Talent Management: Chess or Checkers?

I was inspired by a recent conversation with a colleague to examine this question more closely.  We were comparing and contrasting the work of different teams within an organization.  He likened another team’s work to checkers, while suggesting that we were playing chess – and pointed out that there was really no comparison.  He was right!

If you think about it, checkers is largely a game of tactical skills, about blocking your opponent’s next move or preserving yourself.  Checkers is fairly reactionary, a jagged continuum of random movements.  On the other hand, chess is quite strategic.  Rather than simply having red and black pieces (or as the Glossary of Checkers Terminology calls them, “men”), there is an array of pieces that can be used in a myriad of ways.  Chess is far more strategic and analytical; it requires thought , forethought and afterthought.  There is no checklist in chess; you must use your brain.

When it comes to talent management, many companies are still playing checkers.  I prefer chess.   I began to ask myself “what is it that differentiates those organizations playing chess from those still playing checkers?”   I’ve concluded that there are four significant characteristics that differentiate those organizations:  a clear strategy, a holistic approach, the absence of boxes, and an inclusive “what if” mindset.

Strategy is the foundation upon which the function is built, right?  You’d be surprised at how many organizations simply do not have a talent management strategy.  It seems so basic, yet I believe it is the primary reason so many organizations fail miserably at talent management.  A talent management strategy keeps the organization and its leaders “honest”.  It roots out nepotism and favoritism and brings in objectivity.  It levels the playing field, creating equal opportunities for all qualified candidates.

It must be stated that talent management is not a stand-alone activity.  One cannot see “talent review” in isolation; it must be connected to employee engagement, compensation, performance management, and leadership development.  There must be actions, insights and deliverables that come from talent review discussion, and those discussions should involve both supporters of a candidate and those with whom there have been disagreements.  Talent management professionals need to push for a 360 degree view of the subject.  Without intention, the act of managing talent becomes a “check the box” activity.  Sadly, this mindset exists in too many companies.  Stakeholders are sometimes led to believe that there is a strong bench of “ready now” talent and that the talent pipeline is deep when, in fact, there are merely names on a list; names of people who could succeed a leader in the event of a departure.

Then, for organizations who actually do have a formal process for reviewing talent, many ruin it all by insisting on putting names in boxes --- the dreaded, antiquated 9 BOX grid.  Checkers players love the 9 box because checkers requires one to simply put pieces (men) in boxes, move them across the board and viola’, you’re either a winner or a loser.  Chess requires meaningful thought, even internal conversation, about your next move.  Chess requires that you ignite thought from a different part of your brain.  Unlike checkers, chess requires that you consider a wide range of possibilities.

Pursuing the thought that chess requires consideration of a wider range of possibilities, so should talent management.  Talent leaders should constantly be asking themselves “what if?”   In Peter Block’s “The Answer To How Is Yes”, he asserts that when we ask “how”, that we’ve already revealed our bias and that we’re looking for reasons not to act.  By shifting away from “how” to “what if”, we again call on a different part of our brain to explore opportunities.  Who knows, we might just find a possibility that we’d never find playing checkers.

Measuring ROI on Leadership Initiatives

Many leadership and executive development learning managers find themselves at a loss for quantifying a return on investment for development programs and initiatives.  Often, L&D leaders default to qualitative results versus quantitative results, which is understandable since quantitative results require considerably more digging.  Organizations without data scientists or employees trained in knowledge and insights often struggle to tell a story using data.  Below are some tips to make this work easier for leadership and executive development professionals.

Step 1:  Define your purpose.  I recommend a purpose statement like “the purpose of this research is to determine the influence of leadership development programs and executive coaching on these variables:  performance and potential, retention, engagement and job movement.”  It is imperative to have your senior leaders’ buy in before beginning the process.  Here is a place to demonstrate leadership: make recommendations but be sure to incorporate factors that are important to leaders.

Step 2:  Narrow your focus.  Are you measuring ROI on executive coaching, leadership programs or mentoring?  Each discipline will require a different standard for measurement.   For example,
programs may last a week while leadership development experiences may last much longer.  Most executive coaching engagements range from six to twelve months.  Also, it is critical to clearly define your audience.  At this point, many leaders realize that their efforts at developing leaders haven’t been as focused as they should have been.  Often, emerging leaders are placed in signature programs for which they were not properly vetted and ready.  This practice compromises the validity of the executive development experience.  Getting the right people in the right programs for the right reasons is key.  This is the point at which you clearly define your audience; remember: right person, right program, right time.

Step 3:  Decide on the three to five key questions you want to answer.  For example, is there a common profile for each participant?  Obviously, if you’re measuring the impact of a women’s leadership program, being female is a common characteristic of all participants.  Apply that line of reasoning for each program or initiative; for example, male/female, job grade, age, tenure, ethnicity, veteran status, gender identity, etc.  All this data becomes extremely relevant when slicing, dicing and targeting your development initiatives.

Is retention important?  If so, compare retention rates of program participants against those who haven’t participated in a program.  Is there a difference?   

How does participation in a program affect performance and potential?   Programs that hit their target are ones that increase not only the participant’s performance, but also the performance of their team.  Look at the performance of the leader and their team one year prior to the program/event, the year of the program/event and up to three years after the program/event.  There should be a positive correlation between performance/potential and the program.  If there isn’t, then it’s time to reexamine the content of the program.  A redesign may be in order.

Are program participants being promoted at a higher rate than those who haven’t participated in a program?  Again, if the right person was in the right program for the right reason (growth and development), then the participant should be promoted at a faster rate than non-program participants.

Step 4:  Determine and vet your process with learning leaders.   In most cases, these 6 steps will produce consistent results:

1.       Determine the specific research questions

2.       Determine the data requirements

3.       Gather the necessary data

4.       Conduct data analysis

5.       Summarize the findings

6.       Report the findings to key stakeholders.

A few finer points to also consider:

If you are measuring several programs or initiatives, call out and report on each one individually.  As you compare results, you may see misalignments that can be corrected.  The same holds true for measuring executive coaching engagements.  Look at the coaching results from each coach and compare them side by side.  Are you getting the results you expect?  After a deep analysis, you’ll have the quantitative data to make that determination.

If your development programs are “staged” meaning that there is a program for front line leaders, emerging leaders, high potential leaders, etc., is there course overlap?  Is there a pure sequence for the programs?  This may/may not be important in your organization, but if it is important, now you’ll have data to support your decision to continue or course correct.

To better protect your investment, it is important to look at separations from the company, both voluntary and involuntary.  If there are a disproportionate number of voluntary separations, you may be training people to leave your organization for other jobs.  If there are a disproportionate number of involuntary separations, are you properly identifying the right people during your talent management and succession planning discussions?

Does the investment drive employee engagement?  If so, is it appropriate to broaden the offerings to drive higher engagement?   Is feedback provided at the end of a program?  If so, how is that data used to enrich the program? 

Finally, has the concept of “differentiated investment” become a common expression in talent management and succession planning discussions?  If so, are the leaders identified able to articulate what that means and the expectations that come from such investments? 

Tips for Leading, Managing and Navigating Change

From early in my career, I’ve never been a huge fan of change and I believe that opinion was influenced by change being handled badly, time after time.  Twenty years into my career I began to see change efforts handled intentionally and, somewhere along the line, I was introduced to John Kotter’s work at the Harvard Business School.  As a change guru, Kotter outlined a basic 8-step plan for change which gave organizations a methodology for approaching change.

While the tenets of Kotter’s work are solid, I also believe that change should be approached from three distinct points of view:

1.       Senior leaders need to know how to lead change.  What does it mean to craft a change strategy and clearly articulate that plan to the organization?

2.       Mid-level managers need to know how to manage change.  How do people managers interpret and translate a strategy plan into actionable terms, and how do that listen, understand and convey their employee’s fears to upper management?

3.       Employees need to know how to navigate through change.  How do they interpret what is happening in the organization, to them personally, and what actions do they need to take as a result of the change?

About three years ago, numerous change theorists and change management “experts” began hitting my radar.  I noticed that most were strongly influenced by Kotter’s work but their change plans were overly complicated and over-engineered.  In addition, many solutions were technology driven and often smaller businesses have neither the budget nor the support to launch such an elaborate change initiative.  I was lucky enough to be working with some very smart people who had both international experience AND a keen eye for simplifying complex models.  Taking the position that “less is more”, I worked to condense Kotter’s 8-Step approach to an even simpler one.  The slides below visually represent my approach to change.

I’ve found that the biggest mistake organizations make regarding change is around a “burning platform”.  Literally, a burning platform implies that you’re in the middle of the ocean, your oil rig is on fire and your only chance for survival is to leave THAT platform for something else more stable –  without another alternative, you will die.  Organizations that need to invoke change in order to stay competitive or to keep up with technological advances DO NOT have a burning platform.  Organizations whose competitors have stolen market share and without new revenue streams by the end of next quarter have a burning platform!  It is fun –albeit frustrating – to watch executives try to explain the “burning platform” for change when there isn’t one.  Even employees at the lowest rung on the corporate ladder can see that the platform isn’t burning, yet the executive is trying to explain that it is.  Key point:  it is possible to create a sense of urgency without having a burning platform.  You’ll come off much more genuine, authentic and transparent if you can explain the need for change without creating fear.  (Of course, if there IS a burning platform, you’d better communicate that too!)

A second mistake I’ve seen related to change is that leaders and managers try to over-communicate minutia.  Employees trying to navigate through change don’t need all the details; plus, plans change.  An ever-changing change plan diminishes the leader’s credibility.  When communicating a change in direction, be sure to tell the “why, what and when”.  Change agents, managers and corporate communications professionals can then triage the details of the plan as they become relevant.  Employees need to absorb and reconcile the emotional reaction to the change first, without being inundated with details and data.

A third mistake I see organizations make is the failure to decide who has the “D”.  When assigning roles and creating a project charter, due diligence should be given to deciding who is the party responsible for making a final decision on any part of the plan.  Without a clearly defined process owner and decision-maker, the change initiative stalls.  Strong project management skills are required to keep the change initiative on track, and to ensure the appropriate party is making (and communicating) decisions collaboratively and in a timely manner.

Check out the process map, related change activities and verifiable outcomes below.  I’d love to hear your thoughts and comments.

The Value of Strategic Talent Acquisition

It occurs to me that talent acquisition strategies have shifted dramatically with the growing popularity of social media.  Mature organizations no longer just look at recruiting, hiring and onboarding as individual functions, but as a process.   Best-in-class organizations integrate the entire pre- and post- hire processes and onboarding in ways that engage the candidate and lead to successful outcomes. 

End to end, holistic onboarding practices that involve the candidate in meaningful ways result in higher retention rates, increased numbers of qualified internal candidates being placed, and year-over-year improvement in hiring manager satisfaction.    As organizations calibrate and mature their processes, they have validated data upon which to link talent acquisition initiatives with organizational profitability (mainly cost control and lower time-to-fill).  In addition, social media can be leveraged to build a community of talent; candidates who are a better organizational fit self-select “in” to the community.

A September, 2012 study conducted by Madeline Laurano of the Aberdeen Group indicated that, for companies to achieve Best-in-Class performance in Talent Acquisition, they must:

·         Strengthen employer branding initiatives through a positive candidate experience,

·         Identify critical roles in the organization and concentrate on filling those roles with quality hires, and

·         Invest in innovative technology such as social media platforms, candidate relationship management and video tools.

I recently heard a story of an internal candidate who was promoted.  While the promotion was a good thing, the story was less than stellar.  A job had been posted for months, internally, and this candidate was not identified although he’d been on a “people to watch” list and had earned both “exceeds expectations” and “distinguished” performance ratings previously.   This candidate used an internal search tool and found a job for which he was a 90% positive match --- yet no recruiter had identified him.  How often is that same scenario repeated in company after company?  Talent Acquisition Partners must continuously build and cultivate relationships with top talent inside and outside the organization.  Talent Acquisition Partners only have insight into those high potential candidates if their Talent Management and Executive Development partners share data.  According to trend data, Best-in-Class organizations are 48% more likely than Industry Average or Laggard companies to prepare for future business requirements in two critical areas:  talent pipelines and workforce planning.   Talent Acquisition strategies cannot be successful without HR understanding the interdependencies of these functions and activities.

Data would suggest that organizations who execute on these strategic activities are also able to achieve better business results such as customer retention and customer satisfaction.  You see, Centers of Excellence, Profit Centers and Business Units impact one another in ways we may not have thought.  For example, a strong brand can help drive quality talent to an organization by defining and translating the company’s image, organizational culture, and reputation.  It can also be the foundation of a positive candidate experience.  Best-in-Class organizations have a clearly defined employer branding strategy that aligns with marketing and communication initiatives.  If your organization lacks such a strategy, look to your Chief Human Resources Officer to explain “why not”.

On the social media side, about half of all organizations are using social media to simply broadcast jobs to candidates.  Where organizations are leaving money on the table, so to speak, is when they fail to engage candidates in regular, meaningful interaction.  Does your organization have a social media tool that allows you to post openings on your personal social media sites, thereby reaching a broader audience for referrals?   Would you find that valuable?

Traditional organizations still measure cost-per-hire and time-to-fill; they probably always will.  However, Best-in-Class organizations cited “Quality of Hire” as the most critical HR metric in place today.  Quality of Hire metrics ensures that the sourcer / recruiter isn’t just looking for warm bodies to fill openings.  Quality of Hire metrics holds managers and Human Resources Business Partners accountable for successful onboarding and makes them become more involved in the process.

Think about your organization and what a maturity continuum might look like.  Phase I might be to assess the process, the players and tools available aligned against a Talent Acquisition or HR strategy.  Phase II might be to bring some additional structure to the process and to train / educate the various partners (including hiring managers) about the process.  Phase III could include becoming more involved in the organization’s overall talent processes, including a strengthened partnership with Talent Management to identify talent pools for hard-to-fill or “critical roles” identified during succession planning or talent review discussions.  A fourth and final phase might involve strategic alignment with business processes and decisions, so that Talent Acquisition has a seat at the table to steer strategic discussions, rather than being on the backend of the process, taking orders.

Thoughts on form / function / structure / strategy...

The American architect Louis Sullivan admired rationalist thinkers like Greenough, Thoreau, Emerson, Whitman and Melville, and coined the phrase ”form follows function”  in his article The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered in 1896. Here Sullivan actually said "form ever follows function", but the simpler (and less emphatic) phrase is the one usually remembered. For Sullivan this was distilled wisdom, an aesthetic credo, the single "rule that shall permit of no exception". The full quote is thus:

"It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things superhuman, of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law."

In management theory, the thesis that Structure follows Strategy was proposed by the historian Alfred Chandler. This means that a corporate structure is created in order to implement a given corporate strategy.

Chandler substantiated his Structure follows Strategy thesis based on four case studies of American conglomerates that dominated their industry from the 1920s onward. Chandler described how the chemical company Du Pont, the automobile manufacturer General Motors, the energy company Standard Oil of New Jersey and the retailer Sears Roebuck managed a growth and diversification strategy by adopting the revolutionary multi-division form. The M-Form is a corporate federation of semi-independent product or geographic groups plus a headquarters that oversees the corporate strategy and coordinates interdependencies.  Today, we often think of regions, profit centers, business units or centers of excellence being part of that “corporate federation.”  This thesis gave me reason for pause as I looked at the Fortune 100 list of most profitable companies.   DuPont is known for its market driven innovation and science, and is ranked #72.  General Motors has re-focused its business and narrowed its lines and now sits at #5.   Standard Oil has been broken into many pieces, including Exxon/Mobil – which sits at #1, with Chevron and BP also in the mix of the Top 10.  Finally, retailer Sears & Roebuck has suffered a series of maladies and continues to struggle just to survive.  I wondered:  “What is the difference in the form, function, structure and strategy of each of those companies?”

Blogger Ryan O’Connor asserts that “form follows function” is an overused philosophy and that in today’s virtual product environment, the saying breaks down when challenged.  Case in point:  user experience designers who design products based solely on function miss the bigger picture.  O’Connor suggests that “structure follows strategy” is more applicable.  Point taken.  To see O’Connor’s Human Factors Blog, click here:   http://roconnorhfblog.wordpress.com/tag/structure-follows-strategy/

Having now considered both form and function (or structure), let’s focus on building a strategy.  Business strategy is a framework of choices.  According to The Art and Discipline of Strategic Leadership, published by McGraw-Hill, 2003, “Strategy is the framework of choices that determine the nature and direction of an organization.” 

Strategy  is…

·        The answer to how an organization plans to win or achieve its goals.  Strategic thinking requires consideration of the external environment and competitors as well as the internal environment.

·        About achieving a winning difference.  Competitive advantage is the result of a balance arising from an organization’s strategic intent and its operational effectiveness.  Operational effectiveness is the extent to which the organization performs similar activities better than its rivals.  This alone is not a generator of competitive advantage.  Organizations win when they perform different activities from rivals or perform the same activities in different ways.   They will win when their employees are engaged, creative and innovative.  Granted, organizations need “LEAN” processes, but LEAN processes, in and of themselves, are not strategic differentiators. 

Strategy is not…

·        Goal setting.  Goal setting and setting objectives are critically important to support and sustain the structure.  They speak to what you want to achieve.  Strategy, on the other hand, is how you intend to achieve those goals.  Here’s the litmus test:  Look at your strategy document.  Are there activities, goals and milestones?  Then re-work it --- it’s not yet a strategy.  Documents containing who does what by when are business plans, not strategy documents.

·        Simply a long-term vision compared to a short-term vision.

More than anything, strategy involves choices within a world of finite resources – choices based on what will bring in the greatest value or create the greatest strategic advantage.  (Adapted from Michael Porter, “What Is Strategy” Harvard Business Review 78, no. 2, 2000).

“Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.”  - Archimedes, Greek Mathematician 280 – 211 BC. 

Strategic thinking tools exist to identify the “fulcrum” or pivotal asset that, if employed correctly or developed carefully, will provide competitive advantage to an organization.  The following are three ways that leaders can improve organizational alignment.

1.      Responsible leadership.  One of the most critical roles that organizational leadership plays is working together to create a common understanding of organizational strategy and to drive execution.  Yet, each level of leadership is responsible for contributing to a different aspect of strategy.  Here’s where I see this break down:  Business Unit, Profit Center or Center of Excellence leaders use the excuse “our strategy IS the business strategy.”  Simply put, “NO… it is not”.   Your form / function / structure should be designed to serve in support of an over-arching organizational strategy.  At the Business Unit, Profit Center and Center of Excellence level, your strategy should provide the framework from which to attach responsibilities (the fulcrum) to move the business forward.

2.      Realistic assessment of organization context.  An organization’s capability is the interplay between its internal strengths and weaknesses and the external opportunities and threats.  Taken together, these elements describe an organization’s ability to compete within its strategic context and to fulfill strategic intent.  An organization’s strategic context is determined by the interplay of forces that shape the industry you operate in:  your competitors’ capabilities and intent, the threat of new competitors, suppliers’ bargaining power, customers’ preferences and bargaining power and product (or solution) volatility.

3.      Align behind a clear strategic intent.  This is the strategic position that the organization’s leadership intends to establish and/or defend within your industry.  Here’s my inside tip:  If you can’t explain your organization’s strategic intent without a power slide (or God-forbid a 270 page PowerPoint deck), then you don’t understand it well enough.  Go back to the drawing board.  I am more than happy to provide tips and tools on how to accomplish this – inbox me.

The 1, 2, 3's of Talent Management

It is a mystery to me why some companies choose to separate succession planning discussions from talent review.  I am further baffled when other organizations choose to engage in either activity, but not in both.  The practice of Talent Management, in my view, is a simple three part process.

STEP 1 of talent management involves assessing the business needs for the upcoming 12 - 18 months.  Leaders assess the organization's business imperatives and critical needs as the basis for identifying critical talent needs and key roles.  The process of defining and identifying "business critical" roles is an often missed opportunity in talent review.  It takes discipline to maintain this business discussion without considering people.  Leaders must prioritize the why and the what before considering the whom.

STEP 2 becomes a succession discussion and requires balanced consideration between the employee and leaders.  Employees put their best foot forward via their employee profile, their past year's performance and demonstrated (or assessed) potential.  Leaders may now use organizational priorities to match critical roles with key talent in the pipeline.  This principle should prevail:  right job, right time, right person.  Organizations would do well to consider (a) who is ready now, (b) who could be ready in 12 - 18 months, and (c) what experiences do those identified need to prepare them for additional responsibilities?  Step 2 becomes the succession planning component of Talent Management.  Further, if the pipeline isn't adequately populated, this is the time to partner with Talent Acquisition to formulate a strategy to begin sourcing qualified candidates.

STEP 3 is a drill-down discussion of part (c), above, or development planning.  Talent Management is not a complete process without this step.  As there is no "one size fits all" for development,  this should be a rich discussion to determine whether those successors identified need exposure to other parts of the business (to prepare them for general management roles), to learn a new skill (so that they may become more valued contributors as utility players), or whether they need to become more self-aware through assessments, mentoring or coaching.  Step 3 becomes very tactical at the end of the discussion.  For each person identified during succession discussions, leaders should have a clear understanding and be able to articulate "who is responsible for developing whom in what measurable ways, by when, and how will that success be measured and reported?"

For organizations that have progressed beyond year one of a holistic talent review, Step 2 should begin with an accounting of the prior year's progress.  Not only does this formula bring closure to last year's process, it also builds accountability for developing talent at the highest levels in the organization.  You do want leaders to be accountable for developing talent, right?

As a Talent Management leader, the most important question you can ask yourself right now is "how can I simplify this process for my leaders, my HR business partners and for myself?"  Over-engineered talent reviews with multiple levels of accountability, confusing tools and unclear procedures are a death knell to an otherwise healthy and value-added function.  Simplify yours today!  (Need help?  Contact me!)

Time to Scrap Performance Appraisals?

In my 35 years of corporate experience, I’ve lived through nine iterations of performance management.  At best, some have accurately captured, reported and calibrated my performance.  I’ve also observed that leaders in some top-down organizations feel a need to weed out bottom performers and marginalize the efforts of the middle 80%.   At the same time, they’re not quite sure how best to reward top performers.

As the workforce and the workplace changes, progressive organizations are looking at doing away with traditional performance ratings and the performance appraisal process.  Josh Bersin, founder of Bersin by Deloitte, asserts, “Businesses thrive on agility, speed, passion and alignment.  The process of driving and measuring performance has to do the same.”  The Forbes article (link below) provokes the question, “do we really need a performance appraisal system?”

While pondering that thought, here are a few key points to consider:

·         Do you have a feedback rich organizational culture?  If not, it is high time to create one.  Incorporate feedback models into every aspect of organizational life, including performance discussions, 360 reviews (including peer-to-peer and employee to manager), and talent review.  Invite and appreciate the gift of feedback.

·         Separate performance discussions from development discussions.  Managers who listen with an open mind are more highly regarded than those who prescribe development without accurately diagnosing both performance and motivation.  Development discussions are not constructed in such a way so as to “fix” performance.  

·         Expect that performance discussions are a part of regular one-on-one conversations, and that performance discussions are a two-way street.  Have your employees provide you feedback as well; you’ll be amazed at how impactful that feedback can be.   Don’t discount group feedback; I’ve seen mentoring circles and peer feedback sessions be very beneficial!

·         Assume positive intent – and if someone isn’t performing up to standard, don’t assume you know the reason.  ASK.  You may be part of the problem.

·         Challenge pay-for-performance plans.  Few things in corporate life demotivate and demoralize workers more than being “leveled” or “calibrated” against others’ performance. 

 

For more thought-provoking questions, follow the link below to the Forbes article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2013/05/06/time-to-scrap-performance-appraisals/