PF guidelines

BCL-2011 Pics

BCL-2011 Pics

Add caption

  Bluesky Team-2011

 Man of the Tournament

BCL-2011 Glamorous He!!

Corporate logo

Dear Members

We are in the process of redefining our corporate logo and attached is 3 options which we would like you to vote. You need to keep in mind our Company's mission and purpose with respect to Powering Ambitions through Expertise, Execution and Innovation and which of these 3 logos connects the best. You need to give a ranking and if required a short explanation of why the identity you chose appeals to you.

Please note the tag line in each of the cases will remain the same "Powering Ambitions" Do not go with 'What it takes" or inspired by People

Since this is time bound please comment at the earliest

Regards

The Fatal Flaw with 360 Surveys

by Marcus Buckingham




I should love 360 degree surveys. I really should. After all, my research, and that of many others, reveals that the best managers and leaders are aware of their strengths and weaknesses, and have taken steps to capitalize on the formerand neutralize the latter. And the ubiquitous 360 degree survey — our reality check of last resort — can be a powerful tool for increasing this self-awareness.

And yet I still think all but a very few 360 degree surveys are, at best, a waste of everyone's time, and at worst actively damaging to both the individual and the organization. We could stop using all of them, right now, and our organizations would be the stronger for it.

My problem with 360s is not the quality of the feedback given to the leader. On the contrary, I've seen some extraordinary coaches use 360 results as the jumping off point for insightful and practical feedback sessions. Nor is my problem that most 360 feedback focuses predominantly on the gaps between what the leader thinks are his strengths and what everyone else thinks. We know from a wealth of applied psychological research that the group of people whose own self-ratings match up most closely with others' ratings are people who are clinically depressed. (The best leaders always slightly inflate their scores, a finding called "benevolent distortion.") Nor, finally, do I much care that most 360 surveys are built on a logical non-sequitur: namely that since a particulargroup of exemplary leaders possesses all the competencies measured by the 360, therefore the best individual leader is she who possesses all of them.

No, my beef with 360 surveys is more basic, more fundamental. It's the data itself. The data generated from a 360 survey is bad. It's always bad. And since the data is bad, no matter how well-intended your coaching, how insightful your feedback, how coherent your leadership model, you are likely leading your leaders astray.

What do I mean by "bad"? Well, think about the most recent 360 survey you participated in, or pull it out of the drawer if you have it handy, and look at it. Virtually all 360s are built the same way. They measure a set of competencies by breaking these competencies down into behaviors, and then various colleagues — your peers, your boss, your direct reports — rate you on these behaviors. For example, to measure the leadership competency "vision," your evaluators score a list of behavioral statements such as, "Marcus sets a clear vision for our team" and "Marcus shows how our team's work fits the vision of the entire company."

On the surface, breaking down a complex competency such as "vision" into specific behaviors, and then rating me on these behaviors makes sense. But probe a little deeper and you realize that by doing so we ruin our survey.

Why? Because your rating reveals more about you than it does about me. If you rate me high on setting a clear vision for our team, all we learn is that I am clearer on that vision than you are; if you rate me low, we learn that you are clearer only relative to me.

This applies to any question where you are rating my behavior. You rate me on 'Marcus makes decisions quickly' and your rating reveals simply whether I make decisions more quickly than you do. Rate me on "Marcus is a good listener" and we learn whether I am a better listener than you. All of these questions are akin to you rating me on height. Whether you perceive me as short or tall depends on how short or tall you are.

The bottom line is that, when it comes to rating my behavior, you are not objective. You are, in statistical parlance, unreliable. You give us bad data.

"Well, that's alright," you may say, "because I am not the only rater. There are others rating you, Marcus, and whatever objectivity I may lack is compensated for by all those others."

Again, this sounds right, but it still doesn't hold up. Each individual rater is equally unreliable. This means that each rater yields bad data. And, unfortunately, when you add together many sources of bad data, you do not get good data. You get lots of bad data.

The only way to avoid this effect is to ensure that your group of raters is a perfectly representative sample of the competencies you are trying to measure. This is what polls do. They select a sample — usually a little over 1,000 people — that is nationally representative of ages, races, regions, genders, and political affiliations. This carefully selected sample then proves to be a far more reliable measure of national opinions than a random group ten times as large.

But the raters of your 360 survey are not a sample carefully selected to represent the competencies being measured. Nor are they a random sample. Instead, your raters are a non-random group of people who happen to work with you or report to you. In statistics we call this a "skewed sample." Add up all their ratings and you do not get an accurate, objective measure of your leadership behaviors. You get gossip, quantified.

Thankfully, the solution to this problem is simple. Although you are not a reliable rater of my behavior, you are an extremely reliable rater of your own feelings and emotions. This means that, although you cannot be trusted to rate me on "Marcus sets a clear vision for my team," you can be relied upon to rate yourself on a statement such as "I know what the vision of my team is." Likewise, while your ratings of me on "Marcus is a good listener" are bad data, your ratings of you on "I feel like my opinions are heard" are good data. This is true for any statement crafted so that it is asking you to rate you on you.

So, to create a reliable 360 survey, all you need do is cut out all the statements that ask the rater to evaluate others on their behaviors, and replace them with statements that ask the rater to evaluate himself on his own feelings.

Doing this will transform your 360 survey into a tool everyone can trust. But until then, it's just blather.

Payroll Outsourcing, HR’s new mantra

Payroll outsourcing can ensure organisational effectiveness and good use of manpower 

With compensation and benefits becoming a top priority among the professionals of today, creating schemes to satisfy their varying needs is no longer a piece of cake. This has led the companies of today to look for alternative methods to make this task easier. Payroll outsourcing is such a measure that has revolutionised the management and provision of compensation to employees. It has made the process much more efficient as compared to conventional methods and a large number of companies are now opting for it because of its numerous advantages. 
Rahul Kulkarni, head HR, Kale Consultants, explains the process, "Payroll outsourcing has taken a big jump in the last few years with many large organisations embracing it. Companies are using this concept to bring in greater transparency and also spare their administration from any hassles. Payroll outsourcing basically involves an outside agency doing the work of managing the salaries of employees, its calculation, payment and disbursement, along with other related functions. Using an outsourcing service makes it possible for an organisation to manage the payroll process for their employees without the need to maintain a large payroll department or involving the in-house HR department." 
Payroll outsourcing provides the company with numerous benefits that are absent in the case of internal methods. Harinder Singh, HR & strategic head Vigneshwara Developers, highlights the advantages, "The strategy of outsourcing is to firstly identify the core activities, which are the essence of the business and turn the management's focus on these, while concurrently transferring the other activities on a recurring basis, to a service provider who specialises in them. 
The key benefits from payroll outsourcing are -
•       Cost savings for the company on outsourcing payroll processing are extremely significant and can go up to 50 per cent at times;
•       Cost reductions and cost effectiveness can be achieved;
•       Productivity is improved, as service quality provided is excellent and this frees the company from non-income generating tasks;
•       Latest technology and software for payroll processing are used;
•       Indian payroll processing service providers have a very highly specialised and expansive knowledge base in finance and accounting, which would be of help to businesses globally. 
Outsourcing of compensation management enables the staff of a company to focus more on business activities and save time and efforts. Manisha Kadagathur, head talent, AEGON Religare Life Insurance, elaborates, "Payroll is a once-a-month activity and timelines are accordingly set. Therefore, companies do not need to employ full-time resources. Through outsourcing, companies benefit by being able to deploy resources with the right skills and knowledge to focus on core HR issues like talent management, quality of hiring, etc that need attention, instead of routine tasks." 
What is the scope of the payroll outsourcing industry in future India? Devendra Singh Chauhan, VP HR, BS Transcomm Ltd., answers, "From a foundational role to a more strategic one, the potential and scope for payroll outsourcing is huge. From web-based technology, data maintenance services, tax management, reimbursements and payslips to operating model definition, job evaluation, survey management, compensation benchmarking, best practices research and trending, compensation effectiveness, incentive plan design and communication, this industry has a lot to explore and offer in India." 
Thus, payroll outsourcing can truly enable companies to use their resources and manpower in a much better manner and increase their productivity as well as efficiency. 

Favouritism still an issue in the workplace

09 Sep 2011

Managers agree that favouritism is a big factor in deciding who gets promoted although not many will admit to being biased in any way.

A survey by Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and research firm Penn Schoen Berland, found 84% of business leaders admitting to favouritism at their workplace. However, only 23% acknowledged practicing it themselves. A mere nine percent said it was a determining factor in their last promotion.

This figure of nine percent was higher than what the author of the study had expected. "No one at this level of executive was going to admit it blatantly," Jonathan Gardner said.

Although three-quarters of survey respondents said that there are procedures in place to ensure fairness in the workplace, there are other subjective criteria such as whether the candidate “fits” into the corporate culture which make the lack of prejudice highly questionable.

Productivity and morale can suffer because of favouritism. "They're now playing office politics instead of focusing on organisational objectives," Lamar Reinsch, a management professor at McDonough and Gardner’s advisor on the paper, was quoted as saying in the Wall Street Journal.