Proper Rate of HR Experts Ratio to Number of Employees

The ratio of one human resource person for every 100 employees has been around for at least 20 years and is still cited as being HR gospel. But a lot has changed in 20 years, not the least of which is automation of much of the traditional HR functions.For example, staffing has always been one of the most labor-intensive HR functions—placing ads, poring over paper résumé submissions, calling to set up interviews, sending paper interview responses and offer letters, administering pre-employment tests, etc. Today, a good applicant tracking system can easily replace a majority of traditional staffing function positions. Rather than taking hours to place newspaper advertisements, an applicant tracking system (ATS) can post jobs to multiple online job boards in a matter of minutes. Résumé submissions can be automatically screened, chosen applicants can be contacted immediately by e-mail, interviews scheduled with multiple managers quickly online, pre-employment tests done by the applicants at their own computers, and onboarding packages compiled and delivered within minutes electronically. One recruiter with an ATS and a computer can easily do the work it took four people to do 20 years ago.Automation of HR functions in other areas produces similar productivity increases. Compensation and benefits functions have certainly benefited from advances in HR systems. Performance management has been automated with software that allows organizations to assign, manage and report on each employee's business objectives and results with much more limited HR involvement than 20 years ago. For better or worse, it's no longer necessary to have HR employee interaction with line managers for the 90 percent or so of traditional HR activities that are transactional in nature. Managers don't need to come to HR to review most of an employee's file—most of it is accessible online through intranets or internal computer systems. Pay increases can be proposed, approved and implemented automatically. A supervisor who is overdue on employee reviews is sent a computer-generated reminder. Training programs are delivered to employees at their convenience via computer and testing is done online.As axiomatic as "one for every 100" may once have been, today it could easily be "one for every 300" or 400 or even 500 or more given today's automation opportunities. And by automating these functions, HR is freed to focus more on consultative and development activities and produce more with fewer resources.

Technology, therefore, as well as outsourcing most of the HR services nowadays pays off on the cost reduction side includig hiring fewer HR people to serve the total number of employees in the organization. On the other hand there is nowadays less interaction with "customers" which is the essence of HR efficiency & effectiveness.

إدارة المعرفة .. ومحاولة "تلجيم " الحصان الجامح

نعيش عصر ثورة المعلومات التى ولدت فى نهاية القرن التاسع عشر، وظلت ايقاعاتها تتسارع وتتصاعد بفضل التقدم التكنولوجى الكاسح حتى وصلت إلى مستوى رهيب من سرعة الإنتشار والوصول إلى شرائح من الناس كانوا يكتفون بدور المتفرج لما يدور حولهم فى العالم. ألغيت الحدود، وإزيلت الحواجز، وتحققت لأول مرة فى التاريخ "ديمقراطية المعرفة" دون برلمانات تشرع ولااستفتاءات تقنن، ولا تأشيرات تمنح وتمنع. ثلث سكان العالم الآن يستخدمون أجهزة التليفون المحمول، وربع سكان العالم يستخدمون الإنترنت ( وصلت نسبة المستخدمين فى بعض بلدان العالم مثل كندا إلى 84% من عدد السكان) وعلى الرغم من أن نسبة مستخدمى الإنترنت فى مصر لاتتجاوز النصف فى المائة نظرا للحالة الإقتصادية وانتشار الأمية، فإن عدد مستخدمى أجهزة الهاتف المحمول حتى نهاية 2007 بلغت أكثر من 30 مليونا (يتوقع أن يزيد الرقم نهاية هذا العام إلى 36 مليونا). لم يعد أمرا عجيبا أن ترى عامل نظافة أو حارس عقار أو سائق عربة كارو يتحدث فى المحمول. ولكن التليفزيون فى الدول التى تزداد فيه نسب الأمية مثل مصر يظل هو الأخطر من بين وسائل الإعلام المؤثرة والتى لاتحتاج إلى مهارة فى التعامل معها مثل الإنترنت والتليفون المحمول. ويقدر عدد أجهزة التليفزيون فى مصر طبقا لآخر إحصائية رسمية 177 جهازا لكل ألف أسرة (حتى نهاية 2007). ولقد كانت مصر من أوائل الدول الإفريقية التى تمتلك أقمارا فضائية للبث التليفزيونى والإذاعى يعمل عليها حاليا 195 قناة تليفزيونية مجانية بالإضافة ألى 105 قناة مشفرة. وفى مصر على وجه الخصوص فإن أجيالا كاملة قد تربت على أنماط سلوكية تليفزيونية يحاكونها فى ملبسها وطريقة تفكيرها وكلامها وفى كثير من الأحيان اعتناق نفس المبادئ التى تدين بها الشخصيات التليفزيونية التى يشاهدونها ويتوحدون معها (متوسط وقت المشاهدة بين الأطفال فى مص 4 ساعات يوميا ) أضف إلى ذلك أن بعض الشركات العالمية مثل جوجل سوف تنتهى فى نهاية عام 2009 من تطوير تكنولوجيا تجعل من الممكن لأجهزة التليفزيون أن تلتقط الإنترنت دون الحاجة إلى جهاز كمبيوتر، فى الوقت الذى تسابق فيه شركات الإتصالات والبث التليفزيونى العالمية الزمن لكى تجعل برامجها قابلة للبث عبر المحمول على الهواء مباشرة، لكى يتحول المحمول بذلك إلى تليفون وكاميرا وفيديو وتليفزيون فى جهاز واحد صغير يعمل بالبطارية وتحمله فى جيبك . وبذلك تكتمل منظومة التواصل العالمية صوت وصورة عبر أى جهاز متاح تشاهده فى مكتبك أو منزلك أو تحمله فى جيبك لكى تظل "موصولا" طول الوقت بما يجرى فى العالم بقاراته الخمس، ويصبح ممكنا أن تتخاطب كل الأجهزة مع بعضها البعض عن قرب أو بعد طبقا لحاجة المستخدم.

كان لابد من هذه المقدمة لكى أوكد على "الاجتياح" الكاسح لانتشار المعلومات من أقصى الأرض إلى أقصاها دون أن تحدها حواجز أو تعوق حركتها قوانين أو قرارات تهدف إلى السيطرة عليها وتحجيمها. لم يعد ممكنا إخفاء أى خبر، أو محاولة تجميله، أو حتى تأجيل إذاعته وانتشاره، وأصبح نوعا من العبث أن تحاول الدول السيطرة على مايكتب على المواقع الخاصة للمدونين، ناهيك عما تبثه الفضائيات. وحتى بفرض نجاح ذلك ولو جزئيا – وهو المستحيل بعينه – فكيف نمنع الناس من أن تتناقل الأخبار عبر التليفونات التى أصبحت جزءا مكملا لحركة الحياة بين كل – وأكرر كل طبقات المجتمع فى أى دولة بغض النظر عن فقرها أو غناها، وهو مايطلق عليه "تكعيبة العنب" Grapevine التى تتشابك فروعها بصورة تجعل من المستحيل أحيانا يتتبع بدايتها أو نهايتها ؟ الخطورة فى حالة محاولة حجب الأخبار أو منعها أن تنشط الإشاعات لكى تكمل النقص فى المعلومات وغياب الشفافية فتختلط الحقائق بالخيال . إنتهى عصر تناقل المعلومات عبر وثائق مكتوبة تحمل من مكان إلى مكان، أو "تسريب" الأنباء الهامة والحساسة بنقلها شفاهة بين طرفين أو أكثر لكى يحل محلها طريق سريع للمعلومات لايستغرق قطعه من أقصى الأرض إلى أقصاها غير ثوان معدودات هى المدة اللازمة لضغطة زر على جهاز كمبيوتر.

أذكر أنه أثناء العهد الناصرى الذى كان يعتقد أن الشرعية الثورية تعطيه الحق فى كبت الحريات إلى الدرجة التى يفرض فيها على الناس الاستماع فقط إلى الإعلام الرسمى ، وإلى تجريم الاستماع إلى الإذاعات الأجنبية ( ولاأدرى حتى الآن كيف كان يمكن إثبات ذلك) أيام أن كان الراديو الترانزستور يمثل قمة التطور التكنولوجى والوسيلة الوحيدة لمعرفة ماذا يدور فى العالم، وذلك فى محاولة لإخفاء أخطاء النظام والترويج لصورة براقة واحدة توزع على الإعلام الرسمى المسموع والمرئى والمقروء، ولايسمح بتداول غيرها وبذلك يحاصر الناس طول الوقت بصورة ذهنية تمجد وتأله وترى أن نقدهم خطيئة تستحق التكفير عنها بالسجن أو النفى أو المصادرة أو حتى القتل على يد زبانية النظام المستفيدين من بقائه واستمراره. حتى الهزيمة المهينة التى منينا بها فى 67 – وكان التليفزيون المصرى فى مهده بعد – صورها الإعلام الرسمى على أنها مجرد "نكسة" . وأذكر أيضا أن من كان يريد أن يعرف الحقيقة عما يجرى فى مصر كان يستمع فى الخفاء إلى المحطات الأجنبية بالعربية أو الإنجليزية. كان السفر للخارج مقيدا بموافقات وتعقيدات والحصول على "تأشيرة خروج" وكان أول مايبحث عنه المسافر إلى الخارج فى ذلك الوقت الصحف والمجلات التى تصدر بالخارج – وبعضها بالقطع كان مغرضا وليس موضوعيا – لكى يعرف خلفيات مايحدث فى مصر. وكانت تلك الصحف والمجلات تهرب إلى مصر مع العائدين لكى يقرأها ذويهم وأصدقائهم المقربين . أى أن التهديد بالسجن والتشريد لم يمنع الناس من السعى لمعرفة الحقيقة مهما كان ذلك محفوفا بالمخاطر وينطبق ذلك أكثر ماينطبق على قضايا الرأى العام التى تهم كل الناس وتمس مصالحهم فضلا عن حقهم فى المعرفة وهو حق من حقوق الإنسان وحرمانهم منه يعنى حرمانهم من حق طبيعى تضمنه الدساتير الربانية قبل المواثيق الدولية الوضعية ويصمنا بما نحن فى غنى عنه من اتهامات تنال من سمعتنا الدولية وتقلل من قيمتنا فى عيون المجتمع الدولى.

إن التوسع فى التعلل بالمصالح العليا للدولة، والأمن القومى لحجب المعلومات أو "ترشيدها" أو منع تداولها أدوات تستخدمها النظم الشمولية لكى تكبح جماح شعوبها وتحجم مشاركتهم فى إحداث التغيير السياسى والاجتماعى اللازمين لمواكبة المتغيرات الدولية . وهى كما قدمنا وسائل غير مجدية وغير فاعلة ، وتزيد من إتساع فجوة عدم الإنتماء حين يلجأ الناس إلى وسائط خارجية فى محاولة لمعرفة الحقيقة، وقد يقع كثير منهم فريسة سهلة لإعلام مغرض يؤثر فيهم ويوجههم ويستغل نهمهم للمعرفة فيغذيهم بوجبات خاصة تخدم أغراضه وتسهل مقاصده. لماذا تختفى كثير من القضايا بالغة الأهمية بالنسبة للناس فى الأدراج فلا نعود نسمع عنها شيئا تحت مزاعم مختلفة لايصدقها أحد؟ ولماذا نترك أصحاب المصالح يكرسون للفساد بمحاولة إخفاء الملفات المفتوحة أو التى يحاول المخلصون من أبناء هذا الوطن أن يفتحوها حتى "تموت موتا طبيعيا" فيهال عليها التراب بعد أن ينساها الناس؟ إن إدارة الإعلام علم وفن يأخذ فى الحسبان الثقافة العامة للمجتمع وحاجات الناس ومشاكلهم على خلفية التغير الدائم والمستمر فى وسائل الاتصال، حتى لايؤدى تخلفه عن اتساع فجوة التخلف الإعلامى والمعلوماتى بما يؤدى إلى "هجرة" مجتمعية لوسائل أخرى تلبى احتياجات الناس حتى لو كانت مشوبة بمخاطر عدم الموضوعية وتلونها أغراض عقائدية أو ايديولوجية. ماالذى يضيرنا أن نفتح الأبواب والشبابيك لكى يدخل الهواء ويعم نور المعرفة، فتستنير العقول، ونحصن أنفسنا ضد ميكروبات الجهل والأمية، ونشارك فى قضايا الوطن، ونحتل مكانا على الخريطة المعلوماتية فى العالم، ونصبح جزءا فاعلا من المجتمع الدولى ؟ لاتزال الفرصة سانحة لكى نثبت لأنفسنا أن مانقوله نعنيه، وأن التصريحات الرسمية لزوم الانتخابات وجمع الأصوات قابلة للتنفيذ، وأن أمضى أسلحة القضاء على الفساد والمحسوبية ومحاولة حماية ذوى النفوذ والسلطان هو كشف فسادهم وانحرافهم. قد يصدم الرأى العام فيهم، ولكن ذلك أهون بكثير من استمرار مسرحيات الخداع وارتداء مسوح الفضيلة، أليس كذلك؟

The Truth About Photographic Memory

59-year-old Akira Haraguchi recited from memory the first 83,431 decimal places of pi, earning a spot in the Guinness World Records.
He must have a photographic memory, right? Not so. According to mounting evidence, it's impossible to recall images with near perfect accuracy.
Certainly, some people do have phenomenal memories. Chess masters can best multiple opponents while blindfolded. Super card sharks can memorize the order of a shuffled deck of cards in less than a minute. But people with Herculean memories tend to be adept at one specific task—i.e., a person who memorizes cards may be inept at recognizing faces.
Alan Searleman, a professor of psychology at St. Lawrence University in New York, says eidetic imagery comes closest to being photographic. When shown an unfamiliar image for 30 seconds, so-called "eidetikers" can vividly describe the image—for example, how many petals are on a flower in a garden scene. They report "seeing" the image, and their eyes appear to scan across the image as they describe it. Still, their reports sometimes contain errors, and their accuracy fades after just a few minutes. Says Searleman, "If they were truly 'photographic' in nature, you wouldn't expect any errors at all."
While people can improve their recall through tricks and practice, eidetikers are born, not made, says Searleman. The ability isn't linked to other traits, such as high intelligence. Children are more likely to possess eidetic memory than adults, though they begin losing the ability after age six as they learn to process information more abstractly.
Although psychologists don't know why children lose the ability, the loss of this skill may be functional: Were humans to remember every single image, it would be difficult to make it through the day.
Psychology Today Magazine, Mar/Apr 2006

How Female Stars Succeed in New Jobs

If a successful analyst is hired by another organization, chances are both his work performance and the market value of his new company will not reap the expected benefits; they might even lose altitude. So discovered HBS professor Boris Groysberg and colleagues Ashish Nanda and Nitin Nohria, who detailed their results four years ago in the Harvard Business Review article, "The Risky Business of Hiring Stars."
Since launching his research into the war for talent, however, Groysberg has started to notice something quite different about the career paths of successful analysts who were female.
Star women, he found, maintained their shine even after switching companies. Unlike their male peers, they thrived in new work environments. Why the difference?
As Groysberg observed in the Harvard Business Review last February, "Female star analysts, it would seem, take their work environment more seriously yet rely on it less than male stars do. They look for a firm that will allow them to keep building their successful franchises their own way."
Groysberg brings us up to date on his study of the career trajectories of talented analysts, and suggests how women and men can make the most of star power.
Q: Why did you think there might be an important gender aspect to your research into star performers and their career development? How did you study this topic in depth?
Boris Groysberg: A few years ago, my colleagues and I began this research by looking at what happens to stars when they change jobs. Equity analysts are an ideal population to study: Their performance is objectively measured every year, there is a lot of demographic and organizational data on them and their employers, and many things are held constant when they change firms. For instance, when an analyst moves, he or she continues to cover the same companies and serve the same clients. Most investment banks are within a mile radius of each other, so even the commute does not change.
"A company that is willing to double your current salary, but will not invest in your long-term success, is not a good choice."
Overall, we found that stars did poorly at their new firms.
Analyzing the data further revealed that there are gender differences in how well stars do after they jump ship. In fact, the decline in performance was pronounced only for star men. Star women who switched firms exhibit no decline in performance. Follow-up analyses also suggested some intriguing reasons for this, as outlined in my Harvard Business Review article, "How Star Women Build Portable Skills."
Q: What are the different obstacles that male and female professionals have encountered in order to rise in their organizations?
A: Women tend to do better after a move for two reasons.
One is that they are more invested in external than in in-house relationships. There are four main reasons why star women maintain external focus: uneasy in-house relationships, poor mentorship, neglect by colleagues, and a vulnerable position in the labor market. External focus makes them more "portable" in terms of making a positive move, but can cause problems if they want to progress within their own organization, because you need a solid internal network and good political capital to get things done in organizations. Anyone who focuses mostly on external relationships will not have that.
The other reason is that women do far more due diligence when they receive a job offer than men do, because women need to ensure that the company is good for women and that they won't be treated as token females. In the process of due diligence, star women learn a lot of valuable information about the company that helps them make good strategic decisions. They scrutinize prospective employers on receptivity to women, managerial support, latitude and flexibility, and performance measurement. There's no downside to that strategy—it is one that men could benefit from just as well.
The major obstacles that women face are discussed in greater detail in the HBR article. Men can also face similar obstacles if they are in a poorly managed organization. Star men from mismanaged departments, in which it was difficult to create good in-house relationships and there were frequent changes of management, respond much as women do—by investing in external networks. Not all but some of their strategies at poorly managed firms resemble the strategies of women.
Q: Are you seeing evidence that workplaces on Wall Street, for example, are taking steps to overcome some of the barriers for women that you have noticed? Or does it appear that women need to continue designing their own strategies in order to thrive as professionals?
A: Some investment banks have tried to make a greater effort in this area. The research department of Lehman Brothers took steps to create a comfortable environment for women, and to evaluate all their analysts fairly and mentor them intensively. This paid off: The bank developed a lot of stars and benefited from their loyalty as employees. In fact, working environments that were good for women were equally good for men.
Certainly, I've also noticed that when some organizations deliberately set out to create female-friendly environments, they seemed to reap a competitive advantage. Unfortunately, there are still only a few organizations that invest the time, effort, and resources in creating these environments. And in many that do, only some managers make an effort to be inclusive. The consequence of that is when these managers leave, the female-friendly environments disappear.
Q: Based on your research, how could male as well as female professionals improve their career choices?
A: Women's portability comes from two sources: a greater emphasis on external relationships, and conducting better research about a company before joining it.
Men would benefit from conducting more due diligence as well. Don't let yourself be blinded by the money! A company that is willing to double your current salary, but will not invest in your long-term success, is not a good choice. Investigate a firm's management, its culture, its resources, the commitment it is willing to make to you. These are the things that will ultimately make you a star—and keep you one.
Women in a male-dominated industry realize that they are vulnerable, but men are vulnerable to bad management and cultural mismatches more than they realize.
Q: What new questions has your research raised for you? What are you working on next?
A: One question is what happens when a profession becomes more gender-balanced over time. Do men's and women's career strategies become more similar? I think there are also opportunities to study what attributes of organizations make professionals become stars faster.
Finally, understanding careers of female professionals is important. How do they make their career choices? My colleagues and I have been working on a few case studies on these subjects. For example, the "Leading the Josie Esquivel Franchise" case shows how a female professional can build her own "star franchise" and what to consider when you change firms. Another example is the "Leadership in Law: Amy Schulman at DLA Piper" case, which focuses on different stages in this star's career and what she did to be successful at each stage. We need more cases on how gender dynamics affect individual careers.

Note:

Summary of a HBR interview

How Female Stars Succeed in New Jobs

If a successful analyst is hired by another organization, chances are both his work performance and the market value of his new company will not reap the expected benefits; they might even lose altitude. So discovered HBS professor Boris Groysberg and colleagues Ashish Nanda and Nitin Nohria, who detailed their results four years ago in the Harvard Business Review article, "The Risky Business of Hiring Stars."
Since launching his research into the war for talent, however, Groysberg has started to notice something quite different about the career paths of successful analysts who were female.
Star women, he found, maintained their shine even after switching companies. Unlike their male peers, they thrived in new work environments. Why the difference?
As Groysberg observed in the Harvard Business Review last February, "Female star analysts, it would seem, take their work environment more seriously yet rely on it less than male stars do. They look for a firm that will allow them to keep building their successful franchises their own way."
Groysberg brings us up to date on his study of the career trajectories of talented analysts, and suggests how women and men can make the most of star power.
Q: Why did you think there might be an important gender aspect to your research into star performers and their career development? How did you study this topic in depth?
Boris Groysberg: A few years ago, my colleagues and I began this research by looking at what happens to stars when they change jobs. Equity analysts are an ideal population to study: Their performance is objectively measured every year, there is a lot of demographic and organizational data on them and their employers, and many things are held constant when they change firms. For instance, when an analyst moves, he or she continues to cover the same companies and serve the same clients. Most investment banks are within a mile radius of each other, so even the commute does not change.
"A company that is willing to double your current salary, but will not invest in your long-term success, is not a good choice."
Overall, we found that stars did poorly at their new firms.
Analyzing the data further revealed that there are gender differences in how well stars do after they jump ship. In fact, the decline in performance was pronounced only for star men. Star women who switched firms exhibit no decline in performance. Follow-up analyses also suggested some intriguing reasons for this, as outlined in my Harvard Business Review article, "How Star Women Build Portable Skills."
Q: What are the different obstacles that male and female professionals have encountered in order to rise in their organizations?
A: Women tend to do better after a move for two reasons.
One is that they are more invested in external than in in-house relationships. There are four main reasons why star women maintain external focus: uneasy in-house relationships, poor mentorship, neglect by colleagues, and a vulnerable position in the labor market. External focus makes them more "portable" in terms of making a positive move, but can cause problems if they want to progress within their own organization, because you need a solid internal network and good political capital to get things done in organizations. Anyone who focuses mostly on external relationships will not have that.
The other reason is that women do far more due diligence when they receive a job offer than men do, because women need to ensure that the company is good for women and that they won't be treated as token females. In the process of due diligence, star women learn a lot of valuable information about the company that helps them make good strategic decisions. They scrutinize prospective employers on receptivity to women, managerial support, latitude and flexibility, and performance measurement. There's no downside to that strategy—it is one that men could benefit from just as well.
The major obstacles that women face are discussed in greater detail in the HBR article. Men can also face similar obstacles if they are in a poorly managed organization. Star men from mismanaged departments, in which it was difficult to create good in-house relationships and there were frequent changes of management, respond much as women do—by investing in external networks. Not all but some of their strategies at poorly managed firms resemble the strategies of women.
Q: Are you seeing evidence that workplaces on Wall Street, for example, are taking steps to overcome some of the barriers for women that you have noticed? Or does it appear that women need to continue designing their own strategies in order to thrive as professionals?
A: Some investment banks have tried to make a greater effort in this area. The research department of Lehman Brothers took steps to create a comfortable environment for women, and to evaluate all their analysts fairly and mentor them intensively. This paid off: The bank developed a lot of stars and benefited from their loyalty as employees. In fact, working environments that were good for women were equally good for men.
Certainly, I've also noticed that when some organizations deliberately set out to create female-friendly environments, they seemed to reap a competitive advantage. Unfortunately, there are still only a few organizations that invest the time, effort, and resources in creating these environments. And in many that do, only some managers make an effort to be inclusive. The consequence of that is when these managers leave, the female-friendly environments disappear.
Q: Based on your research, how could male as well as female professionals improve their career choices?
A: Women's portability comes from two sources: a greater emphasis on external relationships, and conducting better research about a company before joining it.
Men would benefit from conducting more due diligence as well. Don't let yourself be blinded by the money! A company that is willing to double your current salary, but will not invest in your long-term success, is not a good choice. Investigate a firm's management, its culture, its resources, the commitment it is willing to make to you. These are the things that will ultimately make you a star—and keep you one.
Women in a male-dominated industry realize that they are vulnerable, but men are vulnerable to bad management and cultural mismatches more than they realize.
Q: What new questions has your research raised for you? What are you working on next?
A: One question is what happens when a profession becomes more gender-balanced over time. Do men's and women's career strategies become more similar? I think there are also opportunities to study what attributes of organizations make professionals become stars faster.
Finally, understanding careers of female professionals is important. How do they make their career choices? My colleagues and I have been working on a few case studies on these subjects. For example, the "Leading the Josie Esquivel Franchise" case shows how a female professional can build her own "star franchise" and what to consider when you change firms. Another example is the "Leadership in Law: Amy Schulman at DLA Piper" case, which focuses on different stages in this star's career and what she did to be successful at each stage. We need more cases on how gender dynamics affect individual careers.

Note:

Summary of a HBR interview