High levels of pressure can create excessive stress and burnout, which can ultimately hinder performance and productivity.Does that mean organisations that prioritise a supportive and empowering work environment tend to foster higher levels of engagement and productivity, especially amongst the sales personnel?

Does effective sales management require recognition and appreciation of achievements, provision of regular feedback and coaching, opportunities for growth and development and cultivation of a positive team culture?

Anil Mohanty, senior HR leader

Pressure is not the only tactic in sales to maintain productivity or achieve results. Sales organisations should strive for a balanced approach that combines both pressure and positive reinforcement. Effective leaders understand the importance of motivating their team members and creating an environment that encourages productivity. This can be achieved through a combination of setting clear goals, providing support and guidance, recognising and appreciating achievements and offering constructive feedback to drive improvement.

It’s crucial for sales leaders to develop effective coaching and management techniques that cater to the unique needs of their team members. This may involve conducting thorough research to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each individual, implementing tailored strategies and providing the necessary resources and training for success.

Pressure can be a part of the sales environment to some extent, but finding the right balance between pressure and positive reinforcement allows for individual growth, fosters a motivated and engaged team and ultimately leads to sustainable and long-term success.

Praveen Purohit, deputy CHRO, Vedanta Resources

In today’s sales environment, the perception that salesrooms are filled with constant drama and high pressure situations is not accurate or common. Though occasional instances of heightened emotions or tense moments may occur, it is important to note that such occurrences do not define the entire sales profession. Sales roles often involve targets, deadlines and performance expectations. The belief that pressuring individuals is the sole tactic to maintain productivity and achieve results is outdated and ineffective.

Successful sales teams now focus on embracing technology and innovation. By incorporating digital tools and data-driven insights, sales professionals can optimise their discussion should then move on to what was done well, followed by areas that could have been improved upon. The focus should be on identifying gaps and setting goals for improvement. 

Anil Gaur, CHRO, senior HR professional

Leaders should lead by example, demonstrating the desired behaviour themselves. Creating an environment of trust and collaboration is essential, and the incident involving the HDFC manager shouting at his team members, which subsequently went viral clearly did not promote such an environment.

Any review meeting or discussion should begin by appreciating the good work done by the team members. Each individual possesses unique capabilities and competencies, and it is important to acknowledge each one’s contributions, big or small. The strategies, identify new market opportunities and tailor their approach to meet customer needs more effectively.

The sales team should look beyond organisational boundaries to understand industry best practices and learn from successful counterparts worldwide. This broader perspective allows sales teams to adopt proven strategies, refine their processes and stay ahead of evolving market dynamics.

With greater emphasis on intellectual and creative problem solving, sales professionals are encouraged to think critically, adapt to changing customer needs and find innovative solutions to build stronger relationships with customers and deliver sustainable business growth.

Throughout these conversations, leaders should maintain a polite and humble demeanour, aiming to connect with their team members on a personal level. Inclusivity is crucial, allowing for open sessions or town-hall meetings where the voice of employees can be heard. It is the leader’s responsibility to handle, guide, support and provide advice to enable the team members to perform better.

The post Is pressure the only tactic in sales to maintain productivity or achieve results? appeared first on HR Katha.

For some, money is more important because it gives them the power to make their own choices. For others, the benefits that come with their pay are more important. This is because, these benefits provide additional support in their time of need, and helps them get things that they can’t otherwise afford. What exactly do employees prefer more? HRKatha asks some esteemed HR professionals.

Pankaj Lochan, CHRO, Jindal Steel and Power

Pankaj Lochan, CHRO, Jindal Steel and Power

Primarily, three things have contributed to employees’ preference for better pay. First, the average mean salary has gone up. That means, people are getting paid better than before. Second, more people are aware about better wages, and are attracted to jobs that offer attractive packages. Third, employees have also begun giving more importance to comfort, and with money they have a better chance to acquire whatever they may need. General wisdom also dictates that if employees are already getting good pay, they are likely to buy the necessary things themselves, rather than rely on a third party to offer it to them.

Especially after the pandemic, employees have started to give more weight to better salaries because they desire financial stability over any additional benefits. They have become focused on providing for their families themselves, rather than wait for someone else to swoop in and save them in times of emergency.

Anil Gaur, CHRO, Akums Pharmaceuticals

Anil Gaur, CHRO, Akums Pharmaceuticals

We need to look at the different age groups and their priorities in terms of pay and benefits. The younger generation is mostly concerned with living in the present and is attracted to bigger wages. They want the money in their hand and care little about additional benefits such as healthcare or maternity leave. However, the older generation which grew up in times when its members had more responsibilities on their shoulders, looks for better benefits with a focus on the future. They are likely to seek better packages from their employees that will help them create a suitable retirement plan.

These days, companies have started providing compensation according to what their employees prefer. While this is prominent in IT companies, even Akums Pharmaceuticals has launched a flexible benefit plan allowing employees to choose the kind of benefit they want.

Maneesha Jha Thakur, HR leader

Maneesha Jha Thakur, HR Leader

Most employees prefer higher pay and less benefits. Employees value cash in hand so that they can decide how they want to spend their salary. They look at benefits as an addition to this salary, and not as a substitute for money.

Benefits such as group medical insurance, PF, gratuity and accident insurance, which come in handy at different stages of life and in case of unforeseen circumstances, are valued at that time. For instance, in sickness, employees appreciate generous mediclaim coverage. However, as short-sighted as they are, this is not a key aspect that employees look at when they consider their compensation. Maybe organisations need to emphasise benefits more to drive home the point.

Benefits such as facilities pertaining to pregnancy care, childcare and generous maternity leave are likely to be preferred over higher pay, especially by women. Also, ESOPs which have potential to generate serious wealth are highly valued benefits.

In recent times, facilities such as work from home, flexible work schedule, choice of location are being valued by employees more than money.

There is yet another category of benefits that employees value highly — benefits that help in career advancement, for instance, access to MBA courses from premier institutes that the organisations tie up with, top-notch training and certification opportunities, option to take a sabbatical and so on.

The post Do employees want better pay and less benefits or vice versa? appeared first on HR Katha.

Sunil Singh, former CHRO, Stellar Value Chain Solutions

Sunil Singh, former CHRO, Stellar Value Chain Solutions

Though PSUs and governmentsector jobs follow complete transparency in their pay structure, I will not advocate the same in any organisation. I believe the processes and policies related to compensation can be known to everyone, but not the exact figures. Every individual comes with a unique set of skills and talent, and everyone cannot judge their value accurately. There are some intangible values that people add, which are measured differently by different organisations. Therefore, pay transparency can lead to conflicts and heart burns.

Pay transparency is an idealistic scenario and only mature organisations — very few in number — can make it possible. On the other hand, bringing an end to salary negotiations is a different thing. I believe CHROs should ban the question, ‘What was your last drawn salary?’ If the candidates fit the bill and the requirements of the organisation, what they earned in their last job should not matter. One should just go by the organisation’s bands and decide upon the salary.

Satayjit Mohanty, former CHRO, Crompton

Satayjit Mohanty, former CHRO, Crompton

There are different degrees of pay transparency. I definitely do not approve of the extreme of not being transparent at all. At the same time, complete transparency does have the potential of leading to conflicts amongst teams. Also, some companies do have a very complex compensation structure which is not easy to be understood or explained. Besides, every skill demands a different kind of value in the company, it gets difficult to explain such complexities to people. I am okay with partial transparency. Pay transparency can be definitely helpful during salary negotiations, and some organisations follow it. However, it is only possible for entry-level or management roles where every talent is treated similarly. While hiring for senior level roles, the compensation gets more income driven and complex. There, pay transparency cannot be much of a help.

Mangesh Bhide, SVP – HR, Jio Network & Infrastructure

Mangesh Bhide, SVP – HR, Jio Network & Infrastructure

I‘d say ‘partially’, because if I choose to bring pay transparency in my organisation, I will be transparent only about the components — the pay structure, the bands and the guidelines of the compensation structure — but not the exact numbers. This is because, I believe that
only the managers understand the true value of people. The others may not understand why one person gets a better raise than the other. We can surely put an end to salary negotiations for the bulk-level roles such as sales, maintenance and so on. However, this cannot be done for specialised roles and skills, as specialists may vary in terms of their degree of skills and the value they add to the organisation.

The post Do you advocate pay transparency? appeared first on HR Katha.

Emmanuel David, MD, Grid International India

During exit interviews, the most common factor employees talked about was how the quality of their relationship with their managers influenced their decision to move on. The second common reason was their inability to learn anything new or contribute to their current job. At a distant third was another reason — family circumstances.
People never cited low salary as the reason for exit. In my view, there are three types of contracts at the workplace and the employment value proposition is an amalgamation of all three — professional contract, cultural contract and economic contract.

Therefore, I can say that people leave organisations primarily because of incompetent managers who fail to engage with their team members.

Jayant Kumar, CHRO, ACC & Ambuja Cement

I believe employees leave organisations because of managers who fail to engage with them. This ultimately leads to attrition. For instance, if the managers know their team members well, acknowledge their uniqueness and leverage their individual strengths, then chances are that outcomes, satisfaction and retention will be maximised.

It is true that there are a variety of other reasons for people to exit, including people management policies. However, even with the same policies, a few managers may contribute towards high retention of their teams while others may not. All well-meaning managers attempt for high engagement and high retention of the team. It is the organisation’s focus on building people- and team-management skills among managers that makes the difference. If long-term retention of people is a critical part of the business model, then the companies will have to design or re-design and implement their HR policies well. This will help reduce the gaps between managers and employees.
Suboptimal design or execution will adversely impact retention.

Sarma Chillara CHRO, Skoda Auto Volkswagen India

Employee retention is a collective responsibility of the manager, HR and management. However, we often start judging people who have left or are leaving the organisation. People who decide to move on for career progression-related reasons and leave behind a strong relationship with the incumbent organisation, can act as brand ambassadors for the kind of training and values the organisation has imparted to them. There could be specific reasons for people to choose to move.

Personal growth is one of the most prominent reasons, for people may be drawn by an interesting new role or an exciting organisation that they wish to be part of. At times, the feeling of career stagnation and unmet aspirations are difficult to deal with, which leaves ‘moving on’ as the only possible solution. The decision to leave can also be related to compensation though it’s not always the case in mid- and senior-level roles, where it is more about overall satisfaction. A few people may also opt to move if there is a mismatch of personal cultural values with organisational values — this may include aspects related to expectations, such as appropriate recognition, coaching, feedback and work-life balance.

This article first appeared in the monthly print magazine of HRKatha. 

The post Who is responsible for retention or attrition of employees — line managers or HR? appeared first on HR Katha.

For some, money is more important because it gives them the power to make their own choices. For others, the benefits that come with their pay are more important. This is because, these benefits provide additional support in their time of need, and helps them get things that they can’t otherwise afford.

What exactly do employees prefer more? HRKatha asks some esteemed HR professionals.

Pankaj Lochan, CHRO, Jindal Steel and Power

Primarily, three things have contributed to employees’ preference for better pay. First, the average mean salary has gone up. That means, people are getting paid better than before.

Second, more people are aware about better wages, and are attracted to jobs that offer attractive packages. Third, employees have also begun giving more importance to comfort, and with money they have a better chance to acquire whatever they may need. General wisdom also dictates that if employees are already getting good pay, they are likely to buy the necessary things themselves, rather than rely on a third party to offer it to them.

Especially after the pandemic, employees have started to give more weight to better salaries because they desire financial stability over any additional benefits.
They have become focused on providing for their families themselves, rather than wait for someone else to swoop in and save them in times of emergency.

Anil Gaur CHRO, Akums Pharmaceuticals

We need to look at the different age groups and their priorities in terms of pay and benefits. The younger generation is mostly concerned with living in the present and is attracted to bigger wages. They want the money in their hand and care little about additional benefits such as healthcare or maternity leave.
However, the older generation which grew up in times when its members had more responsibilities on their shoulders, looks for better benefits with a focus on the future.

They are likely to seek better packages from their employees that will help them create a suitable retirement plan.

These days, companies have started providing compensation according to what their employees prefer. While this is prominent in IT companies, even Akums Pharmaceuticals has launched a flexible benefit plan allowing employees to choose the kind of benefit they want.

Maneesha Jha Thakur, HR Leader

Most employees prefer higher pay and less benefits.

Employees value cash in hand so that they can decide how they want to spend their salary. They look at benefits as an addition to this salary, and not as a substitute for money.

Benefits such as group medical insurance, PF, gratuity and accident insurance, which come in handy at different stages of life and in case of unforeseen circumstances, are valued at that time. For instance, in sickness, employees appreciate generous mediclaim coverage.

However, as short sighted as they are, this is not a key aspect that employees look at when they consider their compensation.

Maybe organisations need to emphasise benefits more to drive home the point.

Benefits such as facilities pertaining to pregnancy care, childcare and generous maternity leave are likely to be preferred over higher pay, especially by women.
Also, ESOPs which have potential to generate serious wealth are highly valued benefits.

In recent times, facilities such as work from home, flexible work schedule, choice of location are being valued by employees more than money.

There is yet another category of benefits that employees value highly — benefits that help in career advancement, for instance, access to MBA courses from premier institutes that the organisations tie up with, top-notch training and certification opportunities, option to take a sabbatical and so on.

The post Do employees want better pay and less benefits or vice versa? appeared first on HR Katha.

However, whether to rehire such employees or not can be a tricky decision. Would the disputes come back after rejoining? Would you rehire this employee? HRKatha asks prominent HR minds:

P Dwarakanath, HR leader & former chairman, GSK Consumer Healthcare

An overly rigid or conservative rehiring outlook is a thing of the past. What is necessary is a meticulous and bias-free examination by the HR. Rehiring ‘good leavers’ is a no brainer. After all, these are talent that one wanted to retain but had to let go due to unforeseen reasons or circumstances. Such ‘good leavers’ are already deemed good fits for the organisational culture.

It is the rehiring of employees who have made a controversial exit that requires some reconsidering. If the person’s attitude wasn’t an issue in the prior engagement, then the circumstances under which they left must be probed. Even if such talent quit following a clash with the management, probes may find that the said employee may not be entirely responsible for the same.

Then, it would be a nice idea to reinstate them. However, if probes reveal that the employee wasn’t a team player, and known to be unaccommodating and a bad fit culturally, then it doesn’t matter how suitable they appear to be, it is not worth rehiring them. After all, one cannot be sure that a similar situation may not arise again in the future.

Ashish Anand, CHRO, SAR Group

It is not a ‘one blanket fits all’ scenario. The issue of rehiring a person who left on a bad note needs to be case specific. The reason why a person needs to rejoin, is in itself a story that needs to be taken into consideration before making a decision. Circumstances for termination of employment will vary from case to case. However, two considerations will remain the same, irrespective of the conditions.

If the person that has left has no integrity issues, then one can consider giving them a second chance. Issues may persist, but their skills may guide them back into the workforce of the company. If they didn’t cause an issue that compromised the company’s business, they can still be given another shot. Issues with the management may be resolved as and when they come up in the future, if the talent is truly a big contributor to the company.

Second, the person must not have displayed a consistent trend of bad behaviour while previously employed with the company. An employee’s bad behaviour obviously creates a negative impression and impacts the company’s culture as a whole. And no organisation needs problematic behaviour to be reflected by others in the company as well.

Chaitali Mukherjee, partner and leader, people and organisation, PwC India

While it’s critical that employees maintain their work ethic and work in the best possible way for any organisation they are associated with, the attitude and behaviour of the employees during the last few days / months — particularly when they have mentally and emotionally checked out — matters a lot.

All things being equal, the single most important factor for which organisations should always hire people should be their work ethic and their attitude. However, many employees forget the importance of work ethic and attitude once they have checked out or are in the process of making a career or a job switch.

Most large organisations give significant consideration to whether an employee should be rehired or not. While systemically, data gets captured in the system, more often than not, it is not the system that they go and check with. Rather, they do a background check via conversations with leaders who may have dealt with the concerned individual.

As Maya Angelou once said, “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel”. This is absolutely true even for organisations. The test of people and their work ethic is not when they need the organisation, but when the organisation needs them or when they are exiting.

I have seen even extremely senior people get reckless about how they exit. I believe, till the last day of employment with the firm, one is in an employment contract and one’s ability to be and do the best until that day is the true mark of work ethic.

(This article first appeared in the HRKatha monthly magazine)

The post Should companies rehire employees who exit on a bad note? appeared first on HR Katha.

The driver received an automated e-mail informing him that his services had been terminated. A bot had fired a human! For Amazon, this may be quite acceptable given that Jeff Bezos, chief executive officer, Amazon, believes that machines make more accurate decisions than humans because they are devoid of bias. However, what could be a reason for alarm is the dependency on tech to carry out key functions, such as termination of a contract which is expected to be done personally.

“We run a human organisation, and if we don’t provide a human interface for a decision which involves an individual’s career and livelihood, then we’d better not be in this business. Let’s not employ human beings at all then. Tomorrow I may not even need a leadership team. I could just bring in AI-enabled machines and make them managers. Getting a system to come back and execute a termination is completely inhuman. An organisation choosing to do so shouldn’t be in the people business.”

Nihar Ghosh, president – HR, Emami

Is it feasible?

Use of artificial intelligence and machine learning approach in the first stages of hiring isn’t uncommon. Many organisations indulge in early sieving of CVs with the use of a set algorithms to narrow down their searches. However, giving machines the power to take critical, high-risk decisions, such as analysing set parameters to conclude whether or not to keep someone at a job can be detrimental. In the Indian context, how feasible is this approach now that the dependency on technology in HR has increased manifold?

Rajesh Balaji, CHRO, Matrimony.com, is rather confident that such a system will take at least a couple of decades to be widely accepted in India. He, however, doesn’t rule out the possibility completely, because the bot is just executing the decision of the organisation. He also suggests how it can be made a lot more compassionate despite being a mechanical process.

“An adequate ecosystem needs to be created for people to be made aware beforehand that they will be fired, and the bot will just execute it. The message should not come as a surprise. The concerned employees should be provided a warning about them being in the red. One more mistake and the person is fired. So, if adequate filters are put in place, then it will not matter whether it is a bot or a human at the other end,” Balaji explains.

“An adequate ecosystem needs to be created for people to be made aware beforehand that they will be fired, and the bot will just execute it. The message should not come as a surprise. The concerned employees should be provided a warning about them being in the red. One more mistake and the person is fired. So, if adequate filters are put in place, then it will not matter whether it is a bot or a human at the other end.”

Rajesh Balaji, CHRO, Matrimony.com

He also points out that such things mostly occur at the entry level because as the pyramid goes up, the sensitivities are much stronger.

The reason why he thinks such a process will take some decades to enter India is that currently there’s no integrated system for the same, but perhaps, one day, there will be. He also speaks of the nudge technology — apps on phones that nudge people to meet deadlines without annoying or angering them. In fact, people try to overachieve to compensate for their shortcomings.

“There is no question of being offended because there’s no individual emotion there. Therefore, it is all about creating a technological ecosystem, which will prepare people to expect a termination from a bot,” suggests Balaji.

Who will look into the intangible data?

What has been mapped in the algorithm is yet another matter to be factored in. The algorithm maps tangible data, such as achievements, performances and personal track records, but what about the intangible data?

“In performance-management processes, we rely on machines to give us performance data. We use that data to make performance decisions. In selection of resources as well, we leverage machines. The key difference is the next step — what do we do once we have the output from machines? Do we rely solely on the scores or also try and understand other factors that may have impacted performance, say, a personal exigency? How do we communicate the outcome to the concerned people? Can we communicate even bad news with deep empathy? That decision is for humans to make.”

Amit Das, CHRO, Bennett Coleman & Company

Nihar Ghosh, president – HR, Emami, does not condemn technology if it involves an AI programme which has been designed and mapped well with defined parameters. However, it should come back with a recommendation. The precipitation of the action should involve a human interface, where somebody talks to the individual with understanding. It should have human involvement rather than being interpersonal.

“We run a human organisation, and if we don’t provide a human interface for a decision which involves an individual’s career and livelihood, then we’d better not be in this business. Let’s not employ human beings at all then. Tomorrow I may not even need a leadership team. I could just bring in AI-enabled machines and make them managers. Getting a system to come back and execute a termination is completely inhuman. An organisation choosing to do so shouldn’t be in the people business,” Ghosh asserts strongly.

Although he agrees machines cut down on biases, he is against them making the final call. “The world will not be governed by programmed learning. It is not an Avenger series. We created machines to serve us and not become subservient to them,” Ghosh points out.

Amit Das, CHRO, Bennett Coleman & Company, however, would not hastily label the Amazon case as one of machines taking over human jobs, without understanding what really happened. A contractor signed a contract to perform a job to a pre-defined standard. When the contractor failed to perform as per the standard, the contract was terminated through a pre-configured communication template. However, the decision to use this system of machine-monitored, machine-executed performance system was taken by humans. Machines can be designed to perform many routine and advanced tasks. However, the earmarking of tasks between man and machine is still a decision for humans to make.

“In performance-management processes, we rely on machines to give us performance data. We use that data to make performance decisions. In selection of resources as well, we leverage machines. The key difference is the next step — what do we do once we have the output from machines? Do we rely solely on the scores or also try and understand other factors that may have impacted performance, say, a personal exigency? How do we communicate the outcome to the concerned people? Can we communicate even bad news with deep empathy? That decision is for humans to make,” Das explains.

Does the answer lie in digital empathy?

Technology should be an enabler for us to take the right steps in the interest of the organisation, while preserving human dignity. It would be able to perform monotonous tasks and take away cognitive load from decision making, so that humans can perform higher-order functions. “To harness the power of technology, leaders will need to develop their digital empathy, and use it to design technical solutions. Only those organisations that focus on developing this critical competency in their leaders will be able to leverage the gift of technology. Others will relinquish their responsibility to machines in pursuit of hollow rational goals,” asserts Das.

Firing of a person by a bot can come as a shock to many, and understandably so. When dealing with people, one has to keep in mind human emotions and empathy. So, while AI and machine learning should be leveraged to get data, they shouldn’t be the ones making decisions such as terminating someone without any human interface.

The post Can humans be fired by a bot? appeared first on HR Katha.

However, the boards have yet to come up with a marking policy. Reports suggest that it could be based on the marks the students earned in their last three years (XI, X, XII) or class X marks and internal assessment marks of Class XII will be considered or it could be an entirely new format.

“More and more people are looking for non-traditional modes of hiring. The whole world is aware of so many courses being completed online. I don’t think it will come in the way of making any hiring decisions. Corporates have set processes to hire recruits. After two to three years, recency will determine the outcome because there won’t be a pandemic then,”

Rajeev Singh, chief human resources officer, Yokohama Off-Highway Tires

While the cancellation of exams helped many students, parents and teachers heave a sigh of relief, it made many wonder if the pass-outs of 2021 will face a different hiring strategy when they become ready to join the workforce. Will they be evaluated separately? If internal assessment becomes the key to scoring good results, many criteria will come into play, some of which could be biased too. HR experts are divided on whether there would be an impact on the way this crop will be assessed during their job interviews.

Rajeev Singh, chief human resources officer, Yokohama Off-Highway Tires, doesn’t think it will have any influence on how they will be hired in future. “More and more people are looking for non-traditional modes of hiring. The whole world is aware of so many courses being completed online. I don’t think it will come in the way of making any hiring decisions. Corporates have set processes to hire recruits. After two to three years, recency will determine the outcome because there won’t be a pandemic then,” he opines.

However, Singh does believe it would be a bit unfair to apply the same yardstick on people passing out in 2021. What the person has done after 10+2 should be given more attention in such cases. He also points out that these students are going for higher studies or graduate courses abroad or in Ivy League colleges. They are getting accepted in these places on the basis of the marks this year.

“It’s a different year and 10+2 scores are not always the decisive ones. It’s the degree one gets later that matters. A comprehensive evaluation will be done, based on the capability of the candidates, their overall performance, and the role they are hired for. One can’t take decide favourably or unfavourably, based on just one criterion.”

Rajorshi Ganguli, president and global HR head, Alkem Laboratories

Corporates will later hire people from these schools. “Had it been just about a small group of people impacted by it, there could be some considerations but this is a worldwide phenomenon —the new normal for the academic results for this batch of students,” Singh says.

Rajorshi Ganguli, president and global HR head, Alkem Laboratories, too echoes similar sentiments. He is confident that there will not be any impact on the hiring, whether positive or negative. It’s a different year and 10+2 scores are not always the decisive ones. “It’s the degree one gets later that matters. A comprehensive evaluation will be done, based on the capability of the candidates, their overall performance, and the role they are hired for. One can’t take decide favourably or unfavourably, based on just one criterion,” asserts Ganguli.

As for the bias among teachers, they have often been blamed for favouring one student over the other. If bias comes into play, the internal assessment can be compromised and worthy students may get left behind just because they are not the teacher’s pets.

“Those who reach these colleges, may not be academically proficient. The reason being, sometimes, students who are cordial or in the good books of their schoolteachers or are wards of influential persons, are awarded better internal marks than those without any such influence. Therefore, worthy students may be left behind, whereas the sub-standard ones will join the A-league institutes. Now, when the campus hiring happens, companies will select from this substandard lot.”

Ravi Mishra, senior VP -HR, global epoxy business, Aditya Birla Group

Ravi Mishra, senior VP -HR, global epoxy business, Aditya Birla Group, explains how it will, in fact, have a negative impact on the hirings in the future. This is because, these scores will be used to enrol into IITs or other colleges. Now, these scoring parameters are different in different schools and at times subjective. In rural areas or in Tier-II/Tier-III cities, marks are allotted very casually. “Those who reach these colleges, may not be academically proficient. The reason being, sometimes, students who are cordial or in the good books of their schoolteachers or are wards of influential persons, are awarded better internal marks than those without any such influence. Therefore, worthy students may be left behind, whereas the sub-standard ones will join the A-league institutes. Now, when the campus hiring happens, companies will select from this substandard lot,” elaborates Mishra.

Citing an example from 2016, Mishra recounts that a Bihar girl who topped in Political Science had no clue about the subject. When a TV channel interviewed her about her subject, she said, ‘“Prodigal’ (read political) science is about cooking.” A review exam had to be conducted after the expose! Therefore, Mishra believes that when on-campus hiring happens, companies will look to hire the top-scorers, but the worth of these hires may not be the same.

“To suit a job requirement, educational qualification is just one of the criteria. Knowledge skills, aptitude, attitude and behaviours also play a major role in the evaluation of a person for selection to a particular role. As we move to post-pandemic reality, there will be adjustments and realignments in the hiring process with a pre-dominant shift to the evaluation of skills, attitude, behaviours and social attributes.”

Praveer Priyadarshi, HR consultant

Should there be a separate hiring strategy for such students? Mishra is of the opinion that the approach followed by TCS, Infosys and Accenture does make sense. Their online assessment exams give a fair chance to every individual, whether or not they are a favourite of the teacher for any reason. Praveer Priyadarshi, HR consultant, feels the current pandemic has put the focus back on giving due importance to ongoing and continuous evaluation. Going forward, organisations will benefit more from this approach and will be in a better position to select the right person for the right job as they will have a better and longer frame of reference about the capability of an individual.

“To suit a job requirement, educational qualification is just one of the criteria. Knowledge skills, aptitude, attitude and behaviours also play a major role in the evaluation of a person for selection to a particular role. As we move to post-pandemic reality, there will be adjustments and realignments in the hiring process with a pre-dominant shift to the evaluation of skills, attitude, behaviours and social attributes,” Priyadarshi opines.

Although there’s still time to figure out whether the Class 12 pass-outs of 2021 will be evaluated with a different yardstick or not, when it comes to their job interviews, there is a likelihood of their present assessment having a negative impact on their hiring in the future.

The post Will cancellation of Class 12 board exams impact future hiring of this batch? appeared first on HR Katha.

The very idea is preposterous. You are born into a family. You never choose it, and they can’t un-family you. It should be massively obvious that Shopify is not a family but I see people, even leaders, casually use terms like ‘Shopifam’ which will cause the members of our teams (especially junior ones that have never worked anywhere else) to get the wrong impression.” His argument is that ‘family thinking’ only makes it hard to let go of poor performers. “Shopify is a team, not a family,” asserts Lütke. That obviously made many sit up and take note.

“Why can’t you have both? That’s what we call non-duality. At IndiGo, we say ‘you are never alone here’. That means, we are here to help and support. Yet, when it comes to making tough calls, we do take them. For instance, we have opened a 13-bed COVID hospital in Gurgaon at a time when the industry is doing so badly. We are spending crores on vaccinations. That doesn’t take away the fact that last year, we had to lay off people. When we did that, we looked after them well, both in terms of monetary compensation and emotional support.”

Raj Raghavan, senior vice president & head – human resources, IndiGo

Sense of belonging vs undue expectations

Many would argue that since they spend a majority of their time working and benefitting a company, it can be considered as their own. Calling the company they work for as their family gives a sense of belonging to the employees. The objective could be to make employees responsible for the welfare of this ‘family’, which in turn, will take care of them. However, going by Lütke’s logic, it also gives rise to undue expectations. After all, an organisation is a business unit and some tough decisions will have to be taken.

If one looks at things objectively, working as a team makes far more sense than working as a family. The latter brings obligations as well. Working as a team, say for instance, a sports team, the team members together achieve goals and when needed, restructure as well. Every action is undertaken for the collective good or with the desire to accomplish a common goal or mission. This puts the employees and the bosses on the same page without anyone going overboard. This also reduces the instances of heart burn or feeling of betrayal because the goal is common – productivity.

When HR Experts were asked to throw light on what they think of Lütke’s e-mail in the Indian context, we received mixed reactions.

Professionalism vs lenience

Nilay Nilay, CHRO, Indian Shelter Finance Corporation, completely agrees with Lütke’s vision. He feels that while a familial approach at the workplace may reflect caring, it does lead to lack of professionalism. Treating an employee as a family member may be good for building trust, but in some situations, it may also lead to taking soft calls professionally or tolerating underperformance and toning down expectations. “It is important to be professional while dealing with employees if one wishes to build a professional work culture. Both employees and employers seek a professional work environment, and that’s true even in India,” points out Nilay.

“It is important to be professional while dealing with employees if one wishes to build a professional work culture. Both employees and employers seek a professional work environment, and that’s true even in India.”

Nilay Nilay, CHRO, Indian Shelter Finance Corporation

Profits vs empathy

Contrary to the above thought, an organisation is also like a family from the limited perspective that it takes care of employees and their families during difficult times, and even supports employees through social security schemes after they retire and so on. While it is right that organisations are commercial, for-profit organisations, what differentiates the good ones from the bad is the amount of empathy they have for their employees; the level of tolerance they have for genuine cases of below-par productivity; the amount of investment they make to reskill employees instead of replacing them at the first instance.

Logic vs emotion

Pradipto Sahoo, HR advisor & consultant, Bank of India, says, “The differentiating factor here is the objective. A sports team carries only members who are able to play well and complement each other, while a family carries all members irrespective of level of contribution. It is also true that holding on to non-performers and/or non-aligned employees is bound to sink the organisation, which would then harm the rest of the employees too. That’s why, there have to be certain limitations to how far an organisation should go.”

“The differentiating factor here is the objective. A sports team carries only members who are able to play well and complement each other, while a family carries all members irrespective of level of contribution. It is also true that holding on to non-performers and/or non-aligned employees is bound to sink the organisation, which would then harm the rest of the employees too. That’s why, there have to be certain limitations to how far an organisation should go.”

Pradipto Sahoo, HR advisor & consultant, Bank of India,

He also asserts that the objective of the organisation is profit making and not profiteering. Great organisations ensure organisational growth by taking care of employees’ interests and not at the cost of it. The organisations that continue socialistic activity endlessly, face business risk. Citing an example, Sahoo elaborates, “General Motors was overburdened with accumulated retirement benefits of ex-employees. It eventually went bankrupt because life expectancy increased and the cost of retiral benefits increased severely. Such tough decisions have to be logical and practical, not emotional.”

At a time when everyone is talking about getting closer amidst the difficulties all around, such strong stands on setting boundaries and office bonding/relationships have the potential to alienate bosses from their employees. This, in turn, can hamper productivity.

However, Raj Raghavan, senior vice president & head – human resources, IndiGo, is of the opinion that the Shopify CEO probably does not understand the concept of non-duality.

“Why can’t you have both? That’s what we call non-duality. At IndiGo, we say ‘you are never alone here’. That means, we are here to help and support. Yet, when it comes to making tough calls, we do take them. For instance, we have opened a 13-bed COVID hospital in Gurgaon at a time when the industry is doing so badly. We are spending crores on vaccinations. That doesn’t take away the fact that last year, we had to lay off people. When we did that, we looked after them well, both in terms of monetary compensation and emotional support,” Raghavan enunciates. He insists that one is not independent of the other. If, during tough times, organisations are taking care of their employees and getting closer, they are also making uncomfortable decisions to tide over.

Clearly, Shopify CEO Tobi Lütke’s leaked e-mail to his managers has forced employers to give serious thought to an approach that works not just in the Indian context but international as well.

The post Are colleagues family, friends or just teammates? appeared first on HR Katha.

As per the policy, if there is any chance of the disclosed personal, romantic or sexual relationship creating a conflict of interest, the Company may resort to ‘alternative work arrangements’.

When organisations have a workplace dating policy in place, the intention is not to impose unjustified restrictions on employees dating each other. Everyone has the right to choose whom they want to be with but it is to ensure that such relationships do not go on to cause any sort of discomfort, awkward behaviour or problems at the workplace. Also such policies are applicable to the entire workforce, irrespective of position, gender, nationality, religion or sexual orientation.

In India, the forms that candidates usually fill in at the time of joining require them to specify their religion, caste and minority status, if applicable. A policy on relationships within the workplace has hardly been given much importance, although there are guidelines in place to check sexual harassment. Also, most Indian companies today do not allow a married couple to work in the same organisation or at least the same department or function. If two people enter into a relationship at the workplace and eventually tie the knot, the usual practice is to move them into different departments.

“It is not right, as it is a matter of their own privacy and it is their choice to declare or not. You may remember 10 years back, there was a mandatory medical test for employees. Companies used to get the information and try to read in between the lines. Unless there is some job-specific occupational hazard, it shouldn’t be the case.”

---

Why is a dating or relationship policy required?

Well, if two employees working together on an important project enter into a relationship, it may affect their work/productivity, and even jeopardise the project. Unwanted biases may creep in, which may affect decision-making and compromise the wellbeing of the business.

Policies regarding dating and consensual relationships are also important so that, if the need should ever arise, the HR is able to handle gossip more effectively or look into conflicts of interest, if any. For this reason, many companies in the West have policies that usually require employees to inform the HR if a relationship has lasted a specific time period, usually a month or two.

“We are completely for respecting the privacy of our employees and we will not do anything to invade that. To me, such a policy trespasses privacy norms. The question concerns the personal and professional lives of the individuals. While I am concerned about the professional congruence or incongruence, what they do personally shouldn’t matter.”

---

How ethical is it?

We asked some members of the HR fraternity in India, their opinion on a workplace relationship policy. How ethical is it to seek such personal data from the employees?

Saba Adil, chief people officer, Raheja QBE, believes it depends on what purpose the policy serves. “Why they are seeking the information needs to be clearly communicated. ‘Relationship’ will need to be defined and clarified among other things, or it will remain in the grey area. Also, it’s not just about one person but the partner as well. Are they both comfortable with such a disclosure? If the purpose is to identify conflict of interest, I think it is okay, provided the employees are at ease.”

She feels that in trying to find out about such relationships, the organisation may discover other issues, such as preference for certain clients, or vendors, or some level of favouritism.

“In an era where we are not asking for age, family details or even past compensation, asking about personal relationships seems regressive in my view. we may miss out on some good candidates or be unable to attract the best, due to such a policy.”

---

Adil also points out that many companies today do have a clause in their policy, requiring employees to declare their relationships within the Company, if they have any. In some companies, it is acceptable, if there is no conflict of interest. However, she asserts that the consent of the concerned employee and the partner are a must here.

Ravi Mishra, SVP – HR, Grasim Industries, Global Epoxy Business, Aditya Birla Group believes if it is related to the business, then it is certainly ethical. However, there’s also a question about privacy. “It is not right, as it is a matter of their own privacy and it is their choice to declare or not. You may remember 10 years back, there was a mandatory medical test for employees. Companies used to get the information and try to read in between the lines. Unless there is some job-specific occupational hazard, it shouldn’t be the case.”

On the privacy concern part, Balachandar N, group head – human resources, Coffee Day Enterprises, also feels it is not the right thing to do. “In an era where we are not asking for age, family details or even past compensation, asking about personal relationships is regressive in my view. They may miss out on some good candidates or be unable to attract the best, due to this policy,” says Balachandar.

Harshvardhan Soin, chief people officer and head – marketing, Tech Mahindra, also seconds Balachandar’s views. “We are completely for respecting the privacy of our employees and we will not do anything to invade that. To me, such a policy trespasses privacy norms. The question concerns the personal and professional lives of the individuals. While I am concerned about the professional congruence or incongruence, what they do personally shouldn’t matter,” explains Soin.

“Why they are seeking the information needs to be clearly communicated. ‘Relationship’ will need to be defined and clarified among other things, or it will remain in the grey area. Also, it’s not just about one person but the partner as well. Are they both comfortable with such a disclosure? If the purpose is to identify conflict of interest, I think it is okay, provided the employees are at ease.”

---

Considering that BlackRock has a 16,000-strong workforce, its recent move to get deeper into the private lives of its employees may have far-reaching insinuations and repercussions even if the intention is to avoid conflict of interest.

The post How personal can companies get? appeared first on HR Katha.

For instance, let us take the case of the HR personnel in the company. Their performance is measured on the basis of the attrition level. And, if people are leaving the company, that clearly means they were unfit for the company’s culture in the first place. So, does that mean the HR personnel underperformed by hiring misfits? No. There is another way to look at this.

Attrition actually gives the company an opportunity to build a better talent pool. Therefore, is it possible that a higher attrition can actually be a good sign for an organisation?

We posed the same question to some of the HR heads and leaders from the corporate world. This is what they had to say:

Ajay Tiwari, VP-HR, Lupin

I do not agree with the fact that higher attrition level is a positive sign for a company. What I have personally experienced and seen is that, when attrition level is at a higher side, the company loses the best of its talent. You must have heard a very common phrase in the corporate world—‘Employees do not leave a company but their managers.’ The same thing applies here as well. Even if we go by the books, attrition is always taken as a negative sign for a company.

Talking about building a better talent pool— well, you are not supposed to wait for a higher attrition situation to do that. Talent management is a continuous activity and there are other tools and methods to achieve the same. And here is how I justify my statement that attrition takes away the best of the talent— at the time of hiring, we analyse and hire only those people who make for the best culture fit for the organisation. Therefore, if a large number of people leave, it certainly indicates that there is something wrong with the culture.

Anant Garg, director-HR, Eli Lilly

Attrition often has a negative connotation, but some attrition may be actually healthy for an organisation. Not every organisation may be the right fit for every individual, and there can be various aspects— such as career goals— that may be better fulfilled by pursuing another opportunity at a given point in time.

Some attrition may be desirable to keep raising the performance bar in the team, and create a culture of meritocracy. At the same time, it creates opportunities for more talent to grow, as one movement may open up opportunities downstream. Often, you see leaders boasting of zero attrition, which is not always something to be proud of.

Satyajit Mohanty, CHRO, Crompton Greaves

The answer to this question is contextual, and depends on the cause and nature of attrition. Mostly, high attrition scenarios prevail in the following situations:

1. Toxic work environment

2. The overall ‘declining’ status of the business (the ‘sinking ship’ phenomenon), including uncertainty of the future

3. Entry of several competitors into the scenario — so they target established players for talent poaching

4. In industries such as insurance, high attrition in the frontline (sometimes ironically called ‘infant mortality’) is due to the fact that it takes frontline personnel time to bring in business. However, many managers do not have the patience to wait it out and as a result performance-related exits are very common.

5. When the organisation is undergoing a transformation, many people leave if they are not used to the new ‘ways’ of working or if they are not very open to change. This is especially true when organisations try to upgrade the performance level.

In situations of toxic work environment and overall business decline, it seriously dents the employer brand proposition and makes attraction of top-notch talent very difficult. Besides, when such a situation arises, the people who leave, more often than not, are high performers, for whom it is much easier to find jobs. Hence, in such situations, the overall talent quotient of the organisation declines. Even the phenomenon of top talent leaving is often witnessed in cases of stiff competition, though the trend is not so much marked.

However, in the case of business transformation, it helps organisations recruit the talent with the right skillset and mindset. In such situations, it is not uncommon for relative underperformers to leave as they often prove to be underequipped to adapt to the changes. It is also possible to retain the top talent by making them partners in the transformation process.

In the situation where the industry itself is in a ‘high-attrition zone’, the results can be mixed. Here, continuous strengthening of the quality of recruitment can ensure that a better talent quotient is built up, progressively.

Rishi Tiwari, cluster director-HR, Hilton

There are various reasons for attrition these days. You cannot simply blame the company culture for a higher turnover rate. There are, of course, internal reasons for high attrition level. However, there also exist external reasons, such as more competition due to growth in the overall market. In such situations, people have so many other opportunities to explore. Employees do not live with the fear or uncertainty of who will hire them if they leave their jobs. Just as we segregate our customer base in marketing, we should also segregate our employees in the same manner, on the basis of their potential and performance. I personally segregate my workforce into high and top talent, average performers, and low performers. When attrition happens, we should find out exactly which category of performers are leaving. If I have a low attrition percentage, but my top talent is leaving me, then it is certainly a serious issue. However, if I have a high turnover rate, but my low performers are leaving, then it gives me an opportunity to build a better talent pool.

The post Is attrition a boon in disguise? appeared first on HR Katha.

Each person has the right to follow his own ideology – be it political or non-political. The question is whether they can be vocal about it at workplaces. Next should companies have restrictions on political debates by employees within their premises.

There are a few companies which discourage employees or use preventive measures to stop any political debates at the workplace – their rationale is why do employees need to debate on political issues when it doesn’t relate to business. Rather, it creates differences amongst the employees and also distracts them from their regular routine work. Thus, impacting the overall work culture.

However, there are also companies which believe that any such restriction will violate the freedom of expression and thought of employees.

Do restrictions on political debate in office premises, really help in creating a better work culture and maintain positive relations amongst employees?

HRKatha spoke to three HR leaders for their point of view.

Vijay Singh, VP-HR, JK Cement

Freedom of speech is the fundamental right of any citizen in a democracy. Banning the right to speak is violation of the fundamental right. Any kind of healthy debate or discussion helps in creation of a perspective. Politics and cricket in India are two things that keep us together. Having said that, I feel there is also a need of checks and balances.

From the organisation point of view, political debates should be encouraged to the extent that it does not impact the working environment of the organisation. If the organisations nature of business is wherein it can impact the society through its social platform then there is a high probability that allowing political debate might influence the employees of the organisation.

Organisations which are not into a position to influence the society, there too the political debate should be allowed only when the organisation eco system is mature enough to accept the diversity. Employees professionalism have to be assessed before allowing the political debate as it should not malign the social fabric of the organisation.

Paneesh Rao, chief people officer, Mindtree

At L&T Infotech, in cafeterias, where people have their lunch and coffee, we switched over to Doordarshan for news. We avoided channels which broadcasted heated debates on political issues. We did so because such debates can hurt the sentiments of an individual and create problems in their work life. Such debates and arguments get very personal and creates differences between employees and colleagues. These debates are not even work related and does not impact the organisation at all. It effects the working relationships at workplace. As long as these debates are mature it is fine but if it creates diversion of thoughts amongst the people, they should not be allowed to harbour in the organisation. You have social groups on Facebook where people express their views and it creates diversion and affects the working relation of employees. It leads to people leaving the group and create differences. It leads to people taking sides and create differences. At the end of all, we are professionals and why should differences in ideologies of people impact the working relationship. If you want to have such discussions you can have it outside the office. There are a lot work related subjects that we can talk about in the offices, you are welcome to do that.

Mangesh Bhide, Head HR, technology & FTTx business, Reliance Jio Infocomm

I do not think that having political debates at workplace would be a problem because it is about diversity of thoughts, actions and feelings. If you do not allow diversity of thoughts and opposite opinions what is the guarantee that you will encourage diversity of different point of view at work? If you are not allowing different point of views at work then it is like making people think in the same direction and creating clones. By doing such a thing you are creating a closed working culture which will not grow and die one day. Unless it is coming in the way of your work and hampering productivity, there is no point in restricting people to have conversations on political issues. Having a different point of view does not mean enmity all the time, there is an exchange of different thoughts that takes place which can also be a learning at times. By having such laws in place you are regimenting the corporate world. Allowing different point of views and encouraging debates creates a culture of openness and also creates a sense of acceptance.

The post Should political debates be banned at workplaces? appeared first on HR Katha.

So, who makes for a better CHRO? Someone who has always been in the HR function or someone who has cross-functional experience as well? Does working in different functions really offer an added advantage?

We posed this question to some of the renowned names in the HR industry, and here is what they had to say:

Adil Malia, CEO, The Firm

Deep functional knowledge of HR can never be a setback. It can only be an advantage. However, if this functional knowledge is limited and not further augmented by suitable business and financial acumen, market knowledge or maturity of attitude, then the person cannot succeed.

On the other hand, however functionally competent a person may be, if she/he does not understand people behaviours, human motivations, subliminal insights and EVPs, and has no clue of functional people management / life-cycle processes, then she/he cannot thrive and succeed in a top-level HR role.

What is required at the top of the corporate ladder is mature and blended leadership, with composite leadership competencies.

With the right open and learning mindset, leaders can be coached in the areas where they are inadequate. It is all about an individual’s eagerness to learn and learning quotient. If one is open to learning, all models work.

Personally, however, though functionally qualified, I worked in HR, and then moved into business roles for four years before re-routing my career back into HR. I think that helped me a lot in my development.

Abhijit Bhaduri, coach, columnist and innovator

When we get our credentials, it gives us a certain kind of perspective to get started in our career. However, there are many more nuances that we discover as we go deep. That can mean knowing more about other functions or gaining more in-depth knowledge of aspects of HR (for instance, how to do assessments or even theories of industrial psychology).

In the absence of in-depth knowledge, one may end up somewhat like a dispensing chemist at a super speciality hospital. Every one who uses the English language is not equally proficient in it.

Then, as the role evolves and things change, we may all need to learn about subjects we may never thought necessary to read about. Cybersecurity is a good example.

Regardless of where you start, it is important to stay current.

Biplob Banerjee, chief people officer, Allied Blenders and Distillers

Before getting into HR, I was into sales. The sales experience has helped me understand business and develop in my life. For me, the difference between an HR leader coming without cross-functional experience and an HR leader with functional experience is similar to the difference between raw food and processed food. Raw food is very much rich in nutrition, whereas processed food is more refined.

If you ask me, cross-functional experience is very highly advantageous. If you consider an organisation as a body, then knowledge of the business and HR expertise are like the two hands which complement each other.

There have been some great HR leaders who did not have any cross-functional experience but were highly intelligent and possessed the capabilities to understand the nuances of the business.

I feel, if you want to excel in the HR field, it is better to gather other functional experiences early on in your life.

Ashish Chattoraj, CHRO, PayU

Personally, I feel that to be a successful HR professional one should understand and balance people and business priorities. HR leaders should understand business and build people capabilities accordingly, without letting the value and culture framework out of sight.

For me, HR professionals who understand business are best suited to lead HR.

The post Do HR managers with cross-functional experience have an added advantage? appeared first on HR Katha.

How does a boss decide whom to promote? Some are of the opinion that those who reach the top level—director, president, VP — are people’s people. On the other hand, there are employees who work quietly, without interacting much with others in the organisation.

We spoke to three senior HR heads and gave them the following scenario:

You are promoting, and there are two candidates that you have shortlisted for a top position in the corporate pyramid.

These are the scores of the candidates in question:

Nihar Ghosh, president HR Emami Group 

I will promote the second candidate because he scores higher in people’s skill. The reason for that is, as a senior leader you play very little of a functional role at the individual level. Your prime responsibility is to nurture people. Your responsibility is to create a framework and concept which they (team) can translate into reality.

If candidate-2 was 5 or below on the function competency, then my answer would have been different. Here, the matter of concern is that you have not acquired mastery in the field in which you are working, consequently your ability to calibrate or differentiate between the quality of output your team is producing is insufficient.

With a score of 8, he has a fairly high degree of conceptual ability to create frameworks, visions and interventions and get his team to execute his plans. In 90 per cent of leadership jobs, 25 per cent of the work is done at the individual level—by the leaders themselves, whereas 75 per cent of the task is contributed by the team.

Rajeshwar Tripathi, chief people office Mahindra and Mahindra

Tripathi also picked candidate-2 for promotion.
As a manager of another’s effort, his role is to channelise the team’s talents for business output. My preference would always be someone who is 10 on 10 in people’s skills and 8 in terms of domain expertise.

At the senior level, we will promote people’s persons. Senior leaders not only manage their teams, but also stakeholders and networks. Seldom do they have to deliver within their vertical.

In senior leadership roles, we look for people who are multipliers. They should be able to influence the workforce in an organisation and build strong talent pipelines.

N Balachandar, group director-HR Coffee Day Group

I will pick up candidate-2 for promoting.

Personal productivity/output is important for people at the base of the pyramid, here promotions are determined by individual contribution. For a senior leadership role, my decision would sway towards the candidate-2 but there are certain other attributes that he needs to have along with people’s skills.

Senior leadership roles require visionary and futuristic people who can lead a change. They need to possess excellent communication skills to be able to make their plans see the light of the day. They have to connect, inspire and influence a heterogeneous group- people’s skills is an attribute that will help them to achieve that, personal productivity is not important.

Senior leaders work with other leaders, they have to collaborate  and network with the best minds. They take critical decisions, after merging and amalgamating ideas with others like them. A very individualistic person will struggle to align and collaborate ideas with people at the top.

Senior leaders continuously work with the board and stakeholders of an organisation. You have to be a people’s person to be able to reach out and carry your board, shareholders and brand along with you in all internal and external communication and tasks.

We establish the verdict that an individual who is charming, immensely social, humorous, and a great communicator, in short, an extrovert, will get promoted faster.

The post Skilled introvert vs charismatic extrovert, who will rise faster? appeared first on HR Katha.

Does this pretension work? Does HR buy it?

Archana Singh, senior vice president, human resources, Reliance Broadcast Network

Social media is a perception that a person creates about himself. Rarely is the information on the platform authentic. I do not judge any candidate on the basis of the information posted on social- media platforms. I believe that people who are working closely with a person act as the best testimonies to their professional work and achievements that no one can co-create. At the leadership level, the kind of decision that a person takes or the influence he has on the people working under him, talk on their own. The ideal examples are of the founders of Facebook and Microsoft who hardly ever write on social media but people still look up to them because of what they have done and achieved. The number of followers on LinkedIn or the number of likes on a profile picture will not influence my decision in terms of accessing leadership competency.

Nihar Ghosh, president, human resource, Emami Group

Whatever a person writes on social media cannot be authentic or credible so I cannot make that the basis for a proper judgement of that person. For senior-level positions one will not even take the trouble to take a look at a person’s profile on social media. But I will certainly say that information on social media will provide insights on how a person is. If the person is making derogatory remarks on social media about something or if we see a huge gap in how a person is portraying himself on social media and his CV, that will indicate that the person has the tendency to exaggerate about himself. Many factors influence the final decision but in the end, yes, social media information is evaluated and does play a role. However, social media cannot be taken as the sole basis for decision making.

Saba Adil, chief people and operating officer, Aegon Life Insurance

For us, social media is Linkedin. We look at how many followers a person has and the profiles of those followers. We do not make a decision on the basis of the information available on Linkedin alone. There is a whole procedure to be followed and various methods that can be adopted to get to know a person. Social media will just provide us with some inputs which may not make an impact on a larger scale.

Social media can be used as just one of the tools to obtain information about a person, but it cannot be used as the only tool to evaluate the person. However, it can surely make an impact on the final decision of whether or not to hire a candidate.

The post Does HR fall for social-media pretensions? appeared first on HR Katha.

Geethaa Ghaneckar, CHRO, Raheja Universal

If the compensation has followed a scientific pattern over the years, then it can eventually lead to a fair marketplace. However, it could be detrimental and dangerous for companies which do not have mature compensation practices.

It’s a good practice to make the compensations public. The compensation is an ‘openly guarded secret’ because employees know about it, yet it’s expected to be guarded. Compensations are the outcomes of employees’ career trajectories and the value they have added to themselves along the journey. If these are made visible, they can act aspirational for those who are competent but may act as deterrent for others who are only competitive and not competent and that will even out over a period of time.

For instance, if employees are aware that their peers have joined from outside with 20 per cent more salary, they may crib, but the fact remains that the other person has learnt along the journey, moved across companies, worked through difficult environments, and therefore, brings more perspective and knowledge to the job that the other person is doing. The fairness of the whole process becomes evident. However, it is not easy to make it transparent unless the core compensation practices, based on equality and impartiality, are fed in the system.

Organisations, which have been able to maintain strictness around this could probably think about it, but traditional organisations attach values to their employees in a different way. For instance, loyalty is not a trait that is easy to explain, making it rather difficult. If the compensation has followed a scientific pattern over the years, then it can eventually lead to a fair marketplace. However, it could be detrimental and dangerous for companies which do not have mature compensation practices.

Srikanth Karra, CHRO, Mphasis
It is also not easy to quantify the role of employees and no manager likes to discuss peer performance with an employee or try to justify it. This will be demoralising for employees, as each person in the same role may have different salaries based on their experience, skills and other things.

It’s a disclosure of closely guarded private information to the public, but for executive leadership it’s statutory to disclose their salaries both in the US and India. The difference in salaries is interpreted differently, as performance is subjective. If an employee doesn’t perform well in the job and the salary is made public then it will offend that employee, who will not want his performance to be known among peers.

It is also not easy to quantify the role of employees and no manager likes to discuss peer performance with an employee or try to justify it. This will be demoralising for employees, as each person in the same role may have different salaries based on their experience, skills and other things. It will lead to confrontations and make things controversial by creating troubles for managers. There are other risks of disclosure of personal compensation, as the financial information is linked to an employees’ personal wealth, loans, debtors, creditors, credit ratings and much more.

Emmanuel David, director, Tata Management Training Centre (TMTC), Tata Group HR
Revealing pay information, on the other hand, may actually increase performance, especially among the top performers, which can be a counter-intuitive thought. To create a fair ecosystem is not easy, but not impossible either.

The adage, ‘Never ask a woman her age and a man his salary’, is still relevant in India. It is considered to be awkward and embarrassing to ask someone’s salary. Discussion of salaries with co-workers has long been considered impolite and the general norm is to keep salaries a secret.

However, when the employees relocate to other geographies, their salary level is known to others largely due to their lifestyle. It has been seen that some companies in India and abroad are mature enough to openly display the worth of a particular job through transparency in the wages given to the employees. For instance, employees who are more productive might get a promotion but their salaries may remain lower than those who are average performers but have been part of the system for a longer duration.

Keeping pay a secret may act as a dampener for individual performance. Revealing pay information, on the other hand, may actually increase performance, especially among the top performers, which can be a counter-intuitive thought. To create a fair ecosystem is not easy, but not impossible either. We need to have an ecosystem in place to be transparent. It will help in structuring the wage bill and look for a value of the job. Each position has certain responsibilities, and if certain employees are demanding a pay hike then we can clearly ask them about their capabilities to handle their respective profiles. Employees can be compensated for performance monetarily or non-monetarily. Such a correction will bring transparency, stability and clarity for both parties.

It is always better to be transparent in the organisation and also be upfront about employees’ compensation and performance to avoid any grapevine. Secrecy at some level is also about fairness, but fairness is not kindness.

The post Can salaries be made transparent across organisation? appeared first on HR Katha.

Emmanuel David, director, Tata Management Training Centre (TMTC), Tata Group HR

Behavioural issues at the line manager level are rather common. However, there is no single best way to deal with it. If a manager is really competent and contributes significantly to organisational performance in terms of revenue or otherwise, a matter related to behavioural issue may be dismissed or would not be immediately paid heed to. Whereas, if a manager is not so efficient, people will not hesitate to come out in the open and even take action against the manager, if required.

For instance, a woman who was the secretary to a regional head in a certain company was suffering at the hands of this toxic boss, who had an affair with another woman. Since he knew that people are aware of his affair, under his own insecurities, he would act rude with people. He would rebuke them for no particular reason, and this woman, his secretary, had to bear the brunt. While she complained to the HR team, nothing really changed. She then drafted a neutral yet factual note and shared it with the senior leadership team, which later caught the attention of one of the senior leaders. Though the regional head was finally transferred to another location, it took this woman an entire year to get the issue resolved.

Sadly, the role of HR in such cases is almost negligible, while the one in trouble is left searching for ways to deal with it. At times, organisations don’t take timely tough calls just to avoid messing up with a professional who may be important to business. Hence, the best way to avoid behavioural mismatches is to ensure a culture that does not allow wrong or unethical behaviours.

Chaitali Mukherjee, partner, people and organisation, PwC India

This is something that can’t be controlled directly as there is a limit to the level of policing one can do in an organisation. That is why, we have so many procedures around cultural orientation, employee development, behavioural trainings and so on.

Line managers play an important role as they are responsible for tasks that may involve high-level decision making. That said, behavioural issues could impact the way in which they are getting things done, which is why organisations invest so much on training managers around the right behaviours to exhibit in the workplace.

While you cannot keep a check on the behaviour of the line managers directly, there are ways to solicit feedback and understand what may or may not be going on well for people in the team. From the basic 360 degree feedback to skip-level conversations, organisations lay down guidelines for ethics and dos and don’ts as well, to ascertain appropriate behaviours.

More than all this, it is important to understand that what cannot be controlled can at least be prevented, and for that, it is important for organisations to hire right. If organisations focus on the behavioural aspects while hiring and perform stringent and discreet background checks, such managers or professionals can be avoided altogether. Organisations can spend a lifetime to ‘make the wrong people do the right things’ but it won’t work—it is better to hire the right people.

This is also a function of the kind of culture an organisation has. What a certain organisation may consider as ‘policing’, may be something normal for others. Similarly, for some organisations, skip-level meetings could work as a solution, while in some organisations it may just not be possible. All said and done, the best way to prevent behavioural issues at managerial levels is to hire right.

Lalit Kar, vice president & head-HR, Mumbai International Airport

Behavioural issues are often noticed in managers who are high contributors or high performers. The harsh reality is that high contribution covers up for high-handedness in most organisations. Moreover, aggression is now a celebrated behaviour in organisations even if it often means being abusive to get faster results.

The idea of being strictly task oriented and the performance pressures at times tend to make people believe that it is alright to nudge people. However, it may get to the extent of rebuking someone and still be justified on grounds of ensuring impeccable performance. However, this may not be the best behaviour for a manager or a boss to exhibit, as it may let down the morale of the team, further impacting the very same performance, for which the manager behaves aggressively.

Such behavioural issues can be kept under control if an organisation ascertains an efficient office design and the right kind of culture. In addition, it is important to understand that it flows from the top and hence the top leaders’ behaviour, stated values, beliefs of the organisation and right behaviour modelling can play a significant role in reducing such behaviour.

The post Is it possible to keep a check on behavioural issues of line managers? appeared first on HR Katha.

Many organisations these days are opting for modern-looking open office designs, that promise a more collaborative and open work environment. However, people have, at times, raised concerns about distractions at work and lack of privacy that tag along with an open workspace. At the same time, there are benefits, such as easy and quick inter and intra team interactions. But, whether an open office design necessarily translates into an open working culture, is still a question.

Here’s what the experts have to say—

Rohit Kumar, HR director (CHRO), Kellogg India

The open office concept has to be complemented with a change in mindset of the leadership. 

The office layout can be a great enabler in reinforcing the organisation’s culture. With companies becoming less hierarchical and more informal, office design should reflect this new-age reality. The smell of the workplace and the energy that’s palpable within has a lot to do with the way its layout has been designed. The open office concept enables more collaboration and engagement across functions and hierarchies. However, this has to be complemented with a change in mindset of the leadership. There is sure to be dissonance and resistance to change if the leadership is not at ease with the reality of the new world being created.

With more and more organisations breaking down the barriers of cabins and walls, care has to be taken to incorporate abundant collaborative spaces, ample meeting rooms, and easy access to phone booths and private meeting space to carry out sensitive conversations. If not carefully designed, the open office can actually lead to intrusion of privacy and become a hindrance when an employee needs uninterrupted quiet time to work on critical work proposals.

Manish Kumar, head-HR and learning & development, Ricoh India

Open Office can only make a difference along with a top-to-bottom approach.

Open offices have become quite common nowadays owing to the fact that a large part of the working population constitutes millennials, who prefer workplaces with an open culture. In fact, even before joining an organisation, millennials are concerned about the company’s culture. An organisation that lacks an open culture is sure to lose out on young talent.

While an open work culture is extremely important these days, an open office design does not necessarily indicate an organisation has an open culture. Although an open office is an effective enabler for an open culture, it does not guarantee one. It is just one of the ingredients and can only make a difference along with a top-to-bottom approach, where the senior leadership, including the MD, makes efforts to build a culture of openness. The top management’s conviction is crucial to ensuring an open work culture.

Compared to the traditional workplace design, which doesn’t even allow employees to see each other’s faces properly, the modern open workspaces are devoid of most physical barriers, allowing enhanced approachability. Open offices allow better verbal and non-verbal communication at the workplace.

Saurabh Nigam, vice president, human capital, Omidyar Network

It is ultimately the leaders’ responsibility to create and maintain an open and vibrant culture.

I am a big advocate of open workspaces, but to say that it always translates into an open work culture would not be fair, because that’s not true. An open workspace is better for various economic and behavioural reasons. Open offices are aesthetically better as they are brightly lit and tastefully decorated, with people around providing the area a dense and active looking environment.

Such a workspace is also better in terms of providing easy access and communication, making it a more connected workplace. It certainly brings in a lot of positivity and liveliness into the work environment.

Despite these benefits, an open workspace design only facilitates an open culture but doesn’t really ensure one. There are other factors that are equally important. An open culture is very much dependent on the leaders in an organisation—their mindset and the general work culture. Whether the leaders or managers are open and appreciative of people asking questions or offering honest feedback, makes a big difference in maintaining or not maintaining an open culture.

It is more a matter of the mentality of the office rather than its design. It is ultimately the leaders’ responsibility to create and maintain an open and vibrant culture.

The post Does an open office always translate into an open culture? appeared first on HR Katha.

There are times when people feel dissatisfied with their jobs owing to a disconnect between their expectations from the job role and its realities, or a mismatch between what was conveyed to them at the time of joining and what their role currently looks like. While changes in the job role/duties are not a new occurrence, they are not always taken positively.

Sandeep Gandhi, CHRO, Aircel

In cases where a change in job role or duties is a deliberate attempt, without a judicious reason, it may be a serious matter for concern. 

There is no clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to this as a lot has changed in the world of work in the last few decades. Earlier, whatever was mentioned about one’s job duties in the offer letter used to be sacrosanct, but the entire work environment nowadays is much more dynamic with change being the norm. Deviations from the role as described in the offer letter are now common and are mostly subject to changes in the business environment.

In cases where a change in job role or duties is a deliberate attempt, without a judicious reason, it may be a serious matter for concern. However, if it is communicated well and done in agreement with the employees, after due discussions on the same, it may well be justified.

Changes which may have once been considered ideally avoidable, will certainly occur in the current VUCA world. For instance, a few years or a decade ago, the telecom industry offered voice services nearly free, while there were huge charges for data usage. On the other hand, considering the changes in the operating environment and managing customer usage and expectations, while data is now nearly free, voice services have become more expensive. Such business changes certainly demand a workforce to adapt, and role changes in such situations are also unavoidable.

Only if it is with a mala fide intention, it is not right. It’s important that the employee is notified and briefed well about the role change or location change, whatsoever.

Murthy MVS, chief people officer, nuFuture Digital, Future Group

Making changes in someone’s job role overnight, without a valid context, is absolutely unacceptable on the part of a manager.

When an organisation makes an offer to someone, it is mostly stated upfront that the employee is expected to be open to any role changes depending on a change in the operating environment. Although this is legally justified, it may certainly have some associated motivational or emotional impact.

Given the current context, such situations may seem normal. However, it is important that the manager or the boss should have a dialogue with the employee, in case a change is in sight. In that case, even if someone is discontented with the role, there is an open discussion on the same, and things are fine.

On the other hand, making changes in someone’s job role overnight, without a valid context, is absolutely unacceptable on the part of a manager. We do not live in anarchy anymore. Each one of us expects a democratic and congenial environment, both at home and in the society we live in. Hence, even at work, all employees have the right to know and discuss their role changes, if any.

Hemangini Jayant, vice president-HR, Dr. Oetker India

Being adaptable and flexible is extremely critical for any profession and at any level now.

From a legal point of view, an organisation or a manager can, at any point of time, decide to change the job duties of an employee. In fact, most job contracts have a clause that clearly states that the job role can be modified as per business need and is at the manager’s discretion.

However, from an ethical point of view, it makes sense only when the employer discusses the change with the employee in advance and gets a buy-in from all entities involved. A change in job role could be a great way to gain more exposure, but it is an opportunity only if the employee believes it is one.

Role changes may also fall in as a result of excellent performance or a lack in performance. When employees display exceeding performance in a certain role, the promotion that follows may bring about changes in their duties. Similarly, in case of performance lag, managers might decide to offer certain role changes to employees, trying to retain or allow them a chance to prove themselves.

All said and done, being adaptable and flexible is extremely critical for any profession and at any level now. Businesses of the day seek people who are open to changes and can multitask. Hence, a role change should not come as a shock to anyone. Such variations, and adaptability to the same, are the key to survival in the current times.

The post Can my boss change my role at any time? appeared first on HR Katha.

Talent is the most expensive and treasured asset for any organisation, and so, it is naturally not easy for them to let go of it easily. Organisations try all interesting and unique ways to keep their talent engaged and go to great extents to retain them, if need be. Most organisations try and make lucrative retention offers or a counter offer to someone who may have resigned but needs to be retained for the benefit of the business. A pending or skip level early promotion, an exorbitant salary raise or a new profile — counter-offers can be either of these, or a package. However, there are hidden disadvantages. Whether to really accept a counter-offer is a dilemma that many face. Here is what the experts believe.

Sailesh Menezes, director-human resources, Hewlett Packard Enterprise

The counter offer will provide a temporary and unsustainable spike in the employee’s level of motivation, which will fall back to the earlier level in a matter of weeks.

Counter offers are often in the form of a financial or monetary pay-out, be it immediate or deferred. However, employees choose to exit organisations for a variety of reasons, which may not always be addressed by the counter-offer made by the organisation. Hence, accepting such an offer may often not be sustainable, especially if the core reason for the leaving employee’s dissatisfaction lies elsewhere. It has been proved that in most cases, a majority of employees, who accept counter offers exit the organisation within the next 24 months.

Certainly, the counter offer will provide a temporary and unsustainable spike in the employee’s level of motivation, which will fall back to the earlier level in a matter of weeks. Counter-offers have mostly been proved to be more of a material enticement, one that will not last long.

Last but not the least, the signal/decision to exit followed by the counter-offer may at times lead to a deterioration of one’s relationship with the organisation, which can lead to doubts about the employee’s future commitment.

Murthy MVS, chief people officer, nuFuture Digital (India) Limited (Future Group)

Money cannot be used as a bait to get individuals to stay while they may actually be struggling in the work environment. It would be a total loss for both the employee and the organisation in the long run.

Accepting counter-offers wasn’t considered a great practice a few years ago. However, with the kind of talent movements in the current generation, it’s not so much of a taboo anymore. Yet, there are aspects that one should consider.

For those who may be leaving owing to dissatisfaction in their current role, or because of culture, organisational values and relationships at work, accepting a counter-offer will not be wise. If the counter-offer is mostly monetary, it may not be the best bet for someone who may have decided to leave the organisation. Money cannot be used as a bait to get individuals to stay while they may actually be struggling in the work environment. It would be a total loss for both the employee and the organisation in the long run.

On the other hand, in a situation where one may be leaving only for a better salary and with no other complaints, it may still make sense for one to accept a counter-offer. Yet, this may be a short-lived respite for the organisation as it doesn’t guarantee that the employee will stay for long. After all, there is always a chance of some other organisation offering an even better salary in the near future, with which that employee may end up achieving a higher raise in the salary.

Ravishankar B, independent senior HR advisor

I have observed that high performers are usually the first to resign and a good professional never stays back just for more money or promotion as a counter-offer.

One should certainly refrain from accepting a counter-offer if the reasons behind leaving are job related or promotion related, because if you do, people will remember it. The system always remembers someone who threatens an exit to achieve what they want. After having accepted an offer, at times the boss’ approach towards the employee may change. A sense of negativity tends to prevail in such a scenario.

Moreover, after having accepted a counter-offer that includes a higher salary or a promotion, an employee may further delay their normal course of promotion in the organisation. I have observed that high performers are usually the first to resign and a good professional never stays back just for more money or promotion as a counter-offer. In most large organisations, the success rate of retention offers is not more than 20 per cent.

In addition, for someone leaving for a better brand, accepting a counter-offer makes no sense as that would just be a short-term victory, and they will actually lose out in the long term. However, if salary is the only criteria for leaving the job, then, it is better to have an open conversation before putting down the papers or simply accepting the counter-offer without concerns.

The post Should an employee accept a counter-offer post resignation? appeared first on HR Katha.

Ravi Kyran, President-HR, Bajaj Auto

The question is not whether HR is expected to do a dirty job or not, but how HR manages people’s expectations. There will always be various kinds of expectations from HR, which at times may become demands.

In the absence of strong values, if there are demands and requests, which HR may be expected to fulfil, it becomes a demand-fulfilment exercise instead of a value-creation one. Even if you look at the examples from the recent past, it is evident that HR is just helping with restructuring, but is it doing so in the right way? This is debatable.

While HR certainly plays a crucial role in supporting organisations in restructuring or recruiting, it is important to analyse how it does it. HR can help organisations do these things in a way that it is in sync with the organisation’s value system and is also in the long-term interest of the company.

Any business ecosystem will always pose demands, but it is for HR to decide how they would want to execute those demands. It is unhealthy of HR to not hold a position of value or look at the long-term issues, thereby simply becoming an execution arm. The issue is not that HR is asked to do a dirty job. The issue is whether HR understands its true value and upholds it in a way that will end up impacting the organisation, helping it sustain in the long run.

We in HR need to hold a strong position, based on values and conviction. If we allow conviction to be replaced by fear, we will just begin acting instead of impacting. We need to acquire a thoughtful approach and move from action to impact.

Ganesh Chandan, chief human resources officer, Greaves Cotton

The job of having difficult conversations with your own people becomes ‘dirty’ or rather uncomfortable for three reasons:

1. Lack of preparedness – Quite often, many rush into having difficult conversations without preparing well or doing the required ground work. When they are confronted with some fundamental questions, they lack honest and convincing responses. If enough indications and feedback are provided in the early stages, employees will be better prepared to deal with it.  

2. Assumption that one size fits all – HR and businesses need to realise that all employees are different, and have to deal with their own unique circumstances. Therefore, one size will not fit all. They need to craft a customised solution for each employee addressing their key concerns. They also need to be flexible and considerate.

3. Absence of concern for future– Rather than merely communicating the decision, businesses and HR must co-create a plan to lend a helping hand to the employee. It could even be in the form of finding jobs in other organisations or re-skilling them or part-time engagements. The options are plenty, but the willingness to travel that extra mile is essential. A mechanical approach with the sole focus on cost reduction often results in many problems and unpleasantness.

Sunitha Lal, former chief human resources officer, Matrimony.com

The fact that we have reached a point where we are discussing whether HR is made to do the dirty job has a deep-rooted explanation. It is the HR function that let the game slip away from its hands gradually, by becoming more business-oriented. That is all fine, but in the process of becoming so, it slowly lost its human connect.

Be it a ramp up or a reduction in the workforce, it is a business decision and it needs to be co-owned by both business and HR. However, it unfortunately and gradually just slipped into the HR’s bucket with the management trying to escape the difficult conversations. It reached this stage because at some point business began disowning talent decisions.

Despite various discussions around talent development these days, the sad reality is that most businesses look at it as a commodity. The term (talent) itself takes away the human part from the people under consideration.

On the other hand, in case of unpleasant situations, such as layoffs, HR needs to support the employees in the best ways possible. HR has to stand for what is in the best interest of the employees. It is important for HR to define ‘how’ they can handle such difficult situations better. The ‘how’ can be defined well only if the ‘why’ behind the same is clear. This implies that if an organisation has the right intention behind a retrenchment plan or something similar, then the ‘how to plan ahead’ part will automatically fall into place.

The post Is HR made to do the dirty job? appeared first on HR Katha.

Have the interviewers or recruiters ever had to wonder whether their intuitions or judgements  with regard to the candidates  will really stand true in the real scenario? What is the real moment of truth in the hiring process? How does it impact the hirer’s decision or how does one deal with it?

Rajesh Padmanabhan, director, group CHRO, Welspun Group

The hiring process over many years has been consistent on assessing the candidature vis-a-vis the role. The candidate is put through to a few hiring decision makers and run over a process to normalise the decision. It is seen through different lenses so that the overall decision is balanced.

The whole process is about looking at what the candidate brings to the table in terms of skills, experiences, ability to deal with situations, leadership style, learning agility, soft skills, and so on. Post this, hiring managers visualise the prospect in the proposed role and then invariably back it with the intuition about the candidate succeeding or failing. In doing this, the hirer has to wear the overall lens of the organisational culture and the probability of the prospect fitting in. The need of filling in the role plays a big part too in rushing through with the decision. In all of this, what invariably stands out would be fulfilment time and finding the so called ‘right talent’.

The moment of truth is “no one hires anyone”. Let me explain this. The candidates remain candidates and perform a road show of displaying their fit with the role. There are likely clear oversold positions the candidates may make, which need to be discounted by the hirers. Invariably, the decision to hire is made in the mind from the 10th minute to the 20th.

Subsequently, it is just a validation of that assumption which is carried out. Actually, the hirers  are backing themelves with the decision made and not actually backing the candidature. The plain truth is, it is a tick in the mind that happens at some stage of the process. Once that decision is made, the hirers go through the full haul of formalities, making the candidate successful or otherwise. So the real truth is that the hirers are backing themselves with the decision.  

The prospects evaluate the role on three counts, namely learning, growth and experience.

The anxiety to make an impression that they are the right fit plays heavily—even more than the outcome. Together, the experience of a good meaningful conversation where both hold the mirror truthfully is the ultimate moment of truth.

Vaijayanti Naik, head – HR, ICICI Securities

Hiring decisions are based on both available data and evidence, as well as on intuition and judgement. As far as data is concerned, recruiters look at candidates’ track records, domain expertise and external relationships built over time. When hiring at senior levels, organisations validate the references as well.

But besides that, talent-acquisition professionals also need to look at the organisational cultural fit. This is because performance cannot be ported from one company to another easily. One’s performance is impacted by organisational culture, and hence, it is important to look at the softer aspects of one’s personality traits to find the best culture fit—Who can succeed in that specific organisational setup.

At ICICI Securities, we want people to succeed, and hence, we have designed a structured process to help us take the right decision and eliminate biases in recruiting. This process is structured around key competencies required from the incumbent. Multiple levels of interviews give us different points of view on the candidate within the hiring framework .This increases our confidence in the hiring decisions.

Makarand Khatavkar, group head – human resources, Kotak Mahindra Bank

The level at which a company is looking at hiring a candidate is crucial in defining the moment of truth. At the junior levels, an employment decision is predominantly based on the skills a candidate possesses, while culture fit plays a secondary role. For middle-level hires, the importance of culture fit increases with some of the skills considered including soft skills and team-management abilities.

However, it is at the senior- level hiring, that the real moment of truth has to be confronted. At the senior levels, it is more challenging to hire as cultural assimilation and chemistry between the person and company culture and top management is of utmost importance. At times, while senior hires may tick all the right boxes in terms of competence, things may still not work out. The flaws in such cases are quite often either in the chemistry between the top management and the professional or in the cultural fit with the organisation.

While there is no one-size-fits-all solution to such challenges, I believe that having a number of interviewers or key people across the organisation, who can assess the candidate not only on skills but on culture fit and chemistry, can lead to better hires. Having that rigour in hiring is very important.

Another aspect that’s mostly overlooked in hiring is – the skills of the interviewer. For instance, an interviewer who is only focussed on the candidates’ past achievements may not make the best decisions. Hence, asking the right questions and assessing the all-round fit of the candidate is crucial.

Lastly and most importantly, it truly has to be a consensus-based decision for it to be the best. As there is nothing such as a perfect or a 100 per cent fit, the skill or the art of a recruiter is in determining the level of fit and the existing gap, and whether it is possible to live with that gap. Since hiring involves a lot of human judgement and subjectivity, there is an X factor that’s intuition-based and the trick is to keep the X factor or the uncertainty to a minimal level.

The post Is there a ‘moment of truth’ in hiring? appeared first on HR Katha.

Vinod Rai, head-HR (supply chain & vendors) and HR transformation leader, Maruti Suzuki
Talent acquisition is a process that involves proactive planning for the future, to avoid talent surpluses or shortages.

Recruitment is all about filling up job vacancies as and when they occur. It is a reactive and ongoing process.

Talent acquisition, on the other hand, is more of a strategic approach and less of a process. It highlights the current and future needs of the organisation by attracting, identifying and retaining talent. This means that organisations do not just hire a person but they acquire talent that can be developed further. By doing so, they take a long-term view of not only filling positions in the present, but also committing to developing the talent for the future.

Talent acquisition is a process that involves proactive planning for the future, to avoid talent surpluses or shortages. It is based on the premise that a company can be staffed more efficiently if it forecasts its talent needs as well as the actual supply of talent that is or will be available.

Attracting the best and brightest employees isn’t a one-time event. It is a continuous process. Companies that are serious about their long-term futures should be continually networking and building relationships with individuals who are at the top of their fields. Some day, they may wish to court them as potential employees.

Talent acquisition specialists develop recruiting goals and strategies for the company and hold all members of the leadership team accountable for their respective roles in recruitment and selection. Talent acquisition also takes into account the development and sustenance of an employer brand to attract the best of talent.

Also, with the Make in India plan in place, talented people will remain in high demand. To attract them, organisations will need to have a long-term talent strategy.

Unmesh Rai, group head-talent acquisition, Piramal Enterprises
Talent acquisition assumes adequate pre-planning, presumes that employers will invest in articulating an employee value proposition, carefully identifies talent niche and develops deep sourcing capabilities.

One of the simplest analogies for recruitment is ‘digging a well when the house is on fire’. Recruitment can be linear and reactive. More often than not, the pressure it creates can lead to implications on cost and quality. Talent acquisition, on the other hand, assumes adequate pre-planning; presumes that employers will invest in articulating an employee value proposition; carefully identifies talent niche; develops deep sourcing capabilities; and provides for engagement with talent communities and catchment areas. Talent partners would rather see themselves as advisors to business-facing HR teams.

An organisation’s maturity when it comes to people, can be seen by the way talent is identified. Some of the questions that can help assess the same are:
• Do the critical roles have successors identified?
• Do the organisational processes and policies provide for internal mobility of the successors identified?
• If there are no successors, does the organisation have an internal job market where employees have first right of refusal?
• Do the talent acquisition metrics reflect the metrics beyond mere turnaround time and cost, and touch upon quality of hire and percentage of internal hiring?
• Does the organisation have a strong build principle and a graduate programme to develop talent internally?

Ajay Sharma, deputy vice president, The Oberoi Group
Recruiting without a defined strategy can lead to hiring talent, which may be fine for a short term but may not work well with the long-term goals of the organisation.

Recruitment and talent acquisition appear similar but are two different terms. Most of the companies have started using the terms interchangeably or renaming their recruitment function without knowing the difference between the two.

Recruitment is the organisation’s response to a resignation or vacancy created due to any reason. It is mostly reactive and a-la-minute. Since such incidents are unplanned, even the response infuses inconsistency in the entire process. Talent acquisition on the other hand, is a proactive and strategic approach where organisations plan for, identify and engage the best talent for a role. It believes in building capability for the organisation for competitive advantage.

Unfortunately, for a lot of us in human resources, the never ending talent for war does not allow us time to think strategically and plan for our ‘human resources’. But it is not competition that is to be blamed; it is our own laxity in connecting the dots between the business strategy and HR strategy of the organisation. We need to know where the business and market is heading and what kind of talent we need, to maintain an edge over the competition or sometimes for our own existence. So, the key for any HR professional is to be a business partner in real terms, and have a vision, which can define the talent acquisition strategy of the organisation.

Recruiting without a defined strategy can lead to hiring talent, which may be fine for a short term but may not work well with the long-term goals of the organisation. For example, an organisation which aspires to grow geographically in a country will certainly need talent, which is mobile. Now, if the HR team is oblivious to the aspirations of the organisation, misfits may get hired, who will impede the growth pace.

There may be times when despite a well-defined talent acquisition strategy, the team struggles to find the right talent for certain critical positions. An organisation faces testing times when it has to choose between succumbing to such pressures and recruiting the ‘not so right fit’, and not straying away from the decided strategy and continuing to look for the right ones. Whatever may be the choice an organisation makes, in the long run, only the ones which do not compromise, outshine.

The post Are recruitment and talent acquisition two sides of the same coin? appeared first on HR Katha.

If professionals such as doctors, lawyers and CAs, can continue to work for post 60, then why can’t other professionals be it an engineer, bureaucrat or a clerk do so. The official retirement age was fixed at a certain 58 years or 60 years because then the life expectancy was low. Now with better medical facilities, people above 60 are quite active and healthy. HRKatha tries to find a rationale.

Rajiv Krishnan, advisory partner and leader — people & organisation, EY

It is better to reduce the retirement age rather than increase it in. With lifetime employment certainty, productivity tends to go for a toss.

I am not a great believer of the concept of ‘retirement age’ as it is almost like a function of ‘lifetime employment’. The private sector is designed such that it doesn’t offer an assurance of lifetime employment. From that point of view, people in the private sector are well aware of the fact that they need to remain useful and effective to safeguard their employment. Considering this, the idea of retirement age vanishes as it automatically means enduring employment.

Therefore, there should not be a fixed retirement age in the first place — not that it needs to be increased — because it gives rise to an assumption that no matter what one does, one will retire only at that particular age. On the contrary, it is very much required in an environment where that is the only way an organisation can terminate a non-productive employee without much fuss.

Having said that, retirement age is essential in public-sector companies with a large workforce as there is a strong job security there. Such organisations need to think carefully about what the right retirement age should be. In my view, it is better to reduce rather than increase it in such cases. With lifetime employment certainty, productivity tends to go for a toss. It is difficult to enforce productivity where one knows whether one works or not, one will not lose the job.

In the private sector, on the other hand, where there is no job security and the model is such that the employment continues only as long as the employee is productive, there is no need of a set retirement age. The private sector works on contract basis, where both the firm and the employee have the right to terminate employment as and when they wish to, with an advance notice period. There cannot be any grey areas in such a situation — either one guarantees employment as the government does or one doesn’t have a retirement age as it will not mean anything in the absence of job assurance.

Ravi Mishra, regional HR Head – South Asia & Middle East, Birla Carbon

Be it an engineer or a salesman, age has nothing to do with performance. A 30-year old person may be at a higher position in the hierarchy or more experienced and a better performer than a 50-year old.

In my view, retirement age is not at all important. Organisations should focus more on the competency of a person — competency in both physical and mental terms. Before deciding on whether or not there should be an increase in the retirement age, it is more important to gauge the skills and performance abilities of a person while hiring.

Be it an engineer or a salesman, age has nothing to do with performance. A 30-year old person may be at a higher position in the hierarchy or more experienced and a better performer than a 50-year old.

Also, in the last few decades, the level of educational facilities available to people has increased, as has the number of management institutes, making skilled talent quantitatively and qualitatively available to organisations. Even people who are ageing have the opportunity to keep upskilling themselves through various executive courses nowadays. On the other hand, the lack of such facilities resulted in restricted competencies earlier, which is why people were asked to retire after a point of time, as organisations sought new skills and abilities in the workforce.

Lastly, the average age of Indians has increased considerably as the life expectancy has gone up by seven–eight years compared to census 2001. That is why, a lot of people now opt to work as consultants post their retirement. For people who voluntarily wish to retire even at the age of 50–55 there are schemes such as VRS. However, for those who are high performers and have the ability to work beyond the age of 60, age or retirement policies should not be a barrier.

Lalit Kar, vice president & head – human resources, Mumbai International Airport

There cannot be a standard retirement age, as different functions require different capabilities that may or may not diminish with age.

Life expectancy has grown significantly in the past few years, resulting in a lot of people wanting to work beyond the age of 60. Such people bring with them years of experience and expertise. Therefore, retirement age certainly needs to be increased. On the other hand, it should be done keeping in mind the fact that there should also be a good number of new workers joining the force.

A lot of private-sector companies now selectively retain older employees who are capable, are delivering well and are better than the youngsters in the workforce. They are those who can be relied upon for their experience and can help the company grow.

As far as India is concerned, there is no standard for retirement age. In fact, there cannot be a standard age, as different functions require different capabilities that may or may not diminish with age. For instance, a loader in an airline needs immense physical strength for his job— which may not be possible after a certain age — whereas a knowledge-based job is possible for someone even over 60 years. Moreover, in such a case, as the years pass by, knowledge and experience grow and only make a person more useful for the organisation. In short, depending on the job role, organisations should look at capabilities as a benchmark rather than age.

The post Should retirement age be increased to 65+? appeared first on HR Katha.

Mukund Menon, Director – HR and Communications, International Paper India

Without doubt, present day leaders are expected to be sensitive to the demands of business and market place. The sweat shop approach, volume utility only game and labour arbitrage will become obsolete very soon.

One of the most typical questions asked in a T20 cricket match is – Who’s better: the player who kept his wicket long enough and scored runs by taking singles and sweating it out through the match, or the one who stayed for a short time but scored ‘fours’ and ‘sixes’ to get the same score. It is forever debatable.

The ability to adapt to a situation and evolve one’s own strategy to come out successful is the key. In today’s world where everything is about being smart right from the phone that we use, it is clear that we want everything that is faster, better and cheaper. Competition is fierce and innovation is creating new markets and products. Consumers are willing to wait and pay for the best product, while rejection is quick if products don’t deliver the promise. The market place has evolved into a smart, informed and a well-connected.

Without doubt, present day leaders are expected to be sensitive to the demands of business and market place. The sweat shop approach, volume utility only game and labour arbitrage will become obsolete very soon. The cost is not the only driver anymore. The global standards of quality, customer experience, value for money and sustainability drive new thought processes, culture and behaviour for leaders driving businesses. A smart leader would obviously look at innovative and smart ways of managing their competition, and growing the business.

The desired leadership traits have also changed over the period of time. Earlier, a leader’s success used to be gauged by hard work, determination and staying in power. On the other hand, today’s leader is expected to be quick in taking decisions, willing to change, savvy in the market place, emotionally stable and matured, is able to assemble a good team, global exposure and being good at fiduciary and people skills.

Emerging leaders who are smart, well informed, agile, strategic, business and number focused, people-focused and who have a global exposure are successful. Customer experience and quality has become a vital ingredient for survival and sustainability. Entrepreneurism is the new norm, even if you are working for a corporate; you are expected to be enterprising and entrepreneurial.

It’s a new India, where the market is challenging the status quo. Disruptive practices, products and services are making inroads and in this scenario, one has to be way smarter.

Rajesh Tripathi, VP and Head-HR, GHCL

I am often reminded of the Aesop’s fable ‘The crow and the pitcher’, though often cited to highlight a totally different moral; it is an apt example of how smart thinking and hard work gets the job done.

The terms Smart worker and Hard worker are only clichés that are used to testify one’s approach towards a given work or assignment. In my experience, I have observed that it is only the changes in one’s circumstances and context which make a person a smart worker or a hard worker. Both are not exclusive to each other, but most often go hand-in-hand.

To effectively manage a challenging work scenario, one has to have the creativity to come up with better and more effective ways of getting the work done and at the same time, be ready to put in whatever hard work is required to meet the challenge.

Attributes such as intelligence, cognitive ability, and adaptability are often associated with a smart worker; however every person, who wishes to be successful in life, has to play the dual role of being a smart as well as a hard worker. Being one of the two doesn’t suffice – one has to be both.

With regards to leadership qualities, I think a person who can switch on and switch off in life, responding to the demand of a situation will eventually turn out to be a good leader. In addition, qualities such as respect, trust, ownership of work, transparency, communication and endorsing integrated team work, make a person an effective leader. One who is completely in symmetry with the values and culture of the organisation, will invariably be setting examples for others and will also facilitate the organisation in spreading the right message.

I am often reminded of the Aesop’s fable ‘The crow and the pitcher’, though often cited to highlight a totally different moral; it is an apt example of how smart thinking and hard work gets the job done. The thirsty crow in the story raise the level of that little water in the pitcher by dropping pebbles into it. Smart thinking helped the crow find a way to quench his thirst and probably saved his life. However, the crow still had to fly about picking up pebbles and dropping them one by one into the pitcher until the water came high enough for him to drink.

Had the crow not came up with the smart idea it probably would have perished out of thirst similarly had the crow not put in the hard work to implement the smart idea it would still have perished. Smart working thus does not mean the absence of hard work; it means knowing how best to and where to put in the hard work, and a leader must have both attributes in equal measures.

Charu Maini, Vice President – Human Resources, Pearson India

Higher up in the corporate hierarchy, the added responsibilities demand increased smartness. Hard work can be equated to operational excellence whereas smart work is more explained by strategic thinking.

“I choose a lazy person to do a hard job because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it.” Bill Gates quipped once.

Gates’ sentiment was truly reflective of the celebrated study by the pioneer of scientific management, Frank B. Gilbreth Sr. who in 1920 evaluated the motions of workmen to determine the most efficient techniques to perform various tasks. Astonishingly, he found that he could learn the most from lazy but smart men who made their every step count as against the more regular, hardworking and routine bound men.

Now, in todays’ world that’s driven by disruptive innovations and geo-political events, innovative ideas and newer skills have replaced hard work as the prerequisite for success. So, what actually defines smart work? It’s all about making smart choices at the right time, involving smarter people to strategise, lead and take smartest decisions in the interest of the organisation as a whole.

Higher up in the corporate hierarchy, the added responsibilities demand increased smartness. Hard work can be equated to operational excellence whereas smart work is more explained by strategic thinking. If I draw a parallel to the illustrious Peter Drucker’s view, hard work is about doing things right but smart work is more about how to do right things.

However, organisations tend to mix between hard work and long working hours; here, the Infosys chief mentor NR Narayana Murthy’s famous taunt of ‘people who spend longer hours at office are error prone and grouchy due to fatigue’ summarises the real side of the story.

Today, organisations limit their smartest staff to core positions or to more vital positions created in line with new and emerging challenges, leaving out the low profile or non-priority functions to outsiders through outsourcing or contracts. A few examples are – cryptographers (who gauge how hackers go about invading computer systems), toy idea professionals, Resinators (who create engaging marketing campaigns) or Masters of Disasters who work on possible crises. At BMW, the position of a trend predictor is one of the most sought-after roles within the organisation.

The power of strategic thinking has overtaken mundane jobs to a different level, dolling out names such as Ambassadors of Buzz, Digital Prophets or even Head of Futuring to give a modern face lift to regular positions.

The global business environment has become extremely unpredictable and challenging. Automotive, banking, oil and telecom sectors are few examples where innovation and fast changing trends, largely driven by small enterprises, have made several large companies outdated and redundant. Start-ups and smarter and leaner organisations have done well; from Uber to Tesla, the disruptive technologies rule the roost today. In short, start-ups those are the by-products of smart thinking score over large enterprises today.

The post Who makes a better leader: Smart Worker or Hard Worker? appeared first on HR Katha.

Adil Malia, Group President – HR, Essar Group

We often become victims of this unfortunate ‘Good–Bad’ bipolar interpretation of world views. In the process, we broad-brush everything we are or whatever we do as being Good. The contrast, of course, of what is anticipated as the change, is painted as being challenging and demurraging to that thesis of ‘Good’. The genesis of this comes from our love, for the good old days and our belief in the good old things!

To that extent this is a stand-off between the GoSEs and the GoEs— an old world paradigm that thrived on a ‘Generation of Suppressed Entitlements’ v/s the millennials who are citizens of a new paradigm, portrayed as a ‘Generation of Entitlements’.

The ‘millennials’ are unfortunately targeted and painted as ‘no gooders’—one of many a recent bi-polar diatribes—by the GoSEs. They have been commonly, and undeservedly, accused of being a generation thriving on entitlements. Truly myopic and erroneous.

The GoSEs, being natives of the old paradigm, embellish their accusations against the ‘Generation of Entitlements’ by adducing the following evidences against the GOEs:

• They don’t put in long hours of dedicated work and yet nurture lofty aspirations that the GoSEs never dared to dream.

• They don’t stick to any one ‘life-long’ job but expect royal treatment at work, despite having not proven themselves. The GoSEs, in contrast, earned their stripes generally thru one life-long assignment.

• They wish to know, upfront, the very clear paths to many things (path to that corner office) that the GoSEs discovered only in the slow burn, and at times accidentally.

• GoEs are brash and do not even remotely hesitate to ask about the gains they can get as ‘quid pro quos’ to their efforts. They have many more expectations of value propositions from the employer.

• They believe in early gratification. While they want to receive their benefits (entitlements) upfront and early, they are in no hurry when it comes to pay-back. For example, it is common for GOEs to take huge loans to buy fancy houses upfront augmented by lifelong EMIs thereafter. This is in sharp contrast with the mentality of the GoSEs — of slogging at work, lifelong, and in old age buying modest houses using their Provident Funds and savings.

• GoEs buy fancy and costly gadgetry, which they inexplicably replace as soon as a new or upgraded version is introduced. On the other hand, the GoSEs replace an equipment once bought only when it stops working or is totally worn off.

• GoEs take unmindful breaks in their lives and careers— to paint, travel to the hills, go backpacking, study philosophy, etc. The GoSE at best took sudden, over-night picnics, and that too only during Diwali breaks.

Therefore, the GoSEs think the GoEs are not only undeserving and brash, but in a way procrastinators and dreamers, who seek benefits without investments.

Based on the evidences adduced and the nature of the arguments presented by the GoSEs, their case against the GoEs fails, and is therefore dismissed. Not only is it based on bias and hearsay but also lacks mature appreciation of the millennial mindset.

The GoSEs have been children of suppressed economic activities. The world then was slow and certainly not digitally networked. Communication was low-key. Radios and black & white TVs were their main windows to the larger world outside. Career options were limited to a handful of companies. Career fields were limited to the basic Arts, Science and Commerce. Opportunities were far and few. Banks had not conceived alternate funding products and credit offerings.

It was a much slower, subdued and a different world. What people got was seen as a blessing. Dreams and ambitions were generally underplayed and suppressed.
The paradigm has now shifted but they are in deep slumber. We live in a bold new digital world and are spoilt for choice, in every arena.

The GoSEs have to transform their thoughts. Attempting to erroneously understand the world of the digitally-native GoEs through the old lenses is like attempting a serious neuro-surgery with a shaving blade!!

GOSEs need to move on to new realities to avoid being fossilised. They should not displace their inadequacies by labelling the millennials as ‘entitlement influenced’. The truth is the GOSEs are ‘deficiency impacted’.

Ruchira Bhardwaja, CHRO, Future Generali Life Insurance

It is important to define entitlement. Older generations finding the new generation too proud isn’t exactly a new phenomenon. We all have heard or used the term ‘Yeh aajkal ke bachche’ in an exasperated tone, at least once in our lifetime! ? Each generation and group gets its own life experience and the ‘me generation’ to the table.

People complain that millennial want to change everything; that they want to decide what they work on, who they work with and how they want to do it. They want to completely redesign their workspace and work life. So is the new generation too vocal about its likes and dislikes? Is that really a bad thing? My answer is a no, a firm resounding no.

The style of parenting has undergone a massive change in India in the last few decades. Gen Y or the millennials were brought up by parents who taught them that nothing is impossible; that their dreams need not be tamed; that their opinions mattered. No wonder then our kids want to have a say in how the world around them should function.

In my opinion, millennials understand the value of achievement and talent much more than the previous generations in India. They are willing to work hard, do what it takes to be successful, and hence, for them age is just a number, just as it should be for us.

Therefore, when these millennials walk into the offices demanding changes in the status quo – they need to be given a patient hearing (and not met with a raised brow). That is not all, their opinions need to be acted upon if they hold merit. Gen Y is the future of our workplaces and whether we like it or not, they change companies soon if they feel insufficiently empowered to bring about a change. Google is one of the few companies of the world that has a very demographic way of functioning, where opinions of employees play a significant role in shaping company policies. No wonder then that it has been consistently rated as the best company to work for by the youngsters.

So millennials having a ‘so-called’ sense of entitlement is a fact which is not going away soon. In fact, it is keeping organisations on their toes and even forcing them to be thankful for the same. It is not every day that a company gets to know what its people expect of it. And to meet those expectations will not just mean business success but also take the business to the next level.
Who wouldn’t want better ideas (not necessarily just new) replacing status quo?

At a personal level, every millennial I have hired has been an exceptionally committed individual with sharp focus, intelligence and a drive to make a difference. The biggest positive with the millennial generation is the ‘sociability’ unlike the ‘individual-contribution’ that the older generation lived by. Organisations should build an eco-system to harness that intrinsic ability. Also, it’s great to have team members who are more concerned about the quality of work than the size of the cubicle!

Ravi Mishra, Regional HR Head, South Asia and Middle East, Birla Carbon

We can’t reply with an absolute ‘yes’ or ‘no’. One can witness the example of both the shades, depending upon the nature of industry, workplace, geography and through many other variables. But one thing is commonly true, that there are broad differences in behaviour and thinking patterns. Many times the millennials feel they own the special entitlement. This attitude needs to be addressed instead of fuelling negative connotations. There is nothing right or wrong, but what is important is the way organisations handle such situations.

We need to accept that there is change in the composition of employees, in terms of generation gap. The millennials have grown amidst much fast-paced social change in a different era of technological development. Undoubtedly, they carry more knowledge than their predecessors, that is, the Gen-x and baby boomers. But we need to convince them that there is also value of skill and experience in organisations to deliver the best result. Simply put, every organisation needs wisdom or wise men and women at the workplace.

Wisdom = Knowledge + Skill + Experience

Organisations need to mentor their millennial workforce, and appreciate their knowledge. At the same time, they need to share with them and convince them about the value of skill and experience, in absence of which knowledge is like a plane without fuel in the sky. We must also be ready to accept the value of reverse mentoring for our own development by engaging ourselves. Coming back to entitlement, it is merely social evolution. We can observe the contrary view in Japan, where the average age of the workforce in the manufacturing industry is 76. So what?

We can say that our workplace is undergoing change without going through the phase of transition. I presume after five years, there will be another dimension of change at the workplace, when we will have much more representation of young women employees owning their places. Possibly that will bring more stability and maturity at the workplace along with agility.

Organisations need to address the issue instead of blaming and disowning the realities of social evolution. They should refrain from categorising this as entitlement. In other words, we need to shoot the message and not the messenger. One should analyse this in a holistic way and engage the millennials without creating hype. Just because their perspective is different, we shouldn’t equate the difference as a contrarian view point. We need to align without being afraid of losing the space for our own existence.

The post Millennials, the ‘entitled generation’: Is the branding justified? appeared first on HR Katha.

Rajita Singh, Head HR, Broadridge Financial Solutions

Let us take the example of Marvel Comics, which was founded in the late 1930s. Most of Marvel’s fictional characters operate in a single real world known as the Marvel Universe, with locations that mirror real-life cities. Likewise, most of the so called talent wars are also taking place in a single universe —the corporate world. Nothing really changes, and no one really wins. This is because one learns what is right or wrong or whether it’s a win or a loss, only in hindsight.

Taking the thread of Marvel further, over the years teams have been formed featuring a rotating line-up composed of a large number of characters—the ‘Avengers’. In today’s world, most of the companies are looking for skills or expertise in multiple domains or technologies. Only a team is capable of succeeding and not individuals, given the nature of these beasts.

To me, HR is the organisation behind the Avengers. If we assume that every business unit and every business leader or an associate is a super hero – to derive the most powerful impact – it is all up to the HR with their knowledge and the capability to bring together teams to ensure best results.

In the past, the super heroes could have been brought together just by instinct or biased opinions, but today with the data available, HR can easily take intelligent decisions. Talent, as mere talent, is a waste if it is not put to proper use, and the ability to identify and get the best out of it is the key.

Rachna Mukherjee, Chief HR, Schneider Electric India

One thing remains constant—the challenge faced by executives of finding and keeping talented employees. Leaders must also be aware of the impact of counter-trends that creates complexities but also opportunities on the talent battlefield. Winning the war for talent takes an arsenal of tools from planning and recruiting, to development and retention. It also includes careful management of an employer brand.

Competition pressures and globalisation are constantly changing the business environment. The war of talent has certainly intensified over the past few years due the number of opportunities that have cropped up, given the improving health of the economy. The talent war exists for all organisations. In an increasingly competitive world, how companies fight this battle has become a critical differentiator.

There are a number of factors behind this trend, which is unlikely to abate any time soon and organisations need to understand these factors and formulate a response in order to continue to attract and retain the top pick of Indian senior talent. While economic sentiment is buoyant, availability and access to quality talent continues to be a serious impediment for organisations. Paucity of talent is likely to continue to pose a problem over the next five years. Organisations have now started to acknowledge talent as one of the key factors in order to steer the next wave of growth.

Santosh Rai, Dy. General Manager-HR &IR, L&T Special Steels and Heavy Forgings

In my opinion, in the war of talent, talent has already won. To begin with, it is logical and paramount to discuss the criticality of talent, because nowadays resources like capital and raw material are easily accessible. Strategies are transparent and can be easily adopted and replicated. Thus, talent becomes the prime mover and differentiator for sustainable competitive advantage.

In today’s scenario, where skills are niche, attracting and retaining talent has become a challenge for organisations. At the country level and across different industries, we find that competence scarcity is omnipresent. Most academic institutions are not well equipped to meet the requirement of industry, neither do they look keen to be associated with industry for sharpening the skill set as per requirement. Similarly, It is also seen that very few companies are coming forward to establish a connect with academic institutions. This causes a severe deficit of entry-level talent pool.

Companies need to move far ahead in the area of structured competence enhancement and talent engagement initiatives. The aforementioned factors lead to a demand–supply mismatch situation creating a shortage of talent in the market. Technology has played a key role in intensifying this war of talent. While companies are taking the fullest advantage of technology, a candidate can also have easy access to the job market through mobile applications and social networking sites. Technology has broken all barriers across the globe. Talent mobility has become a highly simple process at the global level.

Another concern area for business is appreciation and taking cognizance of the situation of war of talent. This requires a systematic analysis of attrition and preparation of an action plan. Data indicates that majority of the employee attrition takes place in the age group of 25 to 35 years. In fact, this lot is critical to the talent pipeline.

To summarise, in the war of talent where talent is playing the dominant role, it is imperative to be proactive. Organisations can manage the situation through cautious attraction of talent, implementation of a systematic talent development plan and retention of talent through various tailor-made employee engagement initiatives. Companies which are sensitive to the subject and prefer to follow a holistic approach to deal with current and future talent management requirements, will always have an extra edge in the business.

The post War of talent: Has talent already won or is it just a myth? appeared first on HR Katha.

Ravi Mishra, regional head – human resources, South Asia & Middle East, Birla Carbon

Success always lies with the person, who knows the future before others, and is able to work upon it.

Potential for future role in addition to good performance/ track record is one of the key elements, when it comes to talent. This emphasises the importance of knowing the future role and competencies required to choose the right talent. Based on the capabilities to know/predict the future, we need to search and decide the right match to deliver.

This has influenced the importance of predictive analytics in our talent staffing, which requires lots of data mining. It also requires an understanding of different perspectives as well as the art of scenario making to visualise the future, in order to establish the competencies required. Predictive analytics plays a critical role in forecasting and establishing the future needs so that talent hunting and banking can be successfully done.

One very recent example is the controversy surrounding Nestlé’s Maggi. On the very first day, when the Uttar Pradesh government banned or suspended it, instead of taking quick affirmative action based on historical examples, to respond as a predictive analyst, the Company created trouble for itself by getting into a pacifying mood. It should have taken the art of leadership to the next level by promptly declaring to hold back the sale of the particular product across the country, with immediate effect, till it comes clean. It should have joined hands with competent government agencies and engaged agencies/associations related to food product research, for full investigation.

We have seen how automobile and pharmaceutical companies have recalled their products from the market to establish their positions as champions of product quality and taking onus of responsibility. Nestle woke up too, but a tad late.

Success always lies with the person, who knows the future before others, and is able to work upon it. The case of the rise and fall of Nokia in the mobile handset industry is also not very old. The absence of a predictive analyst has always been a concern. Considering the pace of competition, which has now become truly global, a predictive analyst can offer paramount competitive advantage.

Organisations which failed to value the role of predictive analysts in hunting for the right talent have almost always met with failure. I strongly believe that the future lies with the predictive analyst. We have always seen our grandparents and great grandparents using the services of astrologers to know what lies ahead. Similarly, a predictive analyst is important to organisations to gain an edge in terms of hunting for future talent.

Biswarup Goswami, V-P & head-people energy process (global) & certified executive coach, Galaxy Surfactants

Predictive analysis for talent hunting can be an effective tool, but without the accurate marksmanship and good influencing skills, it will be futile.

To begin with, we should ask ourselves.

1. Does a hunter analyse before going for the kill?
2. On the basis of his analysis, can he predict whether he will return with a prized catch each day?

Even if the answer to the first question is in the positive, the answer to the second one will be in the negative. Similarly, it is a ‘yes’ as well as a ‘no’ for the big questions.

If we look at the traits of a smart hunter, we will find similarities with that of a good doctor or even a good photographer. They are all steady, calm, focussed and disciplined.

A good hunter has the patience to acquire the skill of extremely accurate marksmanship, although, the right opportunity, and a bit of luck are also important. Therefore, I believe talent hunting is both an art and a science.

Predictive analysis for talent hunting can be an effective tool, but without the accurate marksmanship and good influencing skills, it will be futile.

Often, we hear about an active talent in the marketplace, but social media channels and job portals also provide access to passive, yet better talent.

In the years that I have spent in the manufacturing sector, I have realised that it is better to run machines on preventive maintenance as per planned shutdown rather than breakdown maintenance. Similarly, for the future of talent hunt, one will need analytics for additional support.

Vinay Jaswal, V-P, human resources, InterGlobe

Predictive analytics is a win-win proposition for either side in this scenario.

The next big wave for creating HR value proposition is underway through HR analytics. Combining human touch with the absoluteness of the stories that numbers foretell, is the way forward for HR teams. In this light, predictive analytics holds a very important portfolio in the HR folder.

Talent hunt, by nature, is a bit of a ‘shooting in the dark’ exercise. Prospective candidates look for an ideal marriage with an organisation, which has a perfect match with their value systems and ambitions. But they do so without putting their true self on the table for the future suitor. For the lack of brand strength, most organisations also avoid the ‘De selling’ game in this match for finding the right talent. All this lends a strong element of punt in the talent hunt process.

Predictive analytics is a win-win proposition for either side in this scenario. The seeker can do the homework on an organisation using the social media, reference channels, peer reviews and website views to come up with his/her own objective conclusion.

However, the organisation stands to benefit the maximum, if it inputs all variables, such as work process, client needs, work environment, demographics, attrition pattern, top talent pointers, and social media into an algorithm to come up with a near-perfect secret sauce with the right fit for its need. To a great extent, this cuts the subjectivity in the process.

While most frontline IT companies with large onsite/customer-facing businesses use predictive analytics to cut their enterprise talent risks, service and manufacturing industries are yet to embrace this science in earnest.

At InterGlobe, we use predictive analytics for talent hunt, both as part of our recruitment as well as the talent management process. This practice is more prevalent in the Airline and IT/ITES businesses, as these businesses typically have a huge B2C or customer-facing exposure.

The post Is predictive analytics the future of talent hunt? appeared first on HR Katha.

Nishchae Suri, partner and head of people and change advisory, KPMG

CHROs looking to lead organisations must also build on a number of other critical skills essential for success in a CEO’s role.

With the changed business anatomy, a CHRO for the CEO role is ever more relevant. Emergent change, mergers and acquisitions, the parallel of an organisation to a brand, and post-recession austerity measures, all characterise the new ecosystem. In this conjectural economy, envisaging the relevant organisational structure, envisioning the complementary culture, equipping the organisation with the right talent and building an innovation-centric ethos is essential for impacting the bottom line. In fact, these are the nuances that can bolster sustainable growth and help distinguish organisations in the sea of similar businesses. CHROs, therefore, have the right perspective whilst navigating this new world order.

Stewardship, coaching, people leadership and emotional intelligence (EQ) are all vital traits often observed in successful CHROs, who are experienced in creating the optimal synergy between the people and the business agenda. They have the capability to act as the conscience keepers of the organisation and possess the ability to nurture talent, help teams realise their full potential and build on key relationships.

It is, however, important to remember that CHROs looking to lead organisations must also build on a number of other critical skills essential for success in a CEO’s role. A grass root understanding of the business, the industry it operates in, the economy it speaks to and the benefits of technology in driving business goals is a necessary precondition to the CEO’s role.

Shailesh Singh, chief people officer and director of Max Life Insurance

 CEOs and CHROs are natural partners on a lot of agendas especially for organisations that want to do well in the long run.

CHROs can make good CEOs if they put in the effort to truly understand the business well in terms of how values are being generated. I will also say that the other reason — and this is a kind of prerequisite in succeeding in a CEO role— is that a CEO is also the CHRO of an organisation in many ways. Therefore, there is a natural overlap.

A CEO’s role primarily— and I look at Jack Welch or Jeffery Immelt, the current chairman— is the capacity to hire good leaders, the ability to have a higher mission and a vision to create the right culture. These are key skills as the system starts from top to down, from the CEO. Therefore, CEOs and CHROs are natural partners on a lot of agendas especially for organisations that want to do well in the long run.

They also may not work as sometimes I read about and hear about CFOs as natural choices but I would have a slightly different view there – it works only in the short term. If you truly want to create an institution for the long term, the people skill is central to the role of a CEO, and therefore, CHROs – having done that – are very well placed to take those roles. They understand the other roles of the business.

Aparna Sharma, ex-country head, HR, Lafarge India

 Orientation towards business and financial aspects, greater risk-taking ability and staying away from the ‘HR functional hat’ at all times will be of great help.

CHROs too would make good CEOs – period! I would not want to add the caveat ‘in people-oriented businesses’.

Just as any other person with functional skills and general management exposure, HR folk can be very successful as CEOs. The case in point could be that we do not have very many live examples. However, a beginning has been made and more will follow.

A few things, such as orientation towards business and financial aspects, greater risk-taking ability and staying away from the ‘HR functional hat’ at all times will be of great help.

Also, these are easily doable for the aspiring competent CHROs.

More power to our tribe!

The post Do CHROs make good CEOs? appeared first on HR Katha.

V Ravi, vice president & head, L&D (RPMG,) Reliance Industries Ltd

Working from home suits best for those who do not require frequent social interaction

I agree and quite favourably. Barring exceptions and specific requirements, many office jobs can be handled from home. That telecommuting is on the rise across the world and here to stay, is evident.

I have experienced that I can produce my best work, which includes writing e-mails and reports, when I am at home behind closed doors. While working from home demands a certain focus and the ability to block out distractions, I have the means to allow myself minor distractions, whether it is taking a walk around my home to clear my head, spending a little time reading a newspaper, taking a bite or two in the kitchen across my room, doing some exercise or even indulging in a short nap. These deliberate distractions can help balance one’s work-life better, especially if one has personal commitments too that can be addressed without hampering work.

However, this should be practised only once or twice a week when there is no requirement for one to be in the office or when working at home enables privacy and efficiency.

Working from home is most suitable for those who do not need frequent social interactions. The IT and Telecom revolution has made it possible for any one, irrespective of the nature of occupation, to be in touch virtually with any other co- worker in real time. Moreover, distractions through direct phone calls are minimised. It is possible to stick to a schedule which may otherwise be impossible in an office where you may be drawn into avoidable meetings.

Anurag Kalyani, sr. manager, human resources, Siemens Ltd

With the advent of technology, no task is left which cannot be measured

Organisations, which intend to keep their employees constantly engaged and motivated, and at the same time retain their talents, try to offer attractive work solutions like flexible work hours, virtual office and assistance to manage work–life balance. I believe one such effective method followed by progressive organisations, with strong values and high levels of trust on the employees, is the work from home option.

The option is very effective for

• Companies in the green field stage.
• Employees who have clearly-defined timelines for all tasks.
• Specific project management people.
• Women employees in special situations.

In today’s world, the advent of technology has left us with no task, which cannot be measured. I believe that the organisations that do not feel confident of introducing the work from home concept, should strengthen their processes. They should also look at the benefits of this option, which include: saving on real estate cost for sales organisations working in metros; saving on administration cost and support-staff cost (like front office, housekeeping, gardens, etc); high work–life balance; longer retention and; more engaged employees. These are just some of the positives.

I’m lucky to work in an organisation, which believes in its employees and offers this option to them. Hence, I sincerely think this facility, if carefully implemented on select employees (as a pilot project and then roll out to all in a phased manner),will surely be beneficial for organisations in the longer run. Companies should believe in the theory Y of Douglas McGregor.

Madhav Vamsi M, campus head, Flipkart.com

It is all about how an individual reconciles his personal and professional life

While we are in a world where everything is connected, the concept of ‘Work from Home’ (WFH), in my opinion, still has an image problem. Why has the concept not taken off yet? Is it the elusiveness of the ideal or the fact that it is considered a complete myth?

Is the argument about centralised command-and-control (let’s call it ‘Place 1’) vs virtual or remote workers or telecommuting/teleworking (referred to as ‘Place 2’) vs the productivity of various models? I guess organisations, their leaders and HR practitioners like me, are yet to figure this one out.

A few years ago, I had invited a friend over for dinner. He was in India for a brief period and was apparently on WFH status with his employer. As he sat at the dinner table, his first act was to log onto his laptop—a flash to his employer that he had ‘logged in’ and was on his task. What took me by surprise was the second act. He asked me for a water bottle with specifications of size and quantity of water. The bottle, according to him, should have had enough water for exerting the precise weight on the space bar of his computer. Weird, right? Well, he then proceeded to open the notepad on his system, ensured that his cursor kept moving so that his unsuspecting employer, sitting several thousand nautical miles away thought he had indeed logged in and was working hard.

The story does not end here, for all of you who thought it did. My friend left the system on (yes, with the bottle on the spacebar) and went off into slumber-land!
Do we have systematic evidence or consensus to believe WFH is a boon or a bane? With all the arguments, we all tend to weigh the pros and cons, but how are we going to do the balancing act?

Management decisions are based on data. While telecommuting or WFH is largely discussed as a modern management practice, lack of relevant data, especially in emerging economies like ours is not helping organisations to firmly design WFH.

With more than a decade of experience, I take a third place on this context. It is about life-work balance. It is all about how an individual reconciles his personal and professional life. For me, the truth for a prospering career or organisational productivity lies in carefully combining work and home so as to not lose oneself and one’s loved ones, or one’s foothold on success. Giving work and home, both, their due!

Merely possessing skills, which thrive in a virtual environment or which flourish in an environment, where the culture is to work on the site, is hardly adequate. Collaboration is essential for lasting results! 

The post Does ‘work from home’ affect productivity? appeared first on HR Katha.