Saturday, June 30, 2012
What About the Future?
Most CLOs I talk with are so busy taking care of today's business that they spend little time preparing for the future. Short-term thinking is good to respond to incremental change, but deciding things one step at a time doesn't prepare you to thrive in a world of systemic, wholesale change. You can't leap a chasm in small jumps.
To get beyond immediate concerns, you have to make the future tangible. Examining scenarios - stories about alternative futures - makes the future imaginable and real.
Royal Dutch Shell, the fifth largest company in the world and a long-term player - it is more than 100 years old - has been learning from scenarios for 40 years. At Online Educa Berlin in late 2011, Shell's innovation manager for global learning technologies Hans de Zwart and manager of learning strategy and innovation Willem Manders led a scenario planning process to address these issues:
1. How do different global and national trends shape the future of corporate learning?
2. What opportunities and challenges does this create for corporate learning organizations?
3. How do those insights help to make better decisions around current learning challenges faced by the organizations involved in the exercise?
To answer questions like these, you have to escape your current mindset. In Berlin, de Zwart and Manders led us in an exercise where we came up with these key drivers:
1. Ten years out, how might work be organized? On the one hand, it might be structured, regulated and managed. On the other, work could be flexible, individual and enabled.
2. In the same timeframe, how will work be done? Will it be relationship-driven or data-driven?
The drivers yield four scenarios: Old-boy network - structured and relationship-driven; in crowd - flexible and relationship-driven; big data - structured and data-driven; and quantified self - flexible and data-driven.
These scenarios are neither forecasts nor projections. They do not predict what's to come. Rather, they provide alternative views of the future.
Think about how you'd prepare for futures like these; I'll append a few thoughts to get you started.
1. Old-boy network:
his is a world of clear expectations and roles, organization-driven development, structural talent management, competency mapping, subject matter expert-focused, authoritative knowledge, planned innovation, business cases, calculated risks, planned careers and large structured curricula.
Many old-school companies think this is where they live. They have big plans but don't want to throw away their LMS. Can this methodology work in an increasingly fast-paced world?
2. In crowd:
This is a community of practice that focuses on hyper connectivity inside community, low connectivity outside community, interest/passion-driven strategies, many repositories of content and a wide variation of roles. Development in this scenario is peer driven, self directed and focused on personal networks and professional connections. Community is a curator, personal value aligned, and subject matter experts emerge from community.
This is social business. Informal learning thrives here, and the motto is to make your social networks thrive and get your mobile learning strategy together.
3. Big data:
This scenario is gathered toward the data-driven organization with outsourcing/franchise models, high volume, high variety in personalized information and structural competence visualization.
You have to choose the right data to act on. Customers are creating the data; this setup can make companies more agile responding to change.
4. Quantified self:
n this scenario the individual is in control, and competence development occurs through automated feedback, high talent mobility and self compliance.
Some people predict the end of jobs and corporations as we know them. Might this be where we end up? It could be chaotic. We'll need more engaging learning resources than ever before to keep people's attention. It's time to get those learning games online.
Among other things, this exercise taught me to rip my blinders off. I've been such a cheerleader for one of the scenarios that I'd slighted the rest.
By Jay Cross - CEO of Internet Time Group
To get beyond immediate concerns, you have to make the future tangible. Examining scenarios - stories about alternative futures - makes the future imaginable and real.
Royal Dutch Shell, the fifth largest company in the world and a long-term player - it is more than 100 years old - has been learning from scenarios for 40 years. At Online Educa Berlin in late 2011, Shell's innovation manager for global learning technologies Hans de Zwart and manager of learning strategy and innovation Willem Manders led a scenario planning process to address these issues:
1. How do different global and national trends shape the future of corporate learning?
2. What opportunities and challenges does this create for corporate learning organizations?
3. How do those insights help to make better decisions around current learning challenges faced by the organizations involved in the exercise?
To answer questions like these, you have to escape your current mindset. In Berlin, de Zwart and Manders led us in an exercise where we came up with these key drivers:
1. Ten years out, how might work be organized? On the one hand, it might be structured, regulated and managed. On the other, work could be flexible, individual and enabled.
2. In the same timeframe, how will work be done? Will it be relationship-driven or data-driven?
The drivers yield four scenarios: Old-boy network - structured and relationship-driven; in crowd - flexible and relationship-driven; big data - structured and data-driven; and quantified self - flexible and data-driven.
These scenarios are neither forecasts nor projections. They do not predict what's to come. Rather, they provide alternative views of the future.
Think about how you'd prepare for futures like these; I'll append a few thoughts to get you started.
1. Old-boy network:
his is a world of clear expectations and roles, organization-driven development, structural talent management, competency mapping, subject matter expert-focused, authoritative knowledge, planned innovation, business cases, calculated risks, planned careers and large structured curricula.
Many old-school companies think this is where they live. They have big plans but don't want to throw away their LMS. Can this methodology work in an increasingly fast-paced world?
2. In crowd:
This is a community of practice that focuses on hyper connectivity inside community, low connectivity outside community, interest/passion-driven strategies, many repositories of content and a wide variation of roles. Development in this scenario is peer driven, self directed and focused on personal networks and professional connections. Community is a curator, personal value aligned, and subject matter experts emerge from community.
This is social business. Informal learning thrives here, and the motto is to make your social networks thrive and get your mobile learning strategy together.
3. Big data:
This scenario is gathered toward the data-driven organization with outsourcing/franchise models, high volume, high variety in personalized information and structural competence visualization.
You have to choose the right data to act on. Customers are creating the data; this setup can make companies more agile responding to change.
4. Quantified self:
n this scenario the individual is in control, and competence development occurs through automated feedback, high talent mobility and self compliance.
Some people predict the end of jobs and corporations as we know them. Might this be where we end up? It could be chaotic. We'll need more engaging learning resources than ever before to keep people's attention. It's time to get those learning games online.
Among other things, this exercise taught me to rip my blinders off. I've been such a cheerleader for one of the scenarios that I'd slighted the rest.
By Jay Cross - CEO of Internet Time Group
Don't Let Employees Reach Their Boiling Point
Yelling, abuse and disrespect - these behaviors are becoming more commonplace in the work environment, contributing to a culture of incivility, which may lead to decreased engagement and high turnover rates.
Thirty-eight percent of American workers say the workplace has become more uncivil and disrespectful compared to a few years ago, according to a June 2011 study by KRC Research titled "Civility in America."
"There's a real psychological depression out there that is impacting how people are responding to each other," said Jeff Cohen, executive coaching expert and founder of J M Cohen Associates. Discouragement and desperation that emerged as a byproduct of the unstable business environment combined with new trends in social interaction appear to be taking a toll on corporate communication.
Stress and unhappiness - much of it pertaining to the economy - are uncommonly high amongst workers today, and it is beginning to affect employee culture. "People are becoming more fearful for their jobs, even panicky, and when things go awry they do one of two things: They pull into their shell or they start lashing out at other folks," Cohen said.
Technology may also be partly to blame for the deteriorating state of communication today. Meg Clara, director of recruiting and human resources at Caiman Consulting, criticized the disruptiveness of electronic communication such as texts and emails in forming personal and professional relationships. By conducting conversations through devices, workers lose out on person-to-person interaction and the etiquette that goes with it.
As a society we are forgetting the importance of looking each other in the eye when we speak, and old-fashioned courtesy has all but become a thing of the past. This trend is resulting not just in more frequent occurrences of disrespect, yelling, underhandedness and abuse in the workplace, but also decreased productivity and higher turnover.
In January, Harvard Business Review reported that half of employees who encountered instances of incivility at work intentionally decreased their efforts. The article also showed more than a third of them decreased the quality of their work.
Competent workers who have suffered abuse or disrespect in the workplace don't feel the need to stick around, Cohen said.
Since employee engagement, performance and retention are at stake, talent managers ought to consider the following tips to defuse the situation lest things get out of hand.
1. Introduce consequences.
Disrespect amongst employees and even employers is often overlooked and typically goes unpunished. Treating incivility with aggressive discipline similar to the way sexual harassment is addressed will help workers realize that it is unacceptable, Cohen said.
2. Use training to change behavior.
"People need to realize that they are acting in an offensive way ... they feel very disconnected from their jobs; they feel anonymous, they become passive, and when things go off kilter they respond without thinking," Cohen said. When workers encounter high-tension situations, they may act in ways they've never acted before. Training, including workshops and one-on-one counseling sessions with executives, can go a long way toward creating behavioral change.
3. Preventing is better than curing.
Clara said Caiman Consulting deals with incivility by rooting it out from the start. The company's core value of courtesy plays a big role in deciding who gets a place in its ranks. In the same way, employers should consider their culture and values as early as the hiring stage.
The revival of courtesy in the workplace is still in its early stages, but it may go a long way to building a more engaged and productive workforce.
By Mohini Kundu - Editorial intern at Talent Management magazine
Thirty-eight percent of American workers say the workplace has become more uncivil and disrespectful compared to a few years ago, according to a June 2011 study by KRC Research titled "Civility in America."
"There's a real psychological depression out there that is impacting how people are responding to each other," said Jeff Cohen, executive coaching expert and founder of J M Cohen Associates. Discouragement and desperation that emerged as a byproduct of the unstable business environment combined with new trends in social interaction appear to be taking a toll on corporate communication.
Stress and unhappiness - much of it pertaining to the economy - are uncommonly high amongst workers today, and it is beginning to affect employee culture. "People are becoming more fearful for their jobs, even panicky, and when things go awry they do one of two things: They pull into their shell or they start lashing out at other folks," Cohen said.
Technology may also be partly to blame for the deteriorating state of communication today. Meg Clara, director of recruiting and human resources at Caiman Consulting, criticized the disruptiveness of electronic communication such as texts and emails in forming personal and professional relationships. By conducting conversations through devices, workers lose out on person-to-person interaction and the etiquette that goes with it.
As a society we are forgetting the importance of looking each other in the eye when we speak, and old-fashioned courtesy has all but become a thing of the past. This trend is resulting not just in more frequent occurrences of disrespect, yelling, underhandedness and abuse in the workplace, but also decreased productivity and higher turnover.
In January, Harvard Business Review reported that half of employees who encountered instances of incivility at work intentionally decreased their efforts. The article also showed more than a third of them decreased the quality of their work.
Competent workers who have suffered abuse or disrespect in the workplace don't feel the need to stick around, Cohen said.
Since employee engagement, performance and retention are at stake, talent managers ought to consider the following tips to defuse the situation lest things get out of hand.
1. Introduce consequences.
Disrespect amongst employees and even employers is often overlooked and typically goes unpunished. Treating incivility with aggressive discipline similar to the way sexual harassment is addressed will help workers realize that it is unacceptable, Cohen said.
2. Use training to change behavior.
"People need to realize that they are acting in an offensive way ... they feel very disconnected from their jobs; they feel anonymous, they become passive, and when things go off kilter they respond without thinking," Cohen said. When workers encounter high-tension situations, they may act in ways they've never acted before. Training, including workshops and one-on-one counseling sessions with executives, can go a long way toward creating behavioral change.
3. Preventing is better than curing.
Clara said Caiman Consulting deals with incivility by rooting it out from the start. The company's core value of courtesy plays a big role in deciding who gets a place in its ranks. In the same way, employers should consider their culture and values as early as the hiring stage.
The revival of courtesy in the workplace is still in its early stages, but it may go a long way to building a more engaged and productive workforce.
By Mohini Kundu - Editorial intern at Talent Management magazine
Friday, June 29, 2012
Driving agility - HR’s role in enabling change
By implication, HR has an absolutely vital role to play in helping organisations to tackle changing circumstances and ensure they are ‘fit to change’. Let’s look at each in turn.
Strong leadership
Ensuring a business is agile enough to respond to constant change isn’t just about strong leadership at a given point in time; it’s about future leadership too.
Strong leadership
Ensuring a business is agile enough to respond to constant change isn’t just about strong leadership at a given point in time; it’s about future leadership too.
HR has a role to play in identifying and nurturing tomorrow’s leaders, ensuring they build the right skills through good followership and engagement across the business to help them successfully navigate a changing world. They will need support, and at Fujitsu, we offer this through a dedicated Head of Talent Management who is responsible for providing opportunities for employees with leadership potential to work directly with the current executive leadership team on special projects.
By the same token, today’s leaders must engage with everyone in the organisation to ensure they understand the reason behind organisational changes required to help the business keep pace with external demands.
The right organisational culture
Similarly, people must understand the reasons for change and be given a mandate to help effect that change. We’ve adopted ‘lean’ principles within Fujitsu, which are founded on a bottom-up approach, whereby the people actually doing a job will take responsibility for making small changes to beneficially impact the business. People don't have to ask permission to introduce improvement; changes are implemented and judged on their effects, rather than changes being proposed and assessed for their possible impact. People are therefore trusted to evolve the business in real time.
A good example of this working in real-life is on our HR helpdesk at Fujitsu. With over 11,000 employees, the department deals with an average of per day. Instead of having to field those calls around the team for a resolution as we have done in the past, we now provide front-line support on most queries, meaning 90% of them are resolved within 24 hours.
The capacity to change
If you are going to be able to respond to external changes, you have to get your own house in order first. For the HR department, this means ensuring the team structure is flexible and can adapt and respond.
I realised my own department wasn’t equipped to cope with market and customer demands last year, and recognised I needed to fix our cost base; the structure of the HR department; how we captured and shared knowledge between us; and, most importantly, how we could develop better opportunities for career progression.
To transform the department to address all of these issues, I knew I had to have the whole department behind me. I personally ran a series of roundtable discussions and focus groups with the whole team so that they understood the need for change and were involved in it right from the very start.
The right people
Having the right employees in suitable roles is a vital component of business agility. It is the HR function’s responsibility to ensure the right people are deployed doing the right things; and to understand that what is ‘right’ changes over time.
It’s vital therefore that the HR function looks inside the organisation in order to identify the right people, but also outside of the organisation to understand what is required from them based on changing demands. It helps if you can make decisions locally. Too many companies, especially in the technology sector, are forced to refer strategic decisions to executive teams on a different continent. We’re lucky at Fujitsu that our colleagues in Tokyo place their trust in us to make local decisions. That enables us to react quickly and equip our people to adapt to the changing needs of the whole business.
Conclusion
As the HR function within an organisation becomes more strategic, CEOs across the private and public sector will be looking to their HR heads to enable agility and rapid change in response to market needs. Undoubtedly, people are a company’s best asset and as organisations fight to remain competitive and relevant, it is that very asset that will make those things happen. A business that is fit to change has to shift focus quickly and it has to shift as one unit.
Similarly it needs to know when not to respond to change: when to stay true to the long-term vision – a vision that has to be understood from the boardroom to the mailroom. If this is not at the top of the HR agenda, any attempt to stay ahead in the race to keep up with change will stumble at the first hurdle.
By
Ella Bennett, HR Director at Fujitsu UK & Ireland Don't Just Crunch the Numbers on Talent
Statistical analysis for talent management is the latest hot topic. Everyone seems to want to play, and many don't know what they are talking about.
University HR programs are pushing this. Conference companies are rushing to market with offerings. Journals are carrying more than one article per issue on it. Of course, consultants who didn't know how to spell it two years ago are suddenly leading sources for analytic methods.
Nevertheless, this is good news. Research has proven that path analysis techniques - including any form of multiple regression analysis, factor analysis, correlation analysis, discriminant analysis, or multivariate and covariance analyses - are powerful tools for finding root causes as well as predicting future value from current investments.
For years managers believed their experience was better than that of a bunch of number crunchers. Today, most managers accept that their estimations are seldom as accurate as a statistical analysis.
In case you have been on the moon or living in a biosphere for the past year, "quants" stands for quantitatively oriented people and programs. Quantitative or statistical analysis is not the same as strategic analysis, however. Statistics deals with numbers. Strategic deals with thought. Many people start by gathering some numbers they hope are related to an issue and then run some quant exercise to be sure at the end of the process they will have an objective result.
The potential problem is that their output is only partially relevant to the real issue. The amusing thing is they go along believing they really understand what is happening. Because they have not gotten to the root of the real problem, soon thereafter they have to run a do-over.
That premature number obsession is part of the "what should we measure" syndrome. If you are doing an after-the-fact evaluation of a previous intervention, that is a good question. But if you are talking about analysis prior to making the investment, the requirement is much different.
Analysis does not start with numbers. It starts with thinking and asking questions. It starts at the strategic level looking for the macro forces that affect the way you manage talent today, and more importantly, how you will manage it tomorrow. It is about constructing and understanding the context within which you now operate and will operate for the neat future.
Case in point, a prospective client wanted to evaluate the ROI of HR services. As we talked, it was clear the company had not spent much, if any, time consciously aiming its services specifically at the corporate KPIs. Most say they do, but few companies can show direct connections.
Given that gap, what difference would it make which numbers we come up with? I had to take executives back to the beginning and ask questions such as:
a) What are the major initiatives of your company now and into the near future?
b) What outside forces impact your company?
c) What is happening inside your company that is helping or hindering accomplishment of objectives?
Once we got clear on those types of strategic issues, the rest of the analysis went quickly. Going forward the company was able to design, predict, invest and evaluate all in one system.
Quantitative analysis is much easier than strategic or predictive analysis. Clarity is the first step. To hand a sharp strategic analysis picture to a quant, you will have to answer the aforementioned questions and several more like them. Then the quant can apply the appropriate path analysis technique to either predict a future outcome or evaluate a recent investment return. Measuring is much easier than determining what to measure.
If there is a trick to strategic analysis, it is to forget for the moment that you work in HR. Make believe you are a top executive in your company.
What problems and opportunities are your peers dealing with around marketing, sales, finance, production, customer demands and competition? Your services have to support those business issues. Once you see the connections, you can start down the path to identifying the things the quants should be evaluating.
By Jac Fitz-enz founder and CEO of the Human Capital Source and Workforce Intelligence Institute
University HR programs are pushing this. Conference companies are rushing to market with offerings. Journals are carrying more than one article per issue on it. Of course, consultants who didn't know how to spell it two years ago are suddenly leading sources for analytic methods.
Nevertheless, this is good news. Research has proven that path analysis techniques - including any form of multiple regression analysis, factor analysis, correlation analysis, discriminant analysis, or multivariate and covariance analyses - are powerful tools for finding root causes as well as predicting future value from current investments.
For years managers believed their experience was better than that of a bunch of number crunchers. Today, most managers accept that their estimations are seldom as accurate as a statistical analysis.
In case you have been on the moon or living in a biosphere for the past year, "quants" stands for quantitatively oriented people and programs. Quantitative or statistical analysis is not the same as strategic analysis, however. Statistics deals with numbers. Strategic deals with thought. Many people start by gathering some numbers they hope are related to an issue and then run some quant exercise to be sure at the end of the process they will have an objective result.
The potential problem is that their output is only partially relevant to the real issue. The amusing thing is they go along believing they really understand what is happening. Because they have not gotten to the root of the real problem, soon thereafter they have to run a do-over.
That premature number obsession is part of the "what should we measure" syndrome. If you are doing an after-the-fact evaluation of a previous intervention, that is a good question. But if you are talking about analysis prior to making the investment, the requirement is much different.
Analysis does not start with numbers. It starts with thinking and asking questions. It starts at the strategic level looking for the macro forces that affect the way you manage talent today, and more importantly, how you will manage it tomorrow. It is about constructing and understanding the context within which you now operate and will operate for the neat future.
Case in point, a prospective client wanted to evaluate the ROI of HR services. As we talked, it was clear the company had not spent much, if any, time consciously aiming its services specifically at the corporate KPIs. Most say they do, but few companies can show direct connections.
Given that gap, what difference would it make which numbers we come up with? I had to take executives back to the beginning and ask questions such as:
a) What are the major initiatives of your company now and into the near future?
b) What outside forces impact your company?
c) What is happening inside your company that is helping or hindering accomplishment of objectives?
Once we got clear on those types of strategic issues, the rest of the analysis went quickly. Going forward the company was able to design, predict, invest and evaluate all in one system.
Quantitative analysis is much easier than strategic or predictive analysis. Clarity is the first step. To hand a sharp strategic analysis picture to a quant, you will have to answer the aforementioned questions and several more like them. Then the quant can apply the appropriate path analysis technique to either predict a future outcome or evaluate a recent investment return. Measuring is much easier than determining what to measure.
If there is a trick to strategic analysis, it is to forget for the moment that you work in HR. Make believe you are a top executive in your company.
What problems and opportunities are your peers dealing with around marketing, sales, finance, production, customer demands and competition? Your services have to support those business issues. Once you see the connections, you can start down the path to identifying the things the quants should be evaluating.
By Jac Fitz-enz founder and CEO of the Human Capital Source and Workforce Intelligence Institute
Don't Just Crunch the Numbers on Talent
Statistical analysis for talent management is the latest hot topic. Everyone seems to want to play, and many don't know what they are talking about.
University HR programs are pushing this. Conference companies are rushing to market with offerings. Journals are carrying more than one article per issue on it. Of course, consultants who didn't know how to spell it two years ago are suddenly leading sources for analytic methods.
Nevertheless, this is good news. Research has proven that path analysis techniques - including any form of multiple regression analysis, factor analysis, correlation analysis, discriminant analysis, or multivariate and covariance analyses - are powerful tools for finding root causes as well as predicting future value from current investments.
For years managers believed their experience was better than that of a bunch of number crunchers. Today, most managers accept that their estimations are seldom as accurate as a statistical analysis.
In case you have been on the moon or living in a biosphere for the past year, "quants" stands for quantitatively oriented people and programs. Quantitative or statistical analysis is not the same as strategic analysis, however. Statistics deals with numbers. Strategic deals with thought. Many people start by gathering some numbers they hope are related to an issue and then run some quant exercise to be sure at the end of the process they will have an objective result.
The potential problem is that their output is only partially relevant to the real issue. The amusing thing is they go along believing they really understand what is happening. Because they have not gotten to the root of the real problem, soon thereafter they have to run a do-over.
That premature number obsession is part of the "what should we measure" syndrome. If you are doing an after-the-fact evaluation of a previous intervention, that is a good question. But if you are talking about analysis prior to making the investment, the requirement is much different.
Analysis does not start with numbers. It starts with thinking and asking questions. It starts at the strategic level looking for the macro forces that affect the way you manage talent today, and more importantly, how you will manage it tomorrow. It is about constructing and understanding the context within which you now operate and will operate for the neat future.
Case in point, a prospective client wanted to evaluate the ROI of HR services. As we talked, it was clear the company had not spent much, if any, time consciously aiming its services specifically at the corporate KPIs. Most say they do, but few companies can show direct connections.
Given that gap, what difference would it make which numbers we come up with? I had to take executives back to the beginning and ask questions such as:
a) What are the major initiatives of your company now and into the near future?
b) What outside forces impact your company?
c) What is happening inside your company that is helping or hindering accomplishment of objectives?
Once we got clear on those types of strategic issues, the rest of the analysis went quickly. Going forward the company was able to design, predict, invest and evaluate all in one system.
Quantitative analysis is much easier than strategic or predictive analysis. Clarity is the first step. To hand a sharp strategic analysis picture to a quant, you will have to answer the aforementioned questions and several more like them. Then the quant can apply the appropriate path analysis technique to either predict a future outcome or evaluate a recent investment return. Measuring is much easier than determining what to measure.
If there is a trick to strategic analysis, it is to forget for the moment that you work in HR. Make believe you are a top executive in your company.
What problems and opportunities are your peers dealing with around marketing, sales, finance, production, customer demands and competition? Your services have to support those business issues. Once you see the connections, you can start down the path to identifying the things the quants should be evaluating.
By Jac Fitz-enz- founder and CEO of the Human Capital Source and Workforce Intelligence Institute.
University HR programs are pushing this. Conference companies are rushing to market with offerings. Journals are carrying more than one article per issue on it. Of course, consultants who didn't know how to spell it two years ago are suddenly leading sources for analytic methods.
Nevertheless, this is good news. Research has proven that path analysis techniques - including any form of multiple regression analysis, factor analysis, correlation analysis, discriminant analysis, or multivariate and covariance analyses - are powerful tools for finding root causes as well as predicting future value from current investments.
For years managers believed their experience was better than that of a bunch of number crunchers. Today, most managers accept that their estimations are seldom as accurate as a statistical analysis.
In case you have been on the moon or living in a biosphere for the past year, "quants" stands for quantitatively oriented people and programs. Quantitative or statistical analysis is not the same as strategic analysis, however. Statistics deals with numbers. Strategic deals with thought. Many people start by gathering some numbers they hope are related to an issue and then run some quant exercise to be sure at the end of the process they will have an objective result.
The potential problem is that their output is only partially relevant to the real issue. The amusing thing is they go along believing they really understand what is happening. Because they have not gotten to the root of the real problem, soon thereafter they have to run a do-over.
That premature number obsession is part of the "what should we measure" syndrome. If you are doing an after-the-fact evaluation of a previous intervention, that is a good question. But if you are talking about analysis prior to making the investment, the requirement is much different.
Analysis does not start with numbers. It starts with thinking and asking questions. It starts at the strategic level looking for the macro forces that affect the way you manage talent today, and more importantly, how you will manage it tomorrow. It is about constructing and understanding the context within which you now operate and will operate for the neat future.
Case in point, a prospective client wanted to evaluate the ROI of HR services. As we talked, it was clear the company had not spent much, if any, time consciously aiming its services specifically at the corporate KPIs. Most say they do, but few companies can show direct connections.
Given that gap, what difference would it make which numbers we come up with? I had to take executives back to the beginning and ask questions such as:
a) What are the major initiatives of your company now and into the near future?
b) What outside forces impact your company?
c) What is happening inside your company that is helping or hindering accomplishment of objectives?
Once we got clear on those types of strategic issues, the rest of the analysis went quickly. Going forward the company was able to design, predict, invest and evaluate all in one system.
Quantitative analysis is much easier than strategic or predictive analysis. Clarity is the first step. To hand a sharp strategic analysis picture to a quant, you will have to answer the aforementioned questions and several more like them. Then the quant can apply the appropriate path analysis technique to either predict a future outcome or evaluate a recent investment return. Measuring is much easier than determining what to measure.
If there is a trick to strategic analysis, it is to forget for the moment that you work in HR. Make believe you are a top executive in your company.
What problems and opportunities are your peers dealing with around marketing, sales, finance, production, customer demands and competition? Your services have to support those business issues. Once you see the connections, you can start down the path to identifying the things the quants should be evaluating.
By Jac Fitz-enz- founder and CEO of the Human Capital Source and Workforce Intelligence Institute.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
How to Navigate the Generational Shift in the Corporate Landscape
It's easy to forget that the Computer Era began not with Gen X and Y but with baby boomers. It was the generation born right after World War II and into the 1950s that created the PC and the Mac, desktop publishing and the World Wide Web. Now the boomer generation is retiring en masse, passing this infrastructure, and the jobs that go with it, along to children and grandchildren who continue to build on the digital world's technology base.
The transition is not easy. Many a 25-year-old company is operated by boomers schooled in a scheduled world; working in the office from 9 to 5, news at 6 and 11, hourly rates and sign-up times for conference rooms. Now these managers are finding they must work with an influx of millennial employees who don't even wear a wristwatch. Corporate cultures are being reconfigured like the landscape of a tremor-ridden island.
For millennials, the clock is a decoration. They consistently use the same digital tools all day long and prefer to work whenever they are most productive. They bring their own devices to work and use them there and at home, rather than switching to the company's technology during the day. That is creating a security headache for many IT departments.
Millennials meet via text, instant messaging or Skype. Social networks have furnished an outlet for a generation that disregards privacy and is eager to share everything from their dinner to the winning proposal they have presented to a new client. Communication never stops for millennials - it's like air, always there, always on, always essential.
All of these traits, it turns out, are essential for businesses that operate on a global scale, which affects all generations. Gen Y employees are comfortable working with colleagues in different geographies and thrive on instantaneous communication. In the end, businesses are confronted with two crucial questions: How can we attract this new generation of technology-driven workers to our company? And how can we adapt our culture to retain them?
First, businesses will need to focus more time and energy on measuring the degree to which employees are engaged in the company, its offerings and values. Engaged employees translate to better customer service, product innovation and productivity. By measuring engagement - and determining how the organization can improve upon engagement - managers can ensure that each employee understands his or her value to the broad goals of the company and drive them toward those goals as a technological and cultural challenge.
Second, managers must understand that Gen Y workers are motivated differently from generations of the past. For hiring and retention, it's important to advance the corporate culture in a way that allows for effective communication and new types of motivations.
Employees might be encouraged to bring their own devices to work. They might be given free rein to post to Facebook and Twitter and use those networks for global collaboration. The company might reward risk-taking rather than safety. It might treat its office as a gathering place, rather than only a workplace, to enable employees to work wherever they want and view the office in the casually collaborative way they view a coffeehouse or college union.
That's not to say that accountability must be discarded, but the way accountability is measured may need to change, a third consideration. Perfect attendance may need to be valued less than perfect projects. Revenue generation may need to be measured by the dollars generated from digital prowess rather than hours filled on a timesheet.
Most important is the necessity to realize that the world has changed. Millennials are more likely to watch a video demo on their smartphone than a television program on a monitor, more inclined to wear ear buds than lapel pins, and more likely to change the way an organization does business than managers currently realize.
By John Tobin - National general manager for Slalom Consulting
The transition is not easy. Many a 25-year-old company is operated by boomers schooled in a scheduled world; working in the office from 9 to 5, news at 6 and 11, hourly rates and sign-up times for conference rooms. Now these managers are finding they must work with an influx of millennial employees who don't even wear a wristwatch. Corporate cultures are being reconfigured like the landscape of a tremor-ridden island.
For millennials, the clock is a decoration. They consistently use the same digital tools all day long and prefer to work whenever they are most productive. They bring their own devices to work and use them there and at home, rather than switching to the company's technology during the day. That is creating a security headache for many IT departments.
Millennials meet via text, instant messaging or Skype. Social networks have furnished an outlet for a generation that disregards privacy and is eager to share everything from their dinner to the winning proposal they have presented to a new client. Communication never stops for millennials - it's like air, always there, always on, always essential.
All of these traits, it turns out, are essential for businesses that operate on a global scale, which affects all generations. Gen Y employees are comfortable working with colleagues in different geographies and thrive on instantaneous communication. In the end, businesses are confronted with two crucial questions: How can we attract this new generation of technology-driven workers to our company? And how can we adapt our culture to retain them?
First, businesses will need to focus more time and energy on measuring the degree to which employees are engaged in the company, its offerings and values. Engaged employees translate to better customer service, product innovation and productivity. By measuring engagement - and determining how the organization can improve upon engagement - managers can ensure that each employee understands his or her value to the broad goals of the company and drive them toward those goals as a technological and cultural challenge.
Second, managers must understand that Gen Y workers are motivated differently from generations of the past. For hiring and retention, it's important to advance the corporate culture in a way that allows for effective communication and new types of motivations.
Employees might be encouraged to bring their own devices to work. They might be given free rein to post to Facebook and Twitter and use those networks for global collaboration. The company might reward risk-taking rather than safety. It might treat its office as a gathering place, rather than only a workplace, to enable employees to work wherever they want and view the office in the casually collaborative way they view a coffeehouse or college union.
That's not to say that accountability must be discarded, but the way accountability is measured may need to change, a third consideration. Perfect attendance may need to be valued less than perfect projects. Revenue generation may need to be measured by the dollars generated from digital prowess rather than hours filled on a timesheet.
Most important is the necessity to realize that the world has changed. Millennials are more likely to watch a video demo on their smartphone than a television program on a monitor, more inclined to wear ear buds than lapel pins, and more likely to change the way an organization does business than managers currently realize.
By John Tobin - National general manager for Slalom Consulting
Monday, June 25, 2012
The Empty Soap Box
One of the most memorable case studies on Japanese management was the case of the empty soap box, which happened in one of Japan's biggest cosmetics companies. The company received a complaint that a consumer had bought a soap box that was empty.
Immediately the authorities isolated the problem to the assembly line, which transported all the packaged boxes of soap to the delivery department. For some reason, one soap box went through the assembly line empty.
Management asked its engineers to solve the problem. Post-haste, the engineers worked hard to devise an X-ray machine with high- resolution monitors manned by two people to watch all the soap boxes that passed through the line to make sure they were not empty.
No doubt, they worked hard and they worked fast but they spent whoopee amount to do so. But when a workman was posed with the same problem, did not get into complications of X-rays, etc but instead came out with another solution.
He bought a strong industrial electric fan and pointed it at the assembly line. He switched the fan on, and as each soap box passed the fan, it simply blew the empty boxes out of the line.
Moral of the story: Always look for simple solutions. Devise the simplest possible solution that solves the problem. So, learn to focus on solutions not on problems.
"If you look at what you do not have in life, you don't have anything; if you look at what you have in life, you have everything."
Immediately the authorities isolated the problem to the assembly line, which transported all the packaged boxes of soap to the delivery department. For some reason, one soap box went through the assembly line empty.
Management asked its engineers to solve the problem. Post-haste, the engineers worked hard to devise an X-ray machine with high- resolution monitors manned by two people to watch all the soap boxes that passed through the line to make sure they were not empty.
No doubt, they worked hard and they worked fast but they spent whoopee amount to do so. But when a workman was posed with the same problem, did not get into complications of X-rays, etc but instead came out with another solution.
He bought a strong industrial electric fan and pointed it at the assembly line. He switched the fan on, and as each soap box passed the fan, it simply blew the empty boxes out of the line.
Moral of the story: Always look for simple solutions. Devise the simplest possible solution that solves the problem. So, learn to focus on solutions not on problems.
"If you look at what you do not have in life, you don't have anything; if you look at what you have in life, you have everything."
Don't Let Employees Reach Their Boiling Point
Yelling, abuse and disrespect - these behaviors are becoming more commonplace in the work environment, contributing to a culture of incivility, which may lead to decreased engagement and high turnover rates.
Thirty-eight percent of American workers say the workplace has become more uncivil and disrespectful compared to a few years ago, according to a June 2011 study by KRC Research titled "Civility in America."
"There's a real psychological depression out there that is impacting how people are responding to each other," said Jeff Cohen, executive coaching expert and founder of J M Cohen Associates. Discouragement and desperation that emerged as a byproduct of the unstable business environment combined with new trends in social interaction appear to be taking a toll on corporate communication.
Stress and unhappiness - much of it pertaining to the economy - are uncommonly high amongst workers today, and it is beginning to affect employee culture. "People are becoming more fearful for their jobs, even panicky, and when things go awry they do one of two things: They pull into their shell or they start lashing out at other folks," Cohen said.
Technology may also be partly to blame for the deteriorating state of communication today. Meg Clara, director of recruiting and human resources at Caiman Consulting, criticized the disruptiveness of electronic communication such as texts and emails in forming personal and professional relationships. By conducting conversations through devices, workers lose out on person-to-person interaction and the etiquette that goes with it.
As a society we are forgetting the importance of looking each other in the eye when we speak, and old-fashioned courtesy has all but become a thing of the past. This trend is resulting not just in more frequent occurrences of disrespect, yelling, underhandedness and abuse in the workplace, but also decreased productivity and higher turnover.
In January, Harvard Business Review reported that half of employees who encountered instances of incivility at work intentionally decreased their efforts. The article also showed more than a third of them decreased the quality of their work.
Competent workers who have suffered abuse or disrespect in the workplace don't feel the need to stick around, Cohen said.
Since employee engagement, performance and retention are at stake, talent managers ought to consider the following tips to defuse the situation lest things get out of hand.
1. Introduce consequences.
Disrespect amongst employees and even employers is often overlooked and typically goes unpunished. Treating incivility with aggressive discipline similar to the way sexual harassment is addressed will help workers realize that it is unacceptable, Cohen said.
2. Use training to change behavior.
"People need to realize that they are acting in an offensive way ... they feel very disconnected from their jobs; they feel anonymous, they become passive, and when things go off kilter they respond without thinking," Cohen said. When workers encounter high-tension situations, they may act in ways they've never acted before. Training, including workshops and one-on-one counseling sessions with executives, can go a long way toward creating behavioral change.
3. Preventing is better than curing.
Clara said Caiman Consulting deals with incivility by rooting it out from the start. The company's core value of courtesy plays a big role in deciding who gets a place in its ranks. In the same way, employers should consider their culture and values as early as the hiring stage.
The revival of courtesy in the workplace is still in its early stages, but it may go a long way to building a more engaged and productive workforce.
By Mohini Kundu - editorial intern at Talent Management magazine
Thirty-eight percent of American workers say the workplace has become more uncivil and disrespectful compared to a few years ago, according to a June 2011 study by KRC Research titled "Civility in America."
"There's a real psychological depression out there that is impacting how people are responding to each other," said Jeff Cohen, executive coaching expert and founder of J M Cohen Associates. Discouragement and desperation that emerged as a byproduct of the unstable business environment combined with new trends in social interaction appear to be taking a toll on corporate communication.
Stress and unhappiness - much of it pertaining to the economy - are uncommonly high amongst workers today, and it is beginning to affect employee culture. "People are becoming more fearful for their jobs, even panicky, and when things go awry they do one of two things: They pull into their shell or they start lashing out at other folks," Cohen said.
Technology may also be partly to blame for the deteriorating state of communication today. Meg Clara, director of recruiting and human resources at Caiman Consulting, criticized the disruptiveness of electronic communication such as texts and emails in forming personal and professional relationships. By conducting conversations through devices, workers lose out on person-to-person interaction and the etiquette that goes with it.
As a society we are forgetting the importance of looking each other in the eye when we speak, and old-fashioned courtesy has all but become a thing of the past. This trend is resulting not just in more frequent occurrences of disrespect, yelling, underhandedness and abuse in the workplace, but also decreased productivity and higher turnover.
In January, Harvard Business Review reported that half of employees who encountered instances of incivility at work intentionally decreased their efforts. The article also showed more than a third of them decreased the quality of their work.
Competent workers who have suffered abuse or disrespect in the workplace don't feel the need to stick around, Cohen said.
Since employee engagement, performance and retention are at stake, talent managers ought to consider the following tips to defuse the situation lest things get out of hand.
1. Introduce consequences.
Disrespect amongst employees and even employers is often overlooked and typically goes unpunished. Treating incivility with aggressive discipline similar to the way sexual harassment is addressed will help workers realize that it is unacceptable, Cohen said.
2. Use training to change behavior.
"People need to realize that they are acting in an offensive way ... they feel very disconnected from their jobs; they feel anonymous, they become passive, and when things go off kilter they respond without thinking," Cohen said. When workers encounter high-tension situations, they may act in ways they've never acted before. Training, including workshops and one-on-one counseling sessions with executives, can go a long way toward creating behavioral change.
3. Preventing is better than curing.
Clara said Caiman Consulting deals with incivility by rooting it out from the start. The company's core value of courtesy plays a big role in deciding who gets a place in its ranks. In the same way, employers should consider their culture and values as early as the hiring stage.
The revival of courtesy in the workplace is still in its early stages, but it may go a long way to building a more engaged and productive workforce.
By Mohini Kundu - editorial intern at Talent Management magazine
Teach Employees to Set Life-Changing Goals
When people lose spirit, the cause can often be traced to a rootless sense of mission. They lack clear goals. They don't target opportunities. They can't decide on simple criteria for how they define their lives. And so they wander aimlessly, spin in circles or stand in place, which in a rapidly changing world actually amounts to falling behind.
Many of us, especially if we work for others rather than for ourselves, have forgotten that we have the choice to set our own goals. Instead, we operate under criteria handed to us by others that lure us into mindlessly running with the herd. When this happens, we rarely take the opportunity to set our own criteria.
The best thing about having criteria is that it forces you to be precise - in what you do and how you hold yourself accountable afterward. It's the difference between saying, "I'd be happier if I spent more time with my kids" and "I am going to spend at least four hours a week with each of my kids." The former statement is vague, and therefore meaningless. What's "more time" mean? One minute more than you're spending now? How will that tiny incremental improvement matter to your kids - or you?
On the other hand, "four hours" is specific and measurable. It creates accountability. You either hit the target or miss. And it you hit the target, you reward yourself with an invisible gold medal every week. That makes you feel good about yourself on the inside - and this quickly shows on the outside, especially to the people who really matter, namely your kids. That's how a renewed spirit happens. It's not magical; it only seems that way.
A few years ago I was working with a woman named Barbara, who appeared to be a highly motivated, high-achieving executive at a marketing firm - except she was miserable. She couldn't really pin down why. She liked most of her work, she liked her colleagues, she was good at her job, and she saw a clear growth path in her career.
"OK," I said, "If you don't know what's making you unhappy, what would make you happy?"
"That's easy," she said. "Happy would be not having to go to any meetings that I do not want to attend."
That was a breakthrough for Barbara, because suddenly she has articulated a very specific criterion for her working life. It was all about meetings. She hated them. But more than that, Barbara was chafing at a lack of autonomy and self-direction.
So she quit her job and set herself up as a consultant, working out of her home, which can be risky and stressful. But she was also completely in control of her time. Instead of endless meetings, she communicated with clients by email and phone, and when she needed a face-to-face with anyone, it was her choice. Acting on her simple criterion not only removed the forced attendance at pointless meetings, it cut out the daily commute into the office and her obligatory presence on equally fruitless conference calls - all of which helped to liberate three or four previously occupied hours from her day.
When I tracked her down 18 months later, she was no longer working at home. Her business had grown so quickly that she'd opened an office a few minutes away from home and now employed four people. "But still no unnecessary meetings," she said. "My staff is not complaining."
Barbara's story is neither unique nor extraordinary. There are, after all, millions of refugees from the corporate world who are working out of their homes or in small offices. What makes her special is the spark that initiated her new life change - namely, identifying a criterion that made a difference. When you articulate a criterion for leading your life, it dictates many of the major choices that follow, closing some doors but opening others.
By Marshall Goldsmith - author or co-editor of 31 books, including MOJO.]
Many of us, especially if we work for others rather than for ourselves, have forgotten that we have the choice to set our own goals. Instead, we operate under criteria handed to us by others that lure us into mindlessly running with the herd. When this happens, we rarely take the opportunity to set our own criteria.
The best thing about having criteria is that it forces you to be precise - in what you do and how you hold yourself accountable afterward. It's the difference between saying, "I'd be happier if I spent more time with my kids" and "I am going to spend at least four hours a week with each of my kids." The former statement is vague, and therefore meaningless. What's "more time" mean? One minute more than you're spending now? How will that tiny incremental improvement matter to your kids - or you?
On the other hand, "four hours" is specific and measurable. It creates accountability. You either hit the target or miss. And it you hit the target, you reward yourself with an invisible gold medal every week. That makes you feel good about yourself on the inside - and this quickly shows on the outside, especially to the people who really matter, namely your kids. That's how a renewed spirit happens. It's not magical; it only seems that way.
A few years ago I was working with a woman named Barbara, who appeared to be a highly motivated, high-achieving executive at a marketing firm - except she was miserable. She couldn't really pin down why. She liked most of her work, she liked her colleagues, she was good at her job, and she saw a clear growth path in her career.
"OK," I said, "If you don't know what's making you unhappy, what would make you happy?"
"That's easy," she said. "Happy would be not having to go to any meetings that I do not want to attend."
That was a breakthrough for Barbara, because suddenly she has articulated a very specific criterion for her working life. It was all about meetings. She hated them. But more than that, Barbara was chafing at a lack of autonomy and self-direction.
So she quit her job and set herself up as a consultant, working out of her home, which can be risky and stressful. But she was also completely in control of her time. Instead of endless meetings, she communicated with clients by email and phone, and when she needed a face-to-face with anyone, it was her choice. Acting on her simple criterion not only removed the forced attendance at pointless meetings, it cut out the daily commute into the office and her obligatory presence on equally fruitless conference calls - all of which helped to liberate three or four previously occupied hours from her day.
When I tracked her down 18 months later, she was no longer working at home. Her business had grown so quickly that she'd opened an office a few minutes away from home and now employed four people. "But still no unnecessary meetings," she said. "My staff is not complaining."
Barbara's story is neither unique nor extraordinary. There are, after all, millions of refugees from the corporate world who are working out of their homes or in small offices. What makes her special is the spark that initiated her new life change - namely, identifying a criterion that made a difference. When you articulate a criterion for leading your life, it dictates many of the major choices that follow, closing some doors but opening others.
By Marshall Goldsmith - author or co-editor of 31 books, including MOJO.]
Behaviors of Collaborative Leaders
In order to become a chief catalyst for collaboration, you will have to model behaviors that embody the way you'd like your employees to work. For 150 years, corporations, governments and militaries were built for up-and-down leadership, with incentives and rewards that discouraged cross-organization thinking and, in many cases, actually created or encouraged internal competition. Your challenge is to develop and model the behaviors required to inspire people and teams to genuinely break through organizational silos and make collaboration a competitive advantage.
How you lead your people has a direct impact on your ability to eliminate or mitigate the types of human behaviors that slow organizations down. In our experience, both inside Cisco and with our customers, highly collaborative leaders share four leadership traits. They:
1. Focus on authentic leadership and eschew passive aggressiveness
2. Relentlessly pursue transparent decision making
3. View resources as instruments of action, not as possessions
4. Codify the relationship between decision rights, accountability and rewards
Focus on authentic leadership and eschew passive aggressiveness.
For collaboration to succeed, leaders need to be authentic. Cisco studied which characteristics of leaders on collaborative teams are most important, and we found that the most critical attribute was a leader's willingness to follow through on commitments. This involves two elements.
First, as a leader of a team, department or business unit with people, budgets and resources under your control, you must follow through on organizational commitments. Unfortunately, people don't always do what they promise. Passive aggressiveness is a subtle, nuanced form of human behavior in which people find ways to undermine others. They often give tacit agreement in a meeting, for example, but then proceed to take counterproductive action once the meeting is over. Or they might agree to help another team, but then are slow to follow through or put an under-performer on the assignment. Think of how much organizational inertia is created because leaders don't always do what they say they will do.
Expert Tip on Perseverance:
"Leaders need resolve, resilience and determination to affect collaborative transformation. They need to 'walk the talk' for a sustained period of time."
-- Professor Tony O'Driscoll, Duke University Fuqua School of Business
Second, when there is disagreement about a decision -- one made by you or someone else -- fight the instinct to make it personal. Ultimately, most disagreements are not personal in nature, but rather result from differing approaches to making a decision. The more you focus on communicating what drives your decision making, the more time you can spend making good decisions instead of arguing a choice with a peer. This leads us to the next leadership trait.
Relentlessly pursue transparent decision making.
Decisions are always about making choices; it's critical that you are clear about how you make them. Tell people your style and thought process for navigating tricky, or even every day, decisions. In our experience, and this is backed up by research, there's a direct relationship between the agility and resilience of a team and the transparency of its decision making processes. When you're open and transparent about the answers to three questions -- who made the decision, who is accountable for the outcomes of the decision, and is that accountability real -- people in organizations spend far less time questioning how or why a decision was made. Think of how much time is wasted ferreting out details when a decision is made and communicated because the people who are affected don't know who made the decision or who is accountable for its consequences.
Answer Three Questions to Foster Transparent Decision Making:
Transparent decision making requires that all stakeholders know the answers to these questions:
- Who is making the decision?
- Who is accountable for the outcomes of the decision?
- What are the consequences -- positive or negative -- of that accountability?
In a later chapter, we discuss the importance of establishing a common vocabulary for decision making, especially as a communications platform that can scale an organization's collaborative processes. As a leader, your responsibility is to document the key decision paths of your organization and communicate them to your team as often as you can. There was a time in business when hoarding information was a source of organizational power. Today, the inverse is true if you want to motivate a team that is increasingly mobile, global and socially driven.
Explain the guiding principles of your decision-making style at each stage of your organization's decision paths. Share your biases and tell war stories of how your successes and failures shaped these biases. We often hear the phrase "intelligent risk taking" -- nothing empowers people to take good risks more than understanding the conditions for taking the risk in the first place. Transparent decision making is critical to empowering your people.
View resources as instruments of action, not as possessions.
The promise of flexibility and agility as an organization, inspired by establishing shared goals across organizational boundaries, is only attainable if you back it up by sharing resources as well.
It's hardly a new observation that people sometimes stockpile resources around their business unit or department, or are slow -- perhaps even hesitant -- to share those resources with other departments. There might even be incentives in place that discourage sharing. For as long as companies have pursued profits, the size of one's organization has defined the size of one's financial opportunity. But are your resources truly applied as optimally as possible to your market opportunities in a way that best serves the total business? By unlocking these trapped resources, organizations can more quickly and successfully pursue emerging market opportunities.
Having a common approach to assess and communicate resource decisions is critical to creating a transparent environment among leaders. The more transparent the environment the more willing leaders will be to share resources in support of the shared goals of the entire business, and the harder it will be for resisters to hoard them. This shift in approach is not an easy one for leaders to make and requires a balancing act between clear expectations, patience and follow through. Ultimately, it's as much a mindset as it is a process. The fundamental enablers of collaborative leadership are viewing resources as instruments of action rather than as possessions and aligning your company's larger shared goals to an accountability system that includes rewards and incentives for working together effectively.
Codify the relationship between decision rights, accountability and rewards.
Modeling the desired collaborative behaviors -- showing your employees that you walk the talk -- is the goal. But what happens when you're not around? The more these behaviors are codified into an end-to-end system across your organization, the greater the odds of collaboration succeeding when you're not there to reinforce cultural norms. As you define the decision paths of your organization and build a common vocabulary to make those decision paths as transparent as possible, take the time to establish clear parameters. Who gets to make decisions? Are all decisions tied to funding? These are the types of questions to which everyone must know the answers. Publish the parameters for these decision rights and tell people which leaders have these rights -- that information is crucial to breaking through any consensus logjam; decision-rights holders should have 51 percent of the vote when collaborative teams can't reach natural agreement.
Having published decision rights is just one element of an accountability system. While it's never pleasant to talk about the consequences of poor decisions, the reality is that to succeed, collaboration demands more distributed and empowered actions across your organization. With that empowerment comes not only more good outcomes but also the increased potential for bad ones. You will need to consider new ways of gaining input from teams on the quality of collaborative decision making and reward people who consistently make good decisions in a collaborative environment.
As part of their overall performance management, every Cisco employee is measured by peers and their managers on their collaboration factor, the result of which directly impacts how their performance is rated and, ultimately, the size of their total compensation. Other factors that determine the size of bonuses are tied to how well employees collectively perform in achieving certain shared goals that Cisco establishes annually, such as customer-satisfaction metrics and financial results. Collaborative cultures not only foster teamwork, they also reward it. Performance measures must strike a balance between how well employees carry out their individual roles and how much they contribute to collective outcomes.
Legendary Duke University basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski knows a thing or two about working together to reach shared goals. He reminds team members -- and business leaders -- that the name on the front of the jersey is more important than the name on the back of the jersey.
Author Bios:
Ron Ricci, co-author of The Collaboration Imperative, is the vice president of corporate positioning and has spent the last decade helping Cisco develop and nurture a culture of sharing and collaborative processes. In addition, he has spent countless hours with hundreds of different organizations discussing the impact of collaboration. He is also the co-author of the business best-seller Momentum: How Companies Become Unstoppable Market Forces (Harvard Business School Press, 2002).
Carl Wiese, co-author of The Collaboration Imperative, is senior vice president of Cisco's collaboration sales -- a multi-billion global business. He has presented on the importance of collaboration to business audiences in dozens of countries, including Australia, China, Dubai, India, Mexico and all across Europe and the United States. With more than 25 years of sales, marketing, services and product-management experience with Cisco, Apple, Lucent, Avaya and Texas Instruments, Wiese has spent his career working with companies worldwide to advance their business goals with technology.
Guest post by By Ron Ricci and Carl Wiese
How you lead your people has a direct impact on your ability to eliminate or mitigate the types of human behaviors that slow organizations down. In our experience, both inside Cisco and with our customers, highly collaborative leaders share four leadership traits. They:
1. Focus on authentic leadership and eschew passive aggressiveness
2. Relentlessly pursue transparent decision making
3. View resources as instruments of action, not as possessions
4. Codify the relationship between decision rights, accountability and rewards
Focus on authentic leadership and eschew passive aggressiveness.
For collaboration to succeed, leaders need to be authentic. Cisco studied which characteristics of leaders on collaborative teams are most important, and we found that the most critical attribute was a leader's willingness to follow through on commitments. This involves two elements.
First, as a leader of a team, department or business unit with people, budgets and resources under your control, you must follow through on organizational commitments. Unfortunately, people don't always do what they promise. Passive aggressiveness is a subtle, nuanced form of human behavior in which people find ways to undermine others. They often give tacit agreement in a meeting, for example, but then proceed to take counterproductive action once the meeting is over. Or they might agree to help another team, but then are slow to follow through or put an under-performer on the assignment. Think of how much organizational inertia is created because leaders don't always do what they say they will do.
Expert Tip on Perseverance:
"Leaders need resolve, resilience and determination to affect collaborative transformation. They need to 'walk the talk' for a sustained period of time."
-- Professor Tony O'Driscoll, Duke University Fuqua School of Business
Second, when there is disagreement about a decision -- one made by you or someone else -- fight the instinct to make it personal. Ultimately, most disagreements are not personal in nature, but rather result from differing approaches to making a decision. The more you focus on communicating what drives your decision making, the more time you can spend making good decisions instead of arguing a choice with a peer. This leads us to the next leadership trait.
Relentlessly pursue transparent decision making.
Decisions are always about making choices; it's critical that you are clear about how you make them. Tell people your style and thought process for navigating tricky, or even every day, decisions. In our experience, and this is backed up by research, there's a direct relationship between the agility and resilience of a team and the transparency of its decision making processes. When you're open and transparent about the answers to three questions -- who made the decision, who is accountable for the outcomes of the decision, and is that accountability real -- people in organizations spend far less time questioning how or why a decision was made. Think of how much time is wasted ferreting out details when a decision is made and communicated because the people who are affected don't know who made the decision or who is accountable for its consequences.
Answer Three Questions to Foster Transparent Decision Making:
Transparent decision making requires that all stakeholders know the answers to these questions:
- Who is making the decision?
- Who is accountable for the outcomes of the decision?
- What are the consequences -- positive or negative -- of that accountability?
In a later chapter, we discuss the importance of establishing a common vocabulary for decision making, especially as a communications platform that can scale an organization's collaborative processes. As a leader, your responsibility is to document the key decision paths of your organization and communicate them to your team as often as you can. There was a time in business when hoarding information was a source of organizational power. Today, the inverse is true if you want to motivate a team that is increasingly mobile, global and socially driven.
Explain the guiding principles of your decision-making style at each stage of your organization's decision paths. Share your biases and tell war stories of how your successes and failures shaped these biases. We often hear the phrase "intelligent risk taking" -- nothing empowers people to take good risks more than understanding the conditions for taking the risk in the first place. Transparent decision making is critical to empowering your people.
View resources as instruments of action, not as possessions.
The promise of flexibility and agility as an organization, inspired by establishing shared goals across organizational boundaries, is only attainable if you back it up by sharing resources as well.
It's hardly a new observation that people sometimes stockpile resources around their business unit or department, or are slow -- perhaps even hesitant -- to share those resources with other departments. There might even be incentives in place that discourage sharing. For as long as companies have pursued profits, the size of one's organization has defined the size of one's financial opportunity. But are your resources truly applied as optimally as possible to your market opportunities in a way that best serves the total business? By unlocking these trapped resources, organizations can more quickly and successfully pursue emerging market opportunities.
Having a common approach to assess and communicate resource decisions is critical to creating a transparent environment among leaders. The more transparent the environment the more willing leaders will be to share resources in support of the shared goals of the entire business, and the harder it will be for resisters to hoard them. This shift in approach is not an easy one for leaders to make and requires a balancing act between clear expectations, patience and follow through. Ultimately, it's as much a mindset as it is a process. The fundamental enablers of collaborative leadership are viewing resources as instruments of action rather than as possessions and aligning your company's larger shared goals to an accountability system that includes rewards and incentives for working together effectively.
Codify the relationship between decision rights, accountability and rewards.
Modeling the desired collaborative behaviors -- showing your employees that you walk the talk -- is the goal. But what happens when you're not around? The more these behaviors are codified into an end-to-end system across your organization, the greater the odds of collaboration succeeding when you're not there to reinforce cultural norms. As you define the decision paths of your organization and build a common vocabulary to make those decision paths as transparent as possible, take the time to establish clear parameters. Who gets to make decisions? Are all decisions tied to funding? These are the types of questions to which everyone must know the answers. Publish the parameters for these decision rights and tell people which leaders have these rights -- that information is crucial to breaking through any consensus logjam; decision-rights holders should have 51 percent of the vote when collaborative teams can't reach natural agreement.
Having published decision rights is just one element of an accountability system. While it's never pleasant to talk about the consequences of poor decisions, the reality is that to succeed, collaboration demands more distributed and empowered actions across your organization. With that empowerment comes not only more good outcomes but also the increased potential for bad ones. You will need to consider new ways of gaining input from teams on the quality of collaborative decision making and reward people who consistently make good decisions in a collaborative environment.
As part of their overall performance management, every Cisco employee is measured by peers and their managers on their collaboration factor, the result of which directly impacts how their performance is rated and, ultimately, the size of their total compensation. Other factors that determine the size of bonuses are tied to how well employees collectively perform in achieving certain shared goals that Cisco establishes annually, such as customer-satisfaction metrics and financial results. Collaborative cultures not only foster teamwork, they also reward it. Performance measures must strike a balance between how well employees carry out their individual roles and how much they contribute to collective outcomes.
Legendary Duke University basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski knows a thing or two about working together to reach shared goals. He reminds team members -- and business leaders -- that the name on the front of the jersey is more important than the name on the back of the jersey.
Author Bios:
Ron Ricci, co-author of The Collaboration Imperative, is the vice president of corporate positioning and has spent the last decade helping Cisco develop and nurture a culture of sharing and collaborative processes. In addition, he has spent countless hours with hundreds of different organizations discussing the impact of collaboration. He is also the co-author of the business best-seller Momentum: How Companies Become Unstoppable Market Forces (Harvard Business School Press, 2002).
Carl Wiese, co-author of The Collaboration Imperative, is senior vice president of Cisco's collaboration sales -- a multi-billion global business. He has presented on the importance of collaboration to business audiences in dozens of countries, including Australia, China, Dubai, India, Mexico and all across Europe and the United States. With more than 25 years of sales, marketing, services and product-management experience with Cisco, Apple, Lucent, Avaya and Texas Instruments, Wiese has spent his career working with companies worldwide to advance their business goals with technology.
Guest post by By Ron Ricci and Carl Wiese
AIDS in IOrganisation
Appraisal & Increment Deficiency Syndrome
Our Corporate Employees Across The World Are Now Suffering From This AIDS,
But It Is True!
Our Corporate Employees Across The World Are Now Suffering From This AIDS,
But It Is True!
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Ten Essential Leadership Models
While there have been thousands of books written about leadership, there are a handful of leadership models that have served me well as a leader and leadership development practitioner. These are the tried and true models that have shifted my thinking about leadership and help create teachable leadership moments for others. Mind you, I’m not a scholar, so the models I favor tend to be simple, practical, and I have to had seen evidence that they are effective.
Here are 10 leadership models that I believe any leader or aspiring leader should be familiar with (Kudos to Mind Tools for supplying many of the summaries in the links, and to Vou):
1. Situation Leadership.
Developed by Ken Blanchard and Paul Hersey, it’s a timeless classic. If I could only teach one model to a new manager, it might be this one. It’s all about adapting your leadership style to the developmental needs, or “maturity level”, of your employees. It’s easy to understand and can be used on a daily basis. Your only dilemma will be which version to choose: Hersey or Blanchard? I say Blanchard, but that’s because they follow @Great Leadership. (-:
2. Servant Leadership.
A philosophy and practice of leadership developed by Robert K. Greenleaf. The underlying premise here is that it’s less about you as a leader and all about taking care of those around you. It’s a noble and honorable way to lead and conduct your life.
3. Blake and Mouton’s Leadership Grid.
OK, so it’s really more of a management model, but it’s another timeless classic. Explained by a nice, simple 2x2 grid, it’s all about balancing your concern for people and your concerns for getting things done (tasks). You gotta love those 4x4 grids!
4. Emotional Intelligence.
While Daniel Goleman’s book popularized EQ, his HBR article “What Makes a Leader?” does a great job explaining why the “soft stuff” is so essential to be an effective leader.
5. Kouzes and Posner’s Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership.
K&P do a nice job breaking leadership down into five practices: Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable Others to Act, and Encourage the Heart. I’ve always liked the Leadership Practices Inventory 360 degree assessment that supports the model.
6. Jim’s Collin’s Level Five Leadership.
First published in a 2001 Harvard Business Review article, and then in the book, "From Good to Great, Collin’s leadership model describes kind of a hierarchy of leadership capabilities, with level 5 being a mix of humility and will.
7. The Diamond Model of Leadership.
Although not as widely known as Collin’s Level Five model, my colleague Jim Clawson actually wrote the book Level Three Leadership two years earlier than the Collin’s HBR article. Jim introduced the Diamond Model, which describes four elements of leadership: yourself, others, task, and organization.
8. Six Leadership Passages.
Charon, Drotter, and Noel did a nice job explaining six key developmental passages a leader can advance through in thier book The Leadership Pipeline, along with the skills required to be successful for each passage. I actually came up with my own six passages, in which I made a distinction between management and leadership.
9. Authentic Leadership.
I’ve only recently become a fan of Bill George’s work (True North), and it’s made a difference in how I think about leadership and leadership development. Instead of trying to find and copy the prefect set of leadership characteristics, George argues that you’re better off figuring out who you are and what’s important to you, and leading in a way that’s true to yourself.
10. The GROW model.
Widely attributed to Sir John Whittmore (although it’s not certain who really came up with it), GROW stands for goal, reality, obstacles, options, and way, will, or what’s next, depending on which version you use. It’s really more of a coaching model than a leadership model. However, it’s an essential tool for leaders and one of the easiest to understand and effective coaching models I’ve come across.
Here are 10 leadership models that I believe any leader or aspiring leader should be familiar with (Kudos to Mind Tools for supplying many of the summaries in the links, and to Vou):
1. Situation Leadership.
Developed by Ken Blanchard and Paul Hersey, it’s a timeless classic. If I could only teach one model to a new manager, it might be this one. It’s all about adapting your leadership style to the developmental needs, or “maturity level”, of your employees. It’s easy to understand and can be used on a daily basis. Your only dilemma will be which version to choose: Hersey or Blanchard? I say Blanchard, but that’s because they follow @Great Leadership. (-:
2. Servant Leadership.
A philosophy and practice of leadership developed by Robert K. Greenleaf. The underlying premise here is that it’s less about you as a leader and all about taking care of those around you. It’s a noble and honorable way to lead and conduct your life.
3. Blake and Mouton’s Leadership Grid.
OK, so it’s really more of a management model, but it’s another timeless classic. Explained by a nice, simple 2x2 grid, it’s all about balancing your concern for people and your concerns for getting things done (tasks). You gotta love those 4x4 grids!
4. Emotional Intelligence.
While Daniel Goleman’s book popularized EQ, his HBR article “What Makes a Leader?” does a great job explaining why the “soft stuff” is so essential to be an effective leader.
5. Kouzes and Posner’s Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership.
K&P do a nice job breaking leadership down into five practices: Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable Others to Act, and Encourage the Heart. I’ve always liked the Leadership Practices Inventory 360 degree assessment that supports the model.
6. Jim’s Collin’s Level Five Leadership.
First published in a 2001 Harvard Business Review article, and then in the book, "From Good to Great, Collin’s leadership model describes kind of a hierarchy of leadership capabilities, with level 5 being a mix of humility and will.
7. The Diamond Model of Leadership.
Although not as widely known as Collin’s Level Five model, my colleague Jim Clawson actually wrote the book Level Three Leadership two years earlier than the Collin’s HBR article. Jim introduced the Diamond Model, which describes four elements of leadership: yourself, others, task, and organization.
8. Six Leadership Passages.
Charon, Drotter, and Noel did a nice job explaining six key developmental passages a leader can advance through in thier book The Leadership Pipeline, along with the skills required to be successful for each passage. I actually came up with my own six passages, in which I made a distinction between management and leadership.
9. Authentic Leadership.
I’ve only recently become a fan of Bill George’s work (True North), and it’s made a difference in how I think about leadership and leadership development. Instead of trying to find and copy the prefect set of leadership characteristics, George argues that you’re better off figuring out who you are and what’s important to you, and leading in a way that’s true to yourself.
10. The GROW model.
Widely attributed to Sir John Whittmore (although it’s not certain who really came up with it), GROW stands for goal, reality, obstacles, options, and way, will, or what’s next, depending on which version you use. It’s really more of a coaching model than a leadership model. However, it’s an essential tool for leaders and one of the easiest to understand and effective coaching models I’ve come across.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)