identified as (4) refers to an administrative expert role which requires manager’s know-how to deliver tangible outputs within budgetary and resource constraints. The critical requirements for this post involve (f), (g), (h), and (i). The key behaviors needed to do so are team leadership, initiative, and holding people accountable. The jobholder’s focus needs to be on delivery and cost control. Both aspects have been left out however.
In conclusion, all four roles are squeezed into one position creating a set of unrealistic responsibilities along with different skills and behaviors. Furthermore, such HR Business Partner positions are simply “old wine in a new bottle” rather than positions designed to deliver value-added HR. As long as business acumen or a track record of impacting an organization’s value creation is not part of the person specification, then there is no need to introduce a new term for HR posts.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Social Responsibility and HRM
On December 4th, Hong Kong’s Cyberport hosted “Cyberport Venture Capital Forum 2007”. This year’s theme, “Building Creative Businesses that Can Do Well and Do Good” attracted a number of quality speakers sharing their approaches to creating a double-bottom line; a social return on investment (SRI) and traditional economic return on investment (ROI). As in the past, this forum also focused on entrepreneurial ventures, their challenges, and “best practices”. A few key points from that day include:
• The Chinese proverb, “Give a man fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” was the motto communicated by several speakers. The essence of social entrepreneurship lies in creating bottom-line value through solving social problems (for example illiteracy) as opposed to disbursing shares of a company’s profit to various organizations that offer fish-like support (typical for large corporations).
• The entrepreneur’s and investor’s value system and vision determine whether or not they will get involved in social entrepreneurship.
• The entrepreneur’s approach to managing his/her people fairly is a prerequisite of social entrepreneurship.
• Social responsibility can become part of a company’s marketing/branding effort.
Jumping from these key points to strategic HRM, some conclusions drawn include:
• Social responsibility not only resonates with local communities, underprivileged individuals or minority members, but also drives a company’s workforce initiatives including, for example, increasing financial literacy and skills set of low-wage employees or offering them stock-ownership.
• In terms of implementation of any HR initiative, any entrepreneurial company is at an advantage vis-à-vis a corporate giant because the manager/entrepreneur is usually the “owner” of the initiative from the onset. Therefore, every initiative enjoys conviction through “management buy-in” to make it happen.
• To deliver social impact, a company needs to achieve critical mass either in terms of revenues, profits, and/or customer base. Otherwise, the contribution is insignificant. The metrics challenge and the pressure to deliver value/impact exists for any activity.
By the way, the 3rd Global Knowledge Conference held in Malaysia has integrated pitch session for social entrepreneurs seeking investment.
• The Chinese proverb, “Give a man fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” was the motto communicated by several speakers. The essence of social entrepreneurship lies in creating bottom-line value through solving social problems (for example illiteracy) as opposed to disbursing shares of a company’s profit to various organizations that offer fish-like support (typical for large corporations).
• The entrepreneur’s and investor’s value system and vision determine whether or not they will get involved in social entrepreneurship.
• The entrepreneur’s approach to managing his/her people fairly is a prerequisite of social entrepreneurship.
• Social responsibility can become part of a company’s marketing/branding effort.
Jumping from these key points to strategic HRM, some conclusions drawn include:
• Social responsibility not only resonates with local communities, underprivileged individuals or minority members, but also drives a company’s workforce initiatives including, for example, increasing financial literacy and skills set of low-wage employees or offering them stock-ownership.
• In terms of implementation of any HR initiative, any entrepreneurial company is at an advantage vis-à-vis a corporate giant because the manager/entrepreneur is usually the “owner” of the initiative from the onset. Therefore, every initiative enjoys conviction through “management buy-in” to make it happen.
• To deliver social impact, a company needs to achieve critical mass either in terms of revenues, profits, and/or customer base. Otherwise, the contribution is insignificant. The metrics challenge and the pressure to deliver value/impact exists for any activity.
By the way, the 3rd Global Knowledge Conference held in Malaysia has integrated pitch session for social entrepreneurs seeking investment.
Intro
Welcome to breakpoint HR!
breakpoint HR was set up to discuss the potential of HRM to impact wealth creation in any business today. Companies create wealth by converting talents, knowledge, and relationships into intangibles like organizational capabilities, brands, and customer base.
This blog brings together observations, ideas, and thoughts on HR applications in businesses of any size and phase of growth in order to:
• Uphold entrepreneurialism in established “well-oiled” companies,
• Remove the bias between HR, finance, and marketing; and
• Bridge the gap between theory and practice.
breakpoint HR is hosted by Magdalena Meller, an independent thinker, a “T-shaped” person, and an avid “cross-pollinator” between disciplines and industries.
Magdalena’s HR agenda spans between strategic and results-oriented HR, business intelligence, and systems-thinking. She supports establishing performance-driven culture and differentiating between high and low performers in all HR initiatives. Magdalena is also a strong backer for continuous organizational improvement and individual self-development.
Opinions expressed in this blog are solely that of Magdalena. All material is copyrighted.
breakpoint HR was set up to discuss the potential of HRM to impact wealth creation in any business today. Companies create wealth by converting talents, knowledge, and relationships into intangibles like organizational capabilities, brands, and customer base.
This blog brings together observations, ideas, and thoughts on HR applications in businesses of any size and phase of growth in order to:
• Uphold entrepreneurialism in established “well-oiled” companies,
• Remove the bias between HR, finance, and marketing; and
• Bridge the gap between theory and practice.
breakpoint HR is hosted by Magdalena Meller, an independent thinker, a “T-shaped” person, and an avid “cross-pollinator” between disciplines and industries.
Magdalena’s HR agenda spans between strategic and results-oriented HR, business intelligence, and systems-thinking. She supports establishing performance-driven culture and differentiating between high and low performers in all HR initiatives. Magdalena is also a strong backer for continuous organizational improvement and individual self-development.
Opinions expressed in this blog are solely that of Magdalena. All material is copyrighted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)