打造更加簡單有效的人資流程

Building Simpler, More Effective HR Processes
瀏覽人數:2802


影片載入中...
《一頁式人才管理》共同作者密里安.歐特解釋,如何消除困擾眾多人力資源實務的複雜性。

莎拉.葛林:歡迎收看HBR IdeaCast。我是《哈佛商業評論》的莎拉.葛林。今天的來賓是《一頁式人才管理》的合著作者密里安.歐特。密里安也是百事公司的人力資源資深經理。非常感謝你今天撥冗前來。

密里安.歐特:謝謝邀請我來。

莎拉.葛林:讓我們先談談問題所在。我想很多經理人都很熟悉這個問題。人資部門為經理人設置的人才管理流程,常常很複雜。為什麼情況會如此失控?

密里安.歐特:這是很有趣的問題,莎拉。我身為人資從業人員,因此會說,我不認為有任何人資人員在工作時會想,今天我要創建一個績效管理流程,要讓它很難理解。它會包含二十頁的表格,我們要設置三小時的訓練計畫,協助人們了解如何填寫這二十頁的表格。情況並不是這樣。但我認為,有幾件事造成這種複雜性。

首先,很多人才實務是透過標竿比較而制定的。所以有些情況是,人資人員說好吧,我來看看其他組織的做法,像是各種實務、績效管理、360度評量,然後採取那項實務的所有元素,整合在一起。而不是真正去查看背後的研究,以了解科學對動機的說法是什麼,或科學對回饋意見的說法。什麼是真正重要的,什麼可能並不重要。

我認為,另一個推動複雜性的因素是,我們人資人員希望建立很好的實務。我們希望它看起來光鮮亮麗。我們希望它在學術上是正確的。我們想要有一流的水準。有時你真的不需要所有那些花稍的東西。其實有時候,如果具備所有那些花稍的東西,經理人會得到一個學術上完美的實務,你也許可以在人資會議上報告一項一流的實務,但其他人看了之後,若不是不了解它,就是會發現這要花自己太多時間,並不值得。

莎拉.葛林:我想,一頁式人才管理是一個流程,可協助消除其中一些綿延不斷的複雜性。什麼是一頁式人才管理?

密里安.歐特:我認為一頁式人才管理既是一種哲學,也是非常結構化的人才管理實務方法。當你思考人才管理實務,以及由此產生的流程時,一頁式哲學說的是,如何以最短途徑,從核心科學告訴我們的內容,引導產生我們期望的結果?這個結果是人才深度、人才品質、最佳績效。一頁式哲學真正推動了一種方法,讓你尋找達成結果的最簡單方式。這種方式不需要花經理人或組織太多時間,但仍然可獲得你想要的結果。

莎拉.葛林:是否可能在試圖變得更簡單的過程中,面臨太簡化的風險?

密里安.歐特:我認為,這絕對是人們的一種直接反應,對吧?認為一旦簡化流程,多少就會放棄一些東西。但我們設計的這個方法,就是要確保納入所有適當的要素,而不會納入錯誤的要素。這樣你得到的流程既簡單,實際上又更有效。我總是提醒人們,未能執行完成的完美流程,實際上根本不完美。因此最佳的結果就是,流程實際可用,而你的績效評估流程得到100%的參與。或是你所有的經理人都根據員工調查的結果採取行動,這就不一定會變成過度簡化,但會是有效的。

莎拉.葛林:這個流程的具體步驟是什麼,為什麼它們如此有效?

密里安.歐特:我們在書中列出了三步驟流程,可用來設計各項流程。我們實際上檢視了所有的核心人才流程,像是績效管理、接班規畫、360度評估,並觀察使用那個模式的情形,看看流程的可能樣貌。但在更高層次上有三個步驟。第一步是從科學開始,對吧?就像我們之前談到的,有很多研究。組織研究和行為研究,檢視你如何激勵人們。這是要看看有哪些因素能驅使員工投入。

因此很重要的是,應考慮商業目標。重點不在於你如何建立360度的計畫,而是要提供人們回饋意見,讓他們成為更好的領導人,對吧?這是個商業主題。科學對這方面的說法是什麼?我是否真的以事實為依據?這是第一步。第二步是消除複雜性,並增加價值。這真正的意思是,應思考如何在以下兩者之間做出取捨:流程裡的某項要素可能增加的價值,以及這項工作耗費的精力、為流程增加的複雜性。

例如,如果我正在建立績效管理計畫,我可能會說,在年初設定目標需要做一些工作,耗費一些精力。但研究顯示,這其實是很重要的一步,真的能推動績效改善。所以,你有了一些一定要留下的東西。你在進行這個流程時,可會想要為一些目標設定權重,對吧?有些企業有非常複雜的目標加權做法,根據每個目標的重要性來設定權重。

研究實際上並未指出,有沒有進行目標加權,是否真的會造成不同結果,但這麼做確實會讓流程變得更複雜。這時你應該做出調整,指出不值得這麼做。這麼做不會增加太多價值。這個流程的第三步,是檢視你剛設計好的流程,看看如何把透明度和當責制帶入這個流程。因為即使有非常有效的實務,它在組織中仍很不透明。人們不了解它是什麼、如何使用它。經理人不覺得自己真的有責任落實它,你不會得到你預期的好處。

莎拉.葛林:讓我們舉個例子,我想很多人都熟悉這個例子,而且常會讓很多人感到不愉快,那就是績效考核。使用這個流程時,如何能讓績效考核給人不同的感受?

密里安.歐特:這是很好的例子。因為我最近在hbr.com和《華爾街日報》上,都看到有文章指出,我們是否應該停止進行績效考核?它是如此痛苦,如此困難,也許是時候取消了。我認為這實在很可惜。因為你若是回去看看一頁式人才管理方法,查看科學證據,你就會知道,如果有效管理績效考核,真的能大幅提升績效。

我認為,放棄它一定會很可惜。但讓我們用這個例子,看看它用一頁式方法來做會是什麼樣子。首先,我們先來檢視相關科學。科學告訴我們一些有趣的事情。其中一個是,就像我之前提到的,與目標設定有關。設定少數幾個目標,能夠有效地激發動力,並推動員工實現目標。設定很多目標,成效會大打折扣。但在許多組織裡,人們在規畫目標時鉅細靡遺,可能有七、八個目標,包含各目標下面所有的構成要素。

在一頁式方法中,我們會有一個很簡單的目標設定表格。你會受到限制,也許最多設二至四個目標。就像我們之前談到的,真的不需要進行目標加權,或內建複雜的能力模型。關鍵真的就在於設定目標。研究還告訴我們,人們需要知道這對自己有什麼好處,對吧?因此,當目標制定出來,經理人就會對實現目標後的情況產生預期。以及如果目標沒有實現,情況會如何。

有時在組織裡,這一點做得非常好,密切連結到薪酬或職涯進展。而在其他組織中,這只是一份表格,填完後不會產生太大影響。所以這種連結非常重要。在推動這個典型的過程中,我想說的是,最有可能出現大問題的是回饋意見。同樣要從科學開始著手,研究告訴我們,定期給予員工回饋意見很重要,這樣才能激勵他們達成自己的目標。

因此,確保有某種正式的年中查核,實際追蹤表現,每個人都參與,這些做法的重要性,高於讓主管詳細寫出各項資訊。所以我還是認為,OPTM,也就是一頁式流程,真的是簡單的目標設定形式,可確保在年中進行一些談話。不需要填寫複雜的表格。然後當你進入年底的流程時,我認為還有很大的空間,可以盡量充分運用這種方法。你的面談,這是最糟糕的部分,對吧?這是每個經理人的噩夢。

很多時候,所有的重點就在於這個評量表,如何使用評量表,以及所有這些針對評量表的專門用語,像是「高度受到重視」、「可靠的貢獻者」。研究告訴我們,人們需要坦誠的回饋意見。所以要有一個簡單的結構,可告訴人們你達到了你的目標,你沒有達到你的目標,還是你達到了一些目標。

人資人員往往花很多時間,對評量表感到非常興奮。評分採三分制、五分制、七分制。關於這一點有很多爭論。研究指出,這其實不重要。所以我會說,在一頁式方法中,更重要得多的是一致的說法。因為讓經理人和員工感到為難的是,你每兩三年就更改一次評量表,改進最佳實務評量表。最後同樣要進行談話。這可確保經理人提出回饋意見,並提供指導,而且追蹤是否有進行談話,而不是再次追蹤是否進行了長時間或詳細的考核。

莎拉.葛林:你在百事公司的經歷如何幫助你形成這些想法?

密里安.歐特:我一定要說的一件事,是百事公司體現了這個概念的很多部分。我很樂意分享一個例子。他們最近推出一個計畫,名稱是經理人品質績效指數。這是包含12個問題的調查。對象是任何有直屬部屬的經理人。它看起來是要評估基本的經理人能力。經理人有提出回饋意見嗎?經理人是否能與不同類型的人合作愉快?經理人是否制定清晰的願景?因為這個流很簡單,我是說,它只有12個問題,對吧?

所以幾乎每個人都參與了。它也不需要花很多錢。其實可以每年都做。我認為這可以算是經典的一頁式方法。因為簡短明瞭,而且必然有效,對吧?這裡面有當責制。其實,這個做法的結果是公開透明的。管理階層可以看到。人資可以看到。這些結果會納入年終績效評量。所以這確實有產生影響,例如,影響到某人的年終獎金。

莎拉.葛林:密里安,非常感謝你今天來上節目。

密里安.歐特:謝謝,我很高興來上節目。

莎拉.葛林:這是我們今天的嘉賓,密里安.歐特,《一頁式人才管理》的共同作者。更多資訊,請造訪hbr.org。

(劉純佑譯)


Sarah Green: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast. From Harvard Business Review, I'm Sarah Green. I'm here today with Miriam Ort, co-author of One Page Talent Management: Elimination Complexity, Adding Value. Miriam is also a senior manager of human resources at PepsiCo. Thanks so much for joining us today.

Miriam Ort: Thank you for having me.

Sarah Green: Let's start with the problem. I think it will be a familiar problem to many managers. The processes that HR often creates for managers for talent management are very complex. Why does that get so out of control?

Miriam Ort: It's a really interesting question, Sarah. Because as an HR practitioner I would say I don't think there's any HR professional that comes to work and thinks oh, today I'm going to create this performance management process, and I'm going to make it really difficult to understand. It's going to involve a 20 page form and we're going to have to create a three hours training program to help people understand how to fill out the 20-page form. That doesn't happen. But I think there are a couple things that drive that complexity.

First of all, a lot of talent practices are developed through benchmarking. So what it is sometimes is an HR professional saying well, let me look at what the other organizations are doing around said practices, performance management, 360, and then taking all the components of that practice and putting it together. Instead of really going back to the research and saying what does the science say about motivation? Or what does the science say about feedback? What's really important and what maybe is not really important.

And I think the other thing that drives the complexity is that as HR professionals we want to build great practices. We want them to be pretty. We want them to be academically correct. We want best in class. And sometimes you really don't need all those bells and whistles. And in fact, sometimes if you have all those bells and whistles, the manager gets a practice that is academically perfect, and you might be able to present an HR conference as a best in class practice, but they look at it and they either don't understand it, or they find that it's going to take them so long it's not worth it.

Sarah Green: So I take it one page talent management is a process to sort of help eliminate some of this spiraling complexity. What is one-page talent management?

Miriam Ort: Well, I think of one-page talent management both as a philosophy and also as a very structured approach to talent management practices. So when you think about talent management practices and the processes that come out of them, the one page philosophy says what's the shortest way to get from what the core science tells us, to the outcome that we desire, right? That outcome is talent depth, it's talent quality, it's optimal performance. So the one page philosophy really drives an approach where you're looking at doing that in the simplest way possible. In a way that requires not too much time from the manager or the organization, but still gets you the outcome that you want.

Sarah Green: So is it possible though that in trying to be simpler you run the risk of being simplistic?

Miriam Ort: I think that definitely is a kind of an immediate reaction people have, right? Is if you make the process simpler you're in some way giving something up. But the approach that we have to design is all about making sure that you're including the right things, and that you're not including the wrong things. And then that way you can have a process that is simple but, in fact, more effective. One thing that I always remind people is a perfect process that doesn't get done is actually not perfect at all. So if you can hit that optimal place where the process is actually usable and you get you 100% participation in your performance review process. Or 100% of your managers actually taking actions on your employee survey, that is not going to be necessarily simplistic, but it's going to work.

Sarah Green: So what exactly are the steps of this process and why are they so effective?

Miriam Ort: So we lay out a three-step process in the book for designing processes. And we actually go through all the core talent processes, like performance management, succession planning, 360 review, and look at using that model, what a process might look at. But at a high level there's three steps. The first step is you start with the science, right? Like we talked about, there's a lot of research. Organizational research, behavioral research, that looks at how you motivate people. It looks at what drives employee commitment.

So it's really important to think about the business objective. Not how do you build a 360 degree program, but for trying to give people feedback so that they become better leaders, right? That's a business subject. What is the science have to say? And am I really grounded in fact? That's step one. Step two is eliminating the complexity and adding value. And what that really means is thinking about the trade-off between the value that a component in a process might add, and the effort of the work and the complexity that it adds to the process.

So for example, if I'm building out a performance management program, I might say setting goals at the beginning of the year takes some work, take some effort. But the research shows us that that's actually a really important step and it's actually going to drive improved performance. So you've got something you definitely want to leave in. When you go along the process though and you say something like let's say goal weightings, right? Some companies have very complex goal weightings where you weigh each goal according to how important it is.

The research doesn't actually indicate that having or not, having those goal weightings really makes a difference, but it does make the process more complicated. And that's where you get along to curve and say this really isn't worth it. It's not going to add much value. The third step in the process is taking the process that you just designed and then saying how do we build transparency and accountability into this process. Because even with a very effective practices in place, it's very opaque in the organization. People don't understand what it is or how it's used. And managers don't feel like they're actually accountable to deliver on it, you're not going to get the benefit that you would expect.

Sarah Green: So let's take an example that is familiar I think to so many people, and often feels unpleasant to a lot of people, which is the performance review. Using this process, how would the performance review feel difference?

Miriam Ort: That's a great example. Because I actually saw both on hbr.com and in the Wall Street Journal recently article saying should we just stop doing a performance review? It's so painful. It's so difficult. Maybe it's time to just let it go. And I think that would be real shame. Because when you go back to the one-page talent management approach, you look at the science, you can really drive tremendous gains in performance if you manage it effectively.

So I think abandoning it would certainly be a shame. But let's take that example and walk through what it could look like in the one-page approach. Let's see, first of all, starting with the science. Science tells us a couple interesting things. One is, like I mentioned, with goals setting. Having a few goals is very effective in driving motivation and driving employees to achieve them. Having many goals, much less effective. And yet in many organizations people work on drafting in great detail and maybe seven or eight goals and all the kind of components that fall underneath.

So in a one-page approach, we'd have a very simple goal setting form. You would be constrained. Maybe two to four goals, max. Like we talked about, there really isn't a need for goal weighting or complicated competency models to be built in. It is really about setting the goals. And then the research also tells us that people need a what's in it for me, right? So it's when the goals are laid out having the managers set the expectation of what happens if the goals are achieved. What happens if the goals are not achieved.

And sometimes in organizations this is done very well, with a strong link either to compensation or career progression. And in other organizations it's a form that gets filled out without really much of a repercussion. So that link is very important. Kind of going along in this typical process. I'd say where there's a big mess then is on the feedback. So, again, starting with the science the research tells us that giving employees regular feedback is really important if they're going to be motivated to achieve their goals.

So making sure that there's some kind of formal midyear check in that's actually tracked, that everyone's participating in, is much more important than having managers write out information in great detail. So I think again the OPTM, or one page type process, would really be simple goal setting form, making sure that there's conversation happening as some kind of midpoint. Doesn't need to be a complicated form that's filled out. And then when you get to the year-end process, I think there's also a lot of room to maximize this approach. Your interviews, this is kind of the worst part, right? And this is what every manager dreads.

A lot of times all the emphasis is about this rating scale. And how to use the rating scale. And all these like terminologies around it. Highly valued. Solid contributor. The research tells us that people need candid feedback. So it's having a simple structure that tells person you met your goals, you didn't meet your goals, you met some of your goals.

HR professionals tend to spend a lot of time getting very excited about the scale. Three point scale, five point scale, seven point scale. There's a lot of debates on this. The research says it doesn't really matter. So I would say in a one-page type approach what's much more important is consistent say. Because it makes it difficult for managers and employees if you're changing the scale every two or three years now do the best practice scale. And finally it's the conversation, again. It's making sure that the manager is giving feedback, and giving coaching and tracking that the conversation happened, more than tracking again that there is a long or detailed review.

Sarah Green: How has your experience at PepsiCo helped shape these ideas?

Miriam Ort: One thing I would definitely say is Pepsi embodies a lot of this concept. And I would love to share an example. They recently rolled out a program called the manager quality performance index. And what this is it's a 12 questions survey. It's given to any manager that has to direct reports. And it looks to assess basic manager capability. Does the manager give feedback? Does the manager work well with different kinds of people? Does the manager set of clear vision? And because this is such an easy process, I mean It's 12 questions, right?

Everyone can pretty much participate. It's also not very expensive. It can actually be done every year. And I think this is kind of like a classic one-page type approach. Because short, simple, it certainly has teeth, right? There's accountability in it. In fact, the results of this are transparent. Management sees it. HR sees it. And they are input into the year-end performance rating. So this actually does impact, for example, what somebody's bonus look like.

Sarah Green: Well, Miriam, thanks much for join us today.

Miriam Ort: Thank you. It's a pleasure.

Sarah Green: That's Miriam Ort, co-author of One Page Talent Management. For more, go to hbr.org.



本篇文章主題人才管理