In a previous post, "Staffing, What It Is and Isn't," I discussed the process of finding the right people and bringing them into an organization. An important part of this process is recruitment. (Note that recruitment is different from selection. Recruitment is finding and attracting talent, while selection is just that - picking who you want to hire.)

I am often asked by talent managers and other district leaders about using social media to recruit candidates. I believe, if used correctly, social networking can be an effective recruiting tool. Notice the phrase "if used correctly."

Jeff Haden's recent article in Inc. "If This Isn't How You Recruit, You're Doing It Wrong" investigates the struggles of many small businesses in recruiting and hiring high potential candidates. It provides a thoughtful list of suggestions for using social media in recruiting that is not only pertinent for business owners, but education leaders as well.

Hayden writes, "Most small business owners struggle to find and recruit great employees even when unemployment rates are relatively high. Partly that's because finding new employees is just one of a thousand other tasks you perform."

Now, think about this from a district perspective. It's the same thing! Unemployment and underemployment rates are high, but not all unemployed or underemployed people are qualified (for various reasons), which makes finding the right candidate difficult. Additionally, Haden notes that recruitment is only one of many tasks businesses must perform. This is the same for school districts. Some districts don't have an HR department, while those that do are also responsible for handling paychecks, benefits, retirement, and other essential day-to-day activities.

To address this challenge, Hayden gives six ways that anyone can take advantage of a professional recruiter's tools and ideas. Two of these focus specifically on recruitment.

1. Ditch the job boards.

I agree! Here's why:

Over-saturation: People become desensitized to technology. (That's another conversation on how, when, why this happens). And, we generally gravitate to the latest and greatest product or tool. Think about it. When email first came on the scene, it was a big deal to have an email address, and most people opened and responded to any message they received. Now, it is not unusual to have multiple email accounts that receive hundreds, if not thousands, of emails a week. I currently have four email accounts that I check regularly. However, I delete the majority of items in my Google account without reading them. Most of the emails are spam. I never open messages that say "help" in the subject or "sale," when just nine years ago I would have looked through all of them.

When job boards were first developed, they were seen as the new 'hot' thing. People would pay to post their résumé and businesses would pay to read about candidates. I have friends in HR who took classes on job board sites and had very expensive accounts with sales reps that visited for help. Initially, my friends were provided with information on qualified individuals from across the country, and overtime, the number of applicants on these sites grew as Internet use increased. However, many applicants did not have the needed skills. Recruiters found themselves spending hours sorting though résumés without much luck, while having to pay for each résumé they viewed.

Likewise, many people who posted résumés stopped hearing back from organizations as they were among millions of other candidates seeking a position. Job boards were once a hub for job applicants and businesses, but due to over-saturation, many users have become desensitized to the technology.

2. Put more emphasis on social media.

I agree in concept, but it needs to be the RIGHT social media solution. Here's why:

Based purely on the volume of users, Facebook may appear as the best place to recruit for a job opening. However, due to a number of factors, it is not the ideal tool for a school district to find their next superintendent. A more professionally oriented site like LinkedIn would probably be more appropriate. If I was recruiting talent in a school district, I would use a site like LinkedIn to find candidates as well as resources from a professional organization like the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) and the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), or Education Week's Top School Jobs.

How will this information influence your current recruiting practices? Does your district currently use social media for recruitment? If so, how? As always, please share your thoughts!

Posted by Emily Douglas at 8:21 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

This wasn't an ordinary business. It was the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office. And, the shooting wasn't the result of an angry outsider entering the building, but a confrontation between two federal immigration agents. Two supervisors. Two extensively trained, intelligent, experienced ICE professionals.

(If you have not heard about this tragic event, here is a link to the Associated Press article.)

No one goes to their office expecting a workplace dispute to occur. Let alone an incident that ends in shots being fired. The story out of Long Beach should serve as a lesson for talent managers everywhere. Workplace violence occurs every day across the country; it's just that not all of these incidents are large enough to make national and international news.

"Workplace violence is any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site. It ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and even homicide. It can affect and involve employees, clients, customers and visitors." - United States Department of Labor

The Bureau of Labor Statistics notes that homicides are the fourth-leading cause of fatal occupational accidents (across all industries). In 2010, of the 4,547 fatal workplace injuries reported (note: not everyone reports them), 506 were workplace homicides.

This raises an important question for all talent managers and other district leadership: Do you have a plan of action in the event employees, students, parents, or outsiders get into an altercation on your premises?

While some districts have plans and annual staff training around workplace violence, many other districts have outdated plans that live in the bottom of a desk drawer. Violent events are never planned. They often occur quickly without warning. Unfortunately, our nation has seen far too many violent events occur in schools over the past several years, including student on student violence, parent on board violence, and teacher on teacher violence. No school (big or small... rural, urban, or suburban) is immune.

My intention is not to scare teachers, parents, students, and other school leaders. I mention these incidents as a reminder that preparation in this area could literally save lives. Luckily, there are a number of valuable (and free!) resources to help. I'd recommend reading more information on prevention, planning, and other considerations on the websites below. As always, please share your thoughts and questions in the comments section.

• Occupational Safety and Health Act's - Workplace Safety FAQ
• FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Workplace Violence Prevention: Readiness and Response
• National Crime Prevention Council
• United States Department of Agriculture - The USDA Handbook on Workplace Violence Prevention and Response
• United States Office of Personnel Management - Dealing with Workplace Violence: A Guide for Agency Planners

Posted by Emily Douglas at 6:16 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

There are many differing views on using social networking platforms in staffing. In my last blog I explored the different parts of the staffing process, from sourcing and recruitment to selection and hiring. Specifically, in this blog we will look at how social media is used (or not used) in selection. As a refresher, selection involves using multiple measures to pick high-quality candidates. These measures could include structured interviews, writing samples, essay questions, résumé review, previous performance, case studies, portfolio grading, knowledge testing, or screening tools like PrincipalInsight, HUMANeX Ventures, and Haberman Star Administrator. While many confuse selection and recruitment, they are actually different activities.

Between December 2010 and February 2011, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) conducted a survey of HR professionals in various industries on social media and staffing. SHRM provides fantastic resources, development opportunities, and up-to-date research and information on everything in the HR field, from social networking to compensation. The organization compiled their findings in a report called, "Social Networking Websites for Identifying and Staffing Potential Job Candidates Survey Findings." Specifically, 36 percent of survey participants were from nonprofits or government organizations.

Here's what I find (extremely... extremely) interesting:

Sixty-eight percent of respondents in the SHRM survey said that they DO NOT look at social media or social networking profiles in hiring. Why? Four arguments emerged from the results as to why organizations do not review social media profiles during the selection process:
1. Legal concerns around protected information (race, color, religion, gender, etc);

4. Not everyone uses social media.

On the flip side, of the 18 percent of respondents who use social networking sites when screening or hiring employees, 70 percent use these tools to obtain more information on candidates above résumés and cover letters as the information is easy to access. The most commonly used sites are:
• LinkedIn: 85 percent
• Facebook: 78 percent
• MySpace: 13 percent
• Twitter: 11 percent

I have a Twitter account for work, which I use to share articles, news, and other information about HR, talent management, innovation, creativity, strategy, and problem solving in education and in business (tweets are not necessarily endorsements), a LinkedIn profile for networking, and a Facebook account, which I hardly ever use. My Twitter and LinkedIn accounts were purposefully set up to build my personal brand, and I would not be worried if my employer viewed this activity. However, as an HR person, I can see how Twitter, Facebook, and other social media sites could contain information on a candidate that an employer should not be privy to when making selection decisions.

For example, many people post photos of themselves on their social networking accounts which could reveal their (protected) color, race, and gender. There is an option on Facebook to post your full birth date, religion, marital status, sexual orientation, and note if you have children. All of this information should NOT be used in hiring decisions. Likewise, if you're on LinkedIn, you may notice that there's not an automatic feature for people to add their high school graduation date. This was not done by accident. A person's high school graduation year can be used to predict age. Yet, many users still list it. I choose to include information about high school on my profile to connect professionally with my fellow alumni.

There are many articles available on staffing practices and legal do's and don'ts. If you have questions, I recommend visiting U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website at http://www.eeoc.gov.

Does your district use social media to inform candidate selection decisions? What about using social media for recruitment? (How is this different? - I'll explore that in a later post.) Will your district continue to do so after reading the SHRM survey results and the legal concerns many noted? If so, why, and what sites will you use?

Posted by Emily Douglas at 2:22 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

The words recruiting, sourcing, selection, hiring, screening, posting, and staffing are often used interchangeably, but they all have different meanings and represent different parts of the larger staffing process. Even I say staffing at times when I really mean hiring. So what do these terms mean, how are they different, and where do they belong in the process? Here is a breakdown.

Sourcing is the act of uncovering the sources of high-potential candidates by reviewing information on current successful employees and unearthing data trends. Think of it as an internal study. For example, a district may research the backgrounds of their most successful teachers to identify trends in where they attended college or similarities in certifications and other experience. Through sourcing, organizations typically find that they're looking for potential hires in the wrong places.

Districts can then use this information to recruit high-potential candidates. An effective way to attract promising applicants is by working with businesses and other local groups to develop a comprehensive human resources branding strategy that showcases the district and community. Highly skilled recruiting organizations are always "looking" and not necessarily for a specific position. However, most organizations recruit for specific positions.

Making information about a job opening available within an organization and/or publically is called posting. With some exceptions, jobs are generally posted internally before they are announced externally. Additionally, depending upon the organization, posting may come before or after recruiting.

Screening refers to the work of reviewing résumés and cover letters in order to narrow a group of applicants. Talent managers should be looking for people who meet basic requirements. Some organizations will also call candidates during this phase to discuss the information on their résumé.

Selection involves using multiple measures to pick high-quality candidates. These measures could include reference checks, interviews, writing samples, in-box activities, knowledge testing, previous performance, or tools like TeacherInsight (Gallup), Haberman Star Teacher (from the Haberman Foundation), or even Wonderlic.

The data gleaned through sourcing, recruiting, screening, and selecting candidates culminates in hiring. This is the formal offer of a job to a candidate, the candidate accepting, and the process of making the employee a part of the organization.

Many experts refer to staffing as the entire process that begins with sourcing and ends with hiring. But, this is only the beginning of the steps necessary to continuously develop and manage talent in schools and other organizations.

Do you know any districts that should be considered "best practices models" in staffing? Share your story.

Posted by Emily Douglas at 4:51 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Last October, I presented at the American Association of School Personnel Administrators (AASPA) conference in Reno, Nevada. After my session concluded, several participants approached me with questions, one of which caught me by surprise.

When I was working on my Masters in Labor and Human Resources at The Ohio State University Fisher College of Business, many professors advised my classmates and I to sit for the Professional Human Resources exam after we had earned the proper years of experience in the workforce. You can be certified as a PHR, GPHR, or SPHR. What do all of these acronyms stand for?

PHR: The Professional in Human Resources certification is designed for human resources professionals who focus on logistical aspects and the implementation of department work.

GPHR: The Global Professional in Human Resources certification applies to those who have responsibilities in multiple countries and understands global strategy and laws.

SPHR: The Senior Professional in Human Resources certification was created for professionals who serve as strategic partners and focus on the "big picture" in their organization.

Now, back to the AASPA conference... At the beginning of my presentation, I was introduced as having an SPHR certification. I was approached afterwards by many long-time school human resource professionals who asked how and why one would want to gain their certification. At the end of our conversation, all were interested in becoming certified. I know numerous businesses that will not hire HR professionals if they are not certified (even if they have a Masters degree in business or human resources), so I was surprised to learn that a group of HR veterans from the education community were not yet certified. When I asked why they had yet to take the test, many cited applicability (they were unsure as to whether or not this would help in our industry) and the passage rate.

As you can see in the chart above, these tests are not easy. The day I took my SPHR exam the two women in the testing center with me did not pass. One of the women told me that she had been in HR for more than 20 years, but admitted that she had not studied. (I studied more than 100 hours before the test).

Established in 1976, the Human Resource Certification Institute (HRCI) is an internationally recognized certifying organization for the human resource profession, offering four certifications, including the PHR, GPHR, and SPHR. As of January 2011, 117,374 talent managers were certificated with their PHR, GPHR, and SPHR (the state-by-state breakdown of certifications is very interesting).

So why pursue an HR certification? I sat for the SPHR exam because I knew that it would enhance my résumé, verify that my knowledge base was "worthy", and provide access to a professional association of HR professionals. It has also proven valuable as I serve as a strategic partner for school districts in their human capital development efforts.

As a talent manager in education, would a certification make sense for you? Why or why not? Please share your thoughts!

Posted by Emily Douglas at 11:26 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Naima Khandaker, Battelle for Kids Human Capital Specialist, contributed to this post. Naima is a former teacher and current education policy nerd who believes that one day soon, education will be great for all kids.

Most school districts across the country operate under a similar organizational structure. The superintendent reports to the local school board, while the various district departments-Evaluation and Accountability, Curriculum and Instruction, Human Resources, Finance, and Operations, among others-are overseen by the superintendent. In many cases, these departments operate independently of one another. As a result, the roll-out of new programs often occurs in a vacuum, which can cause duplication, confusion, and inefficiency. To illustrate this point, let's take a look at the "flipped classroom," a technique gaining momentum in classrooms around the county. Bill Tucker, Education Next blogger, describes the concept perfectly in "The Flipped Classroom":

"With teacher-created videos and interactive lessons, instruction that used to occur in class is now accessed at home, in advance of class. Class becomes the place to work through problems, advance concepts, and engage in collaborative learning. Most importantly, all aspects of instruction can be rethought to best maximize the scarcest learning resource--time."

One organization quickly emerging as leader in the flipped classroom space is the Khan Academy. Their website is home to more than 2,800 free videos (available in 16 languages!) covering various subjects, such as geometry, statistics, physics, computer science, cosmology, organic chemistry, microeconomics, valuation and investing, currency, art history, social security, the electoral college, and Medicare sustainability. There is even a test prep section that includes SAT and GMAT content. The website is very cool for learners of all ages, but I digress.

An advantage of managing district departments and programs in a silo may be that it is easier to slot them into the traditional organizational chart. For example, the flipped classroom approach, on its face, clearly fits into the "Curriculum and Instruction" sphere.

On the flip side (pun-intended), adopting a flipped classroom structure doesn't just affect those officially responsible for instruction. It impacts every department in the organization in one way or another. Educators need new skills to successfully teach in a flipped classroom model, which carries over to hiring, onboarding, professional development, evaluation, rewards, and other areas of a district.

It's easy to forget about the many tentacles attached to even the most simple program or reform initiative. However, it's important for talent managers to put structures in place to align efforts organization-wide through strategies like strategic planning. But more about that in a future post.

For a detailed explanation of the flipped classroom, check out the infographic (think "educational comic strip" including illustrations of processes, statistics, and information) below that inspired us to write this post.

Created by Knewton and Column Five Media

This infographic is publicly available to embed in your blog or website. More information can be found on the Knewton website.

Posted by Emily Douglas at 5:34 PM | Permalink | 4 Comments | Recommend

Yesterday, I shared some interesting facts from the National Council on Teacher Quality's (NCTQ) October 2011 report, "State of the States: Trends and Early Lessons on Teacher Evaluation and Effectiveness Policies" about the evolution of state educator evaluation systems over the past few years. In particular, we learned that between 2009 and 2011, 33 states changed their teacher evaluation policies.

This left me thinking about what has happened with evaluation policy in the other 17 states since NCTQ released their report. After considerable research, I found that there have been some dramatic changes. Here are a few updates:

• Hawaii: Hawaii began exploring changes to their teacher evaluation policy after being awarded a federal Race to The Top grant. While the state has had a few bumps in the road as of late, the Governor recently announced that they still plan to move forward.

• Iowa: On January 11, 2012, two bills were introduced in Iowa, HSB 517 and SSB 3009. As currently written, they seek to address several education policy changes, including reforms to professional development, probationary periods for new teachers, and new educator evaluation tools and measures. Both HSB 517 and SSB 3009 are still in committee and could look very different after working through the legislative process.

• Kansas: While Kansas policymakers have yet to take up teacher evaluation reforms, several state legislators note on their personal websites that there will discussions around educator evaluations occurring in 2012.

• Kentucky: On Friday, January 20, the Kentucky House of Representatives voted 95-0 to approve House Bill 40, which would allow the Kentucky Department of Education to implement a new educator evaluation system in 2013. The bill (like similar laws in many other states) ties teacher evaluation to student performance.

• Missouri: On January 21, 2012, the Columbiana Missourian wrote that, "Rep. Scott Dieckhaus, the chairman of the House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee, plans to file legislation, perhaps within the week, with changes to teacher tenure and evaluations."

• Nebraska: Legislative Bill 809, which contains language that would require annual teacher evaluations, was introduced on January 5, 2012 and is currently in committee. There is no mention of using student performance data in the bill at this time.

• New Jersey: The state is piloting a teacher evaluation system that looks at student scores as a part of teacher evaluation. There may be more policy changes to come pending the release of the pilot results in March.

• Pennsylvania: House Bill 1980 contains language around annual teacher evaluations and the use of student performance data as half (50%) of a teacher's overall evaluation score. The bill is still in committee.

• West Virginia: Last year, the state launched a new educator evaluation pilot program. They also decided to make student test scores worth 5 percent of a teacher's overall evaluation score. Then, in Governor Tomblin's State of the State address, he asked lawmakers to make the evaluation pilot program a part of state law. House Bill 4236 was just introduced. It requires yearly observations of teachers, and says that in addition to observation scores, a teacher's overall evaluation would be based on "student performance and peer evaluations."

The above mentioned bills are all at various points in the legislative process. But, think about if they are all signed into law, 42 states will have changed their educator evaluation policies since 2009.

Finally, I would like to mention New Mexico's work around evaluation. In 2011, the New Mexico Senate moved Senate Bill 502 through committee and passed it with a vote of 34 - 6. The bill required annual teacher and principal evaluations based on a uniform statewide evaluation rubric (called HOUSE). The bill notes that 50 percent of a teacher's final overall evaluation score would be based on value-added. I am unsure as to why the bill did not progress, but its current status is marked "API," which means Action Postponed Indefinitely.

I have yet to see action (or information surface) on evaluation policy changes in Alaska, California, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, or Vermont. But, if the national movement continues, chances are that we will see at least one of these states move to reform their educator evaluation systems in 2012. Remember, it's only January 27th.

If you have a talent management question or an idea for a blog post, feel free to send me an email or tweet me on Twitter: @EmilyDouglasHC

Posted by Emily Douglas at 11:49 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

Evaluation is by far the hottest topic in education at the moment. Every (and I mean every) conversation I have about schools with a person outside of the education community eventually circles around to how best to gauge the performance of teachers and principals. Likewise, every district talent manager or other education leader I run into wants to discuss the state educator evaluations.

Questions like, "What is a good teacher worth?", "How many times should someone be evaluated in a year?", "Should teachers have tenure?", "What types of measures should be used to look at total performance", and "Can we fire our way to Finland?" headline blogs by educators and non-educators alike. There has been so much written and points of view shared on the subject in recent months, it is difficult to keep track of it all. What I do know are facts about what has been going on across the country related to teacher evaluations.

The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) published a comprehensive report in October 2011 called, "State of the States: Trends and Early Lessons on Teacher Evaluation and Effectiveness Policies," which summarizes a great deal of research on the status of state educator evaluation policies across the country, including:

• Between 2009 and 2011, 33 states made changes to their teacher evaluation policies.

• In 2009, only 15 states required annual evaluations of ALL teachers. As of 2011, 24 states (and Washington, D.C. Public Schools) require annual reviews for all teachers.
• In 2009, only four states were in some way (definitions vary) using student performance data (value-added or other growth measures) to assess teachers' impact. As of 2011, 23 states require "objective evidence of student learning in the form of student growth and/or value-added data."
• Two states (as of October 2011) had implemented statewide evaluation systems: Louisiana and Delaware.

At the time the NCTQ's State of the States report was published, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, and West Virginia had not made policy changes related to teacher evaluation.

Tomorrow I will show you where those 17 states are at in this process now. Make sure to check back as the information is pretty amazing.

Posted by Emily Douglas at 4:28 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

Over the past three years, I've had the pleasure of working, in one way or another, with more than 42 school districts that have received a federal Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) grant. TIF grants are designed to support state level departments of education, districts, charter schools, or non-profit organizations (in partnership with a state, district, or charter) with the design, implementation, evaluation, and continuous improvement of evaluation and strategic compensation systems that identify and reward teachers or principals for developing specific skills, knowledge or abilities; holding leadership roles; exceptional performance; or for working in hard-to-staff subjects or in high-need schools.

TIF, which is managed through the office of Academic Improvement and Teacher Quality Programs at the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), was first introduced in 1996 by then-Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings to encourage the education community and others to look at teacher and principal compensation in a different way. Today, USDOE's goals for the program include:

1. Improve student achievement by increasing teacher and principal effectiveness;
2. Reform teacher and principal compensation systems so that teachers and principals are rewarded for increases in student achievement;
3. Increase the number of effective teachers teaching poor, minority, and disadvantaged students in hard-to-staff subjects; and
4. Creating sustainable performance-based compensation systems.

Three rounds of TIF grants have been distributed since 2007 through a competitive application process. TIF grants extend for five years once awarded. Round 1 awarded $99 million in 2007, and Round 2 awarded $97 million in 2008, which together provided funding for 33 projects across 109 districts in 18 states. In 2010, TIF Round 3 awarded $400 million to approximately 54 organizations across nine states.

TIF recipients in Rounds 1, 2, and 3 include Tennessee, Ohio, South Carolina, New York, South Dakota, among other states, as well as school districts, including Prince George's County Public Schools (MD), Miami-Dade County Public Schools (FL), Memphis City Schools (TN), Houston Independent School District (TX), Denver Public Schools (CO), Chicago Public Schools (IL), Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools (NC), Maricopa County (AZ), Pittsburgh Public Schools (PA), and Seattle Public Schools (WA).

TIF Round 4 was originally scheduled to begin in May 2011. However, before moving forward, US education officials decided that a review of the TIF program and past grantees was needed. This review is still ongoing. However, what is clear is that TIF has encouraged discussion and collaboration among teachers, school leaders, parents, policymakers, and other stakeholders in districts and states across the country around new ways to recognize, reward, and help educators improve their practice.

A great resource for districts interested in learning more about the program is the Center for Educator Compensation Reform (CECR). The group works to share information via their website pertaining to policy, programs, research, and districts' work around educator compensation systems.

I would also encourage education leaders interested in this grant to periodically check the USDOE's TIF website for up-to-date information about the 2012 program. I know many of the districts I work with do.

Posted by Emily Douglas at 10:11 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Last week, Ron Ashkenas wrote a piece on Harvard Business Review called, "Stop Bashing HR," in which he discusses why HR is important and how it can add value to an organization. He begins this article with several quotes from HBR readers who expressed a less than favorable view of HR in response to another blog from Brian Hults of Rubbermaid, "Why HR Really Does Add Value." Here is a sample:

"I have yet to see HR add value to any organization."

"[HR] is more often an obstacle that needs to be navigated to complete real business processes."

"The fact that the author essentially advocates turning HR into something that would be called 'strategic planning and integration' is exhibit A as to the complete uselessness of HR..."

My opinion?

These conversations make me laugh. Unfortunately, I don't think this debate over the value of HR will ever end, at least not in the near future. We have HR people (like me) fighting daily for respect, importance, and relevance, while others rely on personal experiences with incompetent and untrustworthy HR professionals to rationalize that all HR is worthless.

It's true that not all HR people are created equal. I know some that personify all those complaints. They're not easy to work with, don't listen, can't relate to their colleagues, and know very little about their organizations.

So, what makes a good HR person? For more than two decades, Dave Ulrich and Wayne Brockbank of the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan have studied what knowledge, skills, abilities, and other qualities (also known as competencies) are necessary for someone to be highly successful in the HR field. They have surveyed more than 20,000 individuals from all over the globe on what it "means to be an effective HR professional and how to build an effective HR department."

Ulrich and Brockbank came up with six competencies:

• "Strategic positioners who understand evolving business contexts, stakeholder expectations, and business requirements and translate them into talent, culture, and leadership actions."

• "Credible activists who build relationships of trust and have a clear point of view about how to build business performance."

• "Capability builders who define, audit, and create organization capabilities required for sustainable organizational success."

• "Change champions who initiate and sustain change at the individual, initiative, and institutional levels."

• "HR innovators and integrators who look for new ways to do HR practices and integrate those separate practices to deliver business solutions."

• "Technology proponents who use technology for efficiency, to connect employees, and to leverage new communication channels" (e.g., social media).

If you're a talent manager, take a moment for self reflection around Ulrich and Brockbankof's six competencies. Do you have the knowledge, experience, and know-how to be a strategic partner, activist, build capacity, invoke and sustain change, innovate, integrate, and leverage technology? If the answer is no to one or more of those, you have room for improvement.

If you're responsible for managing talent, how do you integrate the above competencies into a professional growth path? Does your HR evaluation tool measure such competencies? School districts and other organizations looking to hire an HR person should develop tools and processes to screen candidates for these qualities. It's your responsibility to not hire an HR-dud that continues the cycle of bad-HR stereotypes.

As always, please share your thoughts and experiences in the comments!

For other articles on talent management and human capital in education follow me on twitter: @EmilyDouglasHC

Posted by Emily Douglas at 11:11 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend