If the manager's good, any tool can help

Bowman: Hal, unless you follow my instructions, I shall be forced to disconnect you.

HAL: I know that you've had that on your mind for some time now, Dave, but it would be a crying shame, since I am so much more capable of carrying out this mission than you are, and I have such enthusiasm and confidence in the mission."

``2001: A Space Odyssey"

Jargon Alert (orange level): The folks in H.R. are trying to change their image again, so look for your Human Resources group to start calling itself Human Capital. Why? Maybe it's just a desperate cry for attention, but then again, it could be a corollary to Ogden Nash's principle, ``People who work sitting down get paid more than people who work standing up." In this case, it would be that people who are responsible for money make more than people who are responsible for people.

Still, I welcome the change, because thinking in terms of employees as bundles of cash might make it more difficult to give them away in layoffs.

What got me thinking about human capital was talking with a software executive who claims that he can cut the time spent on job reviews by 60 percent. OK, I know what you cynics are thinking -- that's exactly 40 percent short of ideal. And I sympathize. After all, with the best bosses, the line between the employee and management all but disappears; so doing a review is like the left hand evaluating the right hand's work. But still, 60 percent is a start.

The executive is Christopher Faust of Softscape, a company that makes software that gathers all an organization's information about employees and jobs. I asked how a computerized system could markedly reduce the time spent preparing for job interviews -- checking a box on paper and clicking a box on a screen seeming to be a time wash.

He explained that the computer-based system already has the employee's goals for the year, previous ratings, etc., and that the manager starts with all the pieces assembled. Then, when rating an employee on a specific skill -- teamwork, for example -- the computer would already have language and suggestions available. If an employee got a ``3" on a 5-point scale, the software would have suggestions on what the manager could say in the notes section of the review about his or her shortcomings and possible improvements, as well as knowing about upcoming training sessions. Thus, while the rating itself -- checking the ``3" on paper or screen -- would take the same second or two, the time to get to the rating would be speeded up, and the explanation that accompanies a less-than-perfect score would be half-done.

My first thought was that this would eventually lead to a computer doing the entire performance review. In fact, it could be programmed to be supportive and sympathetic. As HAL, the computer in Kubrick's ``2001," says: ``I can tell from the tone of your voice, Dave, that you're upset. Why don't you take a stress pill and get some rest." (Not so farfetched -- I know of call-center software that enables the computer system to monitor calls and detect stress levels of the employee, so that if an employee is about to tell off a customer, the supervisor can intervene.)

Then, just as I was about to dismiss the software as management for people who can't muster up the intellectual capital to read ``Management for Dummies," I thought of the time I saw Diane Sawyer interviewing playwright Stephen Sondheim. She asked how he'd come up with a particularly involved turn-of-phrase. He explained how he'd set up the situation, then had gone to a thesaurus to try out various options. She was flabbergasted, looking like he'd just stomped on the Easter Bunny. He chuckled at her reaction and said, ``I could spend all afternoon thinking of words or spend a few minutes with a thesaurus." She remained horrified.

That memory made me feel better about software-assisted reviews. With good managers, the more options they're given -- for language, training, or anything else -- the better they will be. With lousy managers, who cares what they say?

In that case, it's better to turn things over to a HAL anyway: ``I am so much more capable of carrying out this mission than you are, and I have such enthusiasm and confidence in the mission."

Dale Dauten is a syndicated columnist. He can be reached at dale@dauten.com.