Share this:

If you’re familiar with the sitcom, Father Ted, you’ll know the bit; Ted is trying to explain to Dougal the difference between distant cows and small cows. If you’re unfamiliar with it, here’s a link to a wonderful bit of comedy: LINK.

For those with an organisation to run, there’s an interesting reflection; what fuels workforce productivity – is it larger but more distant carrots ?   Or closer, more immediate, but very much smaller carrots ?

Larger, more distant rewards should fuel workforce retention – the promise of promotion, investment in the employee’s career, long-term financial security, achievement of status – that when I finally get to X everything will be great. But will it really ? Those ‘far away’ carrots may turn out to actually be small after all. Worse, they may turn out to be mouldy. Many employees have felt the pain of a promotion to a toxic role. So not only do these distant rewards rely on employees’ ability to delay gratification and stay focused on the long-term goal, if the reality fails to match expectation then it can be incredibly de-motivating and drive staff turnover – particularly amongst middle and senior management.

Example – there are many stories in all sectors of people pushing for promotion, only to regret their ‘success’. Indeed a whole cottage industry of “career counsellors” relies upon it. The world of education is littered with deputy heads reluctant to take headship because the reward doesn’t match the risk and sacrifice. One of my clients was promoted to head up his department. The step up gave him a pay rise and a better car. It cost him his time with his family, the bits of the old job he had most enjoyed and now had to delegate, and the band he played in during his spare time. It left him feeling fed up and disillusioned most of the time. I’m sure you have similar anecdotes.

So what about the smaller, more immediate carrots ? Of course, they’re an ideal way to affect shorter-term behaviour and focus the workforce on immediate priorities. Short term reward in particular should be conditional; clearly linked to performance or change, or a time-bound issue (eg: maintaining department performance levels during the uncertainty of restructure). However if they’re applied too frequently or are too easy to achieve then they can just become part of the fabric. They stop being an incentivising reward and are seen as a ‘right’. And then if you take them away it can lead to uproar !

Example: One client told me of their ongoing workforce engagement problems. One of the symptoms ? Ten years ago the company had introduced a Christmas Hamper as a gesture of seasonal goodwill. As a ‘surprise gift’ it was warmly received and so the following year they decided to provide it again. In the wake of the credit crunch, after 5 years of Christmas hampers, this gesture was discontinued. And now 6 years later HR still hears the grumble of Winter discontent about the loss of something the workforce had started to see as an integral part of the package – and, crucially, in no way related to performance.

 

Of course, the answer is to employ both long and short term incentives, and many organisations – typically in the private-sector – do this to great effect. However, in the public and not-for-profit sectors, there appears to be historical and cultural reliance on a ‘fair’ basic salary and a reasonable benefits package. The key missing ingredient is the compelling incentive. To maximise productivity and impact, an organisation’s reward strategy should remunerate employees fairly, attract sufficiently qualified applicants, and underpin retention of the right people. It should also motivate, forging the link to unite the intent/objective, the effort required of the employee, and quality of output achieved.

How well do you think your reward strategy achieves this ? Try scoring these statements out of ten for your organisation:

• Reward is fair – it reflects the effort and complexity of work done by individuals and teams.
• Short term incentives are clearly linked to stretching short term objectives.
• If I achieve more – and produce better outcomes for the organisation – the better my pay will be this year.
• Promotions are accompanied by a wide range of financial and non-financial rewards, so employees can define the reward package they want as individuals.

Share this:

Like many people I was shocked and very deeply saddened by the untimely exit of Robin Williams. What a bright, dazzling star; a genuine genius. The Muhammad Ali of comedy, as I believe someone described him.

What has been interesting to observe in the aftermath is the public battle being fought between two sides. Those who view mental illness as superficial, and suicide as selfish, versus those who demonstrate understanding and empathy and realise mental illness is not something anyone chooses to have, and that to reach a point where suicide is the logical and best option, someone must be in truly desperate anguish.

Now I’ll be honest. I have suffered depression in the past. It’s been a long time gone, but those mental ghosts never really leave completely and there’s always the lingering menace at the periphery of my life, like the cosmic ‘echo’ from the big bang. Thankfully over the years I’ve developed all the weapons I need to keep it at bay. But when you’ve cleared up shit, the smell takes a while to go.

I function perfectly well at work but, like many, my job is stressful. It requires a great deal of energy and ‘emotional labour’, attention to detail, and proactivity. I have to influence others, be ‘politically’ sensitive, meet deadlines and targets, and manage competing priorities effectively. Just like you probably do. And, if you look around you, just like pretty much most people you work with. How many people do you work with ?

In one recent study, the prevalence of anxiety and depression was estimated to be 1 in 5, research that is mirrored in other statistics. So, allowing for some people being so profoundly affected that they cannot remain in employment, let’s halve that number – no, let’s quarter it to 1 in 20 – and apply that to your workplace. Look around you again.

How many people do you work with that have publicly declared that they can’t cope and need time out to deal with the pressures they face ?

Now, how many do you think privately suffer with depression or overload with un-shared anxiety ? How many need help, but daren’t ask for it ?

 

Some may feel there’s no place for ‘weakness’ in business. That “if you can’t take the heat then make way for someone who can”. These people may have at heart a “be strong” mental trait which denies the space for any public display of weakness. Ironically of course, often these are the very people who cry in the night, turn to alcohol and other substances, or go home and kick the sofa upside down.

Of course we all face hardship; some are capable of bouncing back quicker than others. People suffering with depression, dysthymia, and anxiety do not choose to do so. Often it can be caused by life circumstances imposed upon them – either from childhood experiences producing harmful or counter-productive cognitive processes and broken coping mechanisms, or from current difficulties such as redundancy, divorce, illness, and loss of a loved one. Believing depression is the same is being unhappy and that people can just ‘think themselves better’, is like thinking MS is the same thing as being tired and a good espresso will do the trick.

But what’s important to remember is that we are all human beings; that mental illness and mental health are just as much a part of human life as physical illnesses and health. How many employers reading this article openly promote mental wellbeing services in their employee benefits with the same fanfare as a gym membership ?

Anecdotally, one of my colleagues has recently taken a month from work because, according to a management announcement “he just needed some time out to relax and feel better about work”. He should be applauded a/ for initially soldiering on and giving his all, b/ for accepting his limitations, and c/ for returning once he felt ready.

And the employer should be applauded for understanding and supporting him.

Share this:

So your customer services team manager has left. They gave you a month’s notice and in that time you needed to make an appointment. You needed to find one of the team capable of doing the job, and there are three good potential candidates; Mark, Sarah, and Abdul.

The outgoing manager has outlined their recommendations in a couple of short paragraphs as part of their handover. Here are the principal details you have to go on:

Mark	3 years in the team. Won employee-of-the-month about 6 months ago. Handled 4 of your 8 largest accounts. Bit of a lone-wolf, he develops great customer relationships and always meets his own performance targets.
Sarah	6 years in the team. Recommended by the manager because “she’s next in line. She has experience and knowledge of all the processes”. Deputised for the manager before, when asked, and ran a steady ship.
Abdul	1 year in the team. Two years in previous organisation, and then six years’ experience in four organisations before that. Known to be a little argumentative with management, always pushing to make changes in how things are done.

 

So, who do you choose ?

Well of course it depends, to some extent, on the context of the department and intangibles we don’t have time to cover in a supposedly short blog piece. But for argument’s sake let’s go for Sarah. She seems like the obvious candidate.

But as any experienced reader of HR-related blogs will have ascertained, the obvious mistake that many organisations still make, is to choose Sarah because she’s next in line. She does have all the great customer-service attributes – good listener, negotiator, and knows the right processes. And her experience of the role and team and would help her transition. However, she hasn’t shown any initiative in the last 2 or 3 years; where’s her ambition ? And she does love a process – how will she perform when there aren’t processes to follow ?

So, what about Abdul ?

I can see what you’re thinking – all that external experience, he’s frustrated by current management because he can see how to improve things. He’d be excellent in making the changes we need. Well, yes and no. While a little constructive conflict is often useful in effective management teams, you don’t want to create a Frankenstein’s monster. How many of the management team will get fed up with his behaviour and start to marginalise him ? To quote Sir Richard Branson, “I’d rather have a hole in my team than an arsehole”.

Then it must be Mark !

Again no. He’s the best customer service representative you’ve got. Are you sure you want to take his skills out of the team, put him into dozens of management meetings, and hope that we find a clone ? Do we see any evidence of him taking time to develop others ? How can you be sure that his ‘lone-wolf’ tendencies aren’t just a nice way of saying he’s selfish ?

 

It’s not easy making the right choice. So, what’s the answer ?

Clearly the obvious, visible, ‘above the water’ evidence only gives us part of the picture. It helps us to assess if Sarah (process) or Abdul (innovation) would be better suited to a team that might need change. We may see accomplishments in one role (Mark) and assume they will translate in a more senior position. But smarter people than I have pointed out the problem with that approach (for the uninitiated: LINK )

The only answer is to look for less obviously visible evidence. Look below the water line at the non-conscious traits and choices determined by each candidate’s self image and values. This can be done easily by applying psychometrics. There are some terrific tools around nowadays that can be administered online, and produce startlingly accurate insights. For example, a recent applicant I know of turned up late at her second interview. She hadn’t called ahead to apologise and set expectations. A quick look at her psychometric profile confirmed that her non-conscious behavioural prefences leant heavily towards “bending rules which they find limiting, avoiding rigid adherence to deadlines, and tendency to make small mistakes and get away with them”. Ideal if we were looking for someone to pioneer change. Not so good in a customer service capacity.

These tools can be applied not only for recruitment and selection but for internal promotion and development, so organisations can look beneath the surface and get a glimpse of the traits and motivations that are so important when making internal promotions; often more important than current performance, and as valid as the manager’s opinion.

Do you have any views ?  Any experiences of these tools ?  Do share !

Share this:

Sony has just revised its annual forecast results downwards after a dreadful 3^rd quarter. The electronics giant (for now at least) expects to make an annual loss of $2.9 billion. This might not be news to some of you. After all it’s the fourth consecutive year of Sony posting annual losses. Wait a minute – the fourth consecutive year that a firm with such a strong global brand strength, diverse operations, and a significant emphasis in the growing market for consumer electronics has posted a loss ?  Something is rotten in the state of their business. For comparison, a quick reference to Samsung, LG, and Apple’s suggests the market is buoyant. Samsung made record revenue and profit in 2010. What about LG ? In 2009 (it’s most recent freely available results) it posted record turnover and profit, with net profit growth of 325%. As for Apple, do I really need to tell you about their success ?  Even Microsoft’s Entertainment and Devices Division, Sony’s fiercest rival in the business-critical home-console market (it’s not just about the games nowadays), posted 15% increase in revenue in the most recent quarter.

So, what is going on at Sony ? 

 

 

 

 

Without access to anything more than their annual report it’s difficult to diagnose. But since the likes of Kodak, HMV, EMI, and many others whose businesses and revenue-streams are anchored firmly in established technology and routes-to-market have appeared to fail to adapt, I would put my neck on the block and suggest the following scenario.

Sony’s executives throughout the world are scared. Fear has a pervasive and subtle influence on behaviour. It encourages protection. Defence. The defensive climate in an organisation is one which inhibits truth when there is bad news. It is one which shifts blame. One that discourages innovation because of the risk of uncertainty. The problem is, fear does these things at precisely the time an organisation must be bold. To be honest in revealing and addressing the actual problems. To define itself by its vision and not by its current situation.

Now, I know Sony are producing some wonderful new gadgets (link here) but recent history suggests that they fail to see the big picture trends, and that they turn a revenue stream into a sacred cow. Remember the Walkman ?  of course you do. Then the Minidisk ?  Perhaps less memorable. Then Apple came along with the iPod and iTunes.  It’s a classic story of innovation (Walkman) followed by consolidation (Minidisk = incremental development on established market) then failure to spot a massive potential market (iTunes) because it threatened established revenues in the sale of gadget hardware. Even the new (and very impressive) portable gaming platform, the PSVita is sold with Sony’s proprietory memory format instead of one which consumers may already have, such as the SD Card. Protection. Defence. Fear.

The point is this – organisations are made and lost by people. People feel emotions (regardless of whether or not they are self-aware enough to recognise it), and emotions influence our decisions. They affect the topic of conversation, the things we dwell on, the way we talk and so forth. Imagine the conversations taking place in Sony’s corridors around the world these days, compared to its competitors (LG, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung). Now imagine you were a decision maker with a P&L budget in the hundreds of millions, and it’s not going well for you. The defensive climate says “find a reason and make sure it’s not in my dept”. However, the emotionally intelligent leader (and especially one who’s read Jim Collins’ book “Good to Great”) will recognise the power of ‘confronting the brutal truth’. This happens at an organisation-level (Sony) and at an individual level; eg: you might be expected to confront colleagues acting in ways that don’t act with the organisation’s best interests in mind.

For Sony, the brutal truth may be that it has to overhaul its entire business model. In a world where consumer spending on ‘nice-to-have’ gadgets is being squeezed out of existence by tax increases and inflation-busting cost increases to the ‘must-haves’ (fuel, energy, food, etc) there’s not the financial buoyancy to allow defensiveness or complacency. Now is the time for a leaner, more honest and confident leadership to emerge at all levels. Otherwise its corporate tagline could turn into the epitaph for the way its business decisions were made: Make Believe.

Share this:

With origins in Babylonian antiquity and oral tradition, there is an ancient God adopted by the Romans and called Janus. He was the God of beginnings, transitions, gates, doorways, movement, time and endings, and was depicted as having two faces – one looking forward, the other back (great for any teacher or parent).

Janus could look back on past events and forward to events yet to occur. He became a symbol of resolution in both senses of the word: resolving (forgiveness) of past conflicts and resolve (commitment) to a future path. Romans named the first month of the calendar year after Janus, and began a tradition of exchanging gifts on New Years Eve to broker peace or for good fortune. It is said that the first Mediterranean coins depicted Janus’ two faces on one side, and were often used as symbolic gifts. You can see where this is going, can’t you ?   No, I’m not going to ask for generous donations of gold; it’s the time of year to consider New Year’s Resolutions.

 

Top tips

Every year we hear the same tired “resolutions” trotted out. Stop smoking. Lose weight. Get to the gym. Make more time for family. Spend less. If you really do want to change one thing in 2012, there are a few tips to make it actually happen.

• Do only what you actually want to do.
• Frame your intention positively
• Make your goal ambitious and specific
• Set milestones
• Tell people about it
• Embed it for the long term

 

Do only what you actually want to do – There is no point saying you’re going to be a size 10 if you’ve no burning desire to be a size 10 and actually feel perfectly happy 98% of the time being a size 14. No point in aiming for a promotion at work if the next step up means sacrifices you don’t want to make. Don’t say you’ll make more time for your family if you actually enjoy the stress and achievement of work and have no biting need to be a better father/mother. Make sure the resolution draws on something you really want to change. Not what you think you ought to change.

Frame your intention positively – A great deal of research supports the view that negative resolutions are more likely to fail. On one level saying “I am going to give up smoking” suggests you actually have something to give up – a sacrifice to make. Already your subconscious looks for ways to cheat on your commitment. On another level, “I am going to stop smoking” is a slight improvement but still fails to have any aspirational tone. How about this: “From my first day back at work I will be an ex-smoker. I am going to smell good, feel better, and I’ll spend the £1,500 I save on a holiday or a new wardrobe of clothes”. Whatever words you choose, frame it positively, and with tangible outcomes.

Make your goal ambitious and specific – it’s tough to balance ambition and viability. “I will win Masterchef” is perhaps a little unrealistic. “I will clear out the 3^rd bedroom and learn to cook something good” is okay but vague. But “Every month I will host dinner, cooking something new, and inviting friends to stay over in my beautifully redecorated 3^rd bedroom from the end of March” is a little more progressive. It is something that others will notice about you and has a time/deadline attached to it. If you add “And at the end of the year I will enter the Masterchef competition” then it has the edgy kick of ambition. That’s the feeling of a comfort-zone being stretched !

Set milestones – Having made it ambitious, break it into milestones. Chunks. And celebrate each milestone as you achieve it. Ideally, get other people involved in your celebration. There is nothing quite so wonderful as the recognition of others. Except perhaps for the warmth of secret charity.

Tell people about it – Muhammad Ali was a genius at committing himself to overcoming the impossible and part of his trick was to tell everyone within earshot, that he would achieve what he wanted. This serves two purposes; 1/ reinforcing the mental intention – the difference between trying hard and actually doing it. And 2/ eliminating wriggle-room to cheat yourself. Boyatzis’ model of intentional change has “Supportive Relationships” at its heart, and with good reason. With the help of others you can achieve so much more than you can alone. Perhaps you could share your new year’s resolution by adding a comment to this article (scroll to the top).

Embed it for the long term – In Stephen R Covey’s “7 Habits of Highly Effective People”, he calls the seventh habit “sharpen the saw”. He relates the anecdote of someone struggling to cut down a tree, but reluctant to sharpen the saw because they’re too busy sawing. In essence, this is about constant renewal and continuous improvement. In other words, this year’s resolution could be the first step in a longer process of personal change. The new exercise regime for 2012 could become the charity runs of 2013, and the self-employed personal trainer of 2014.

 

Remember, today you look forward. You have the choice to either make something up on the spur of the moment at 11:50 on 31^st December when someone asks what your new year’s resolution is, or you can take control of your own development. In twelve months time, like Janus, you’ll be looking backward on today’s resolutions. Make yourself proud.

You Are Here.

.

Share this:

 

Does the following scenario seem familiar to you ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ask anyone why they are motivated at work, and you’re unlikely to hear the response: “Because of the way management imposes tighter controls and increasingly measures my activity”. More likely you’ll hear about participation in decisions, autonomy to carry out my job, working as a team, having flexibility in the hours, and making a real difference in the world.

Almost every single piece of research, and every book on management ever written, confirms that business results are increased by a motivated workforce, and a motivated workforce is created by enabling and empowering employees. So it’s an interesting phenomenon that when the pressure is on, management invariably imposes tighter controls which slows productivity. After all, you don’t fatten a pig for market by measuring it. Of course, the point of greater measurement is to identify where improvements can be found; informing decisions made at senior levels and then imposed upon a workforce that is rarely consulted about “improvements”, and already feels resentful about the additional controls.  Too often the residue from such an exercise is a reduction in trust and the spiral illustrated above. Which benefits no-one.

The most talented managers – those capable of accelerating results out of a crisis – apply techniques appropriate to the situation. When the situation changes, so does their management style.

A short while ago I worked with a sales manager who phoned his team individually for a half-hour discussion at the end of every day to find out how many calls they had made, how many meetings, with whom, what was discussed, what did the customer say, why didn’t they try X, why didn’t they do Y, etc. To the manager it was an exercise in development and communication. To the team of capable salespeople it was demoralising and a painful exercise in control, inferring they weren’t doing well enough. While his intentions were good – he just wanted every team member to succeed – he was applying a single technique regardless of the individual or the situation. The result, after months of his well-meaning but misdirected “daily development calls”, was a loss of motivation, high staff turnover, and a growing reputation as being the person to avoid working for. Together we looked (successfully) at alternative approaches around coaching, and encouraging participation from an already skilful and potentially motivated team. His role changed from authoritarian to enabler. His team’s motivation and results improved as they perceived their role changing from ‘sales-drone’ to being empowered and accountable for their own results.

So if you find yourself feeling alienated from a team which doesn’t seem to put in discretionary effort at the time you most need it, perhaps the vicious circle of control is to blame. What can you do ?  Three things: Unshackle, Enable, Empower.

Unshackle – how much time and productivity are wasted by unnecessary measuring and reporting ? Try discussing the challenge openly with your team. Discuss the team’s objectives and encourage their input to improve results. Do not judge responses – control your own instinctive need to control ! Start to cascade accountability for performance by asking them to decide what they think will have the greatest positive effect. Measure only the outputs or results.

Enable – There is a simple and somewhat outmoded theory of motivation (Theory X&Y) which still has some relevance in explaining the beliefs underpinning behaviour. Theory X managers see the workforce as fundamentally lazy, lacking ambition and needing to be controlled or coerced. Theory Y managers believe workers are motivated by many needs – they trust workers and help them to do their best.

Of course, in the real world it’s rarely so clear-cut (either X or Y) but we do have default tendencies of managing style. In order to ‘enable’ you must magnify the Theory Y side of your approach. See yourself as a developer and challenger, not as a controller or authority. It means letting go of control. This is scary stuff. But no-one said being a leader is easy.

Empower – Look again at the goals of the team. Do peoples’ accountabilities align with those goals ?  If not then you need to revisit one, or the other. Once aligned, you as the manager must make it clear that the individual is responsible for delivering their own outcomes but that you will provide appropriate support, development, and challenge.

If the vicious circle of control resonated with you at the start of the article, then why might it make sense to look at alternative approaches ?  What would be the benefits to you and your team to break the cycle ?  You Are Here. How might we start the journey ?

Share this:

Interesting findings once again emanate from research conducted by the CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development), suggesting an expensive and largely invisible problem facing employers right now. And it’s one that can be so easily resolved.

Nearly a quarter of employees (according to CIPD research) are actively looking for employment elsewhere. That’s a significant figure, with frightening implications for the balance sheet. For example, it has been estimated that the average cost of recruiting is just over £6,000. Let’s say your organisation employs 400 people. If 100 of them are looking for employment elsewhere, and roughly ¼ of them are successful in the next 12 months (not unreasonable ?) then that’s a total recruitment cost in the next year of £150,000. And this hides the more significant cost of ramp-up periods for new staff, losing expertise and business contacts, project momentum, etc. And then there’s the risk of a ‘bad-hire’.

Further, the research finds (perhaps unsurprisingly) that employees with low trust in their managers or directors are almost 6 times more likely to look for a new job, than those who do trust their managers or directors. It looks like ‘trust’ is powerful employment glue between company and staff, just as it is between a company and its customers.

Claire McCartney, Resourcing and Talent adviser at CIPD comments: “With many organisations struggling to compete and survive, the issue of organisation culture and values can take a back seat. Some employers may also feel that they don’t have to work as hard to keep their people because there are fewer opportunities in the labour market that will allow employees to jump ship. However, vacancies always exist for motivated and skills staff and employers risk losing their most valued employees – those most able to compete in a tough labour market.

And this is the key point. If you’re trying to gain the sharpest competitive edge in the current economy, then you don’t want to be left paying the least effective people while the best amongst your workforce walk out of the door. Organisations should be looking to build the most skilled and motivated workforce either to survive or to thrive. And it would seem that one major issue hindering organisations from achieving this is a lack of trust.

Claire McCartney continues: “Trust forms a key part of the employment relationship and if employees feel there is a gap between what directors say and do, or that there is a lack of transparency or fairness in terms of how people are recognised and rewarded, they are likely to feel disenchanted. The openness, quality and frequency of communication from the top is alos critical to trust, as is the extent to which any consultation is meaningful and happens before decisions are taken.

I couldn’t agree more. After all, if you feel that you’ve been shafted by your employer then what loyalty do you owe them ?

I’m reminded of an old metaphor: trust is like a sequence of steps, built one step at a time. Act with integrity and others will allow you to continue. As the relationship progresses, you have built the strength to compromise when required. However, slip up once and lose trust, and you slide back a number of steps – perhaps all the way to the bottom, and you have to start again.

The three key areas described above, for managers and directors to demonstrate their trustworthiness:

• Communications
• Transparency in recognition and reward
• Consultation prior to decisions

The more fundamental aspect of these three behaviours simply this: if you hold a leadership role then act with integrity.

Daniel Goleman (pioneer of Emotional Intelligence) writes that “everyone watches the boss”, and describes the value of ‘resonant leadership’: “The glue that holds people together in a team, and that commits people to an organisation, is the emotions they feel”.

If that emotion comes from a sense of betrayal of trust then there are no prizes for guessing the outcome.

Equally, in Goffee and Jones’ excellent book “Why Should Anyone Be Led By You ?” the interesting question is posed: what do followers actually want ? First on the list is authenticity . . . “there is a deep and deepening disenchantment with the able role-player or, worse still, the skilled apparatchik of the political or corporate kind. We are increasingly suspicious that we are being “worked”.“

Incidentally, second on their list is ‘significance’ – people need to feel recognition for their contribution, echoing sentiments of recognition and consultation mentioned above.

So, how is trust built ?  Some very simple catch-alls . . .

1. Deliver your promises. If you can’t be sure to deliver on them don’t make them.
2. Be frank. If there are significant problems then don’t be a Silvio Berlusconi. Be a Winston Churchill. Admit the scale of the challenge, but do so with an inspirational plan to prevail.
3. Communicate consistently, openly, and with a sense of purpose. Whether it’s by email, by quarterly video update, or a conversation in the corridor – remember to keep the message real, but positive.
4. Consult. Get feedback about what is important to employees. Then do what you can to deliver, or be transparent about why it cannot be done.

Of course, these ideas are offered for the purpose of a general blog article. If staff turnover or engagement is a problem affecting your organisation then call or email and let’s start addressing the specific causes together. You don’t want to blunt your own competitive edge.

Share this:

Earlier this week I started exploring some of the issues involved in effective talent management (see the article below this one). Part 2 looks at two further issues which must be considered for organisations looking to leverage competitive advantage through their people; derailing, and overlooking the imperfect.

Derailing.

Often a promising future leader suffers a significant setback in their development – something which derails their early career; temporarily if they’re resilient, permanently if they lack the perspective or drive to get back on track. It can be caused by their employer (redundancy or restructuring can temporarily halt a flourishing talent) or by their own behaviours or attitude. People can derail their own career very effectively when what seems like a strength becomes a weakness if taken too far. For example the ‘drive for excellence’ would be a terrific strength in a future leader. However if that drive led to a lack of collaboration or recognition of others’ input, how long will they last ?  Self confidence can also derail a career where it leads to arrogance – have you ever seen a great candidate for future leadership development unwittingly sabotage their chances by quickly gaining a terrible ego ?  It’s not pleasant for anyone involved.

Another common issue comes amongst those with a disproportionately high “Achievement” motive. The sense of purpose they get from ‘getting things done’, or achieving excellent results can vanish overnight once important goals are met. You might notice this if your organisation has annual bonus schemes or if a major project reaches fruition. Some people just disengage and tread water for a while until the next major challenge motivates them. If that challenge takes the shapee of a job move then the organisation is losing good talent.

On this note, organisations must have an effective reward strategy in place – one which is an incentive for short-term progress, but which also recognises longer cycles of performance. This reward could take the form of straightforward financial bonuses, or a more sophisticated balance of supportive reward such as increased holiday allowance, workplace recognition awards, pension provision, or a range of perks (eg: private dental insurance or club memberships). The balance should be determined by the employee; allow them to sculpt the rewards which motivate them. After all, people’s needs evolve and are markedly different at life stages such as mid 20s, late 30s, and late 50s.

Equally, the organisation can derail employees’ careers, and not simply by restructuring and redundancy. Sometimes an organisation assumes a ‘star performer’ can adapt to a new role autonomously, and provides inadequate support. If the results are not glowing, it’s tempting for organisations to hold them accountable for the failure (see below).  At the heart of this problem is the readiness for change; future leaders must be willing to step forward knowing they will be fully supported and developed and not simply left to get on with it.

Lesson 3: development is not about ‘skills’. Time management may be an important skill, but talent development must focus on behaviours and traits, using 360-degree feedback where appropriate. It must occur before, during, and after promotion and it must be sought by both employee and employer.

 

Overlooking the imperfect.

One of the most important characteristics to look for in developing future leaders is the capacity and the hunger to learn – including the courage to accept and learn from mistakes. Of course, in the current climate organisations don’t want to risk experimenting with leaders who may fail to deliver.

If they failed once, is it likely they’ll fail again ?  No more than anyone else, and someone who learns from failure is an important asset.

Is ‘learning on the job’ an option any more ?  It should be. And not just because development budgets are thin but because it’s the most powerful way to learn. This is one reason that good coaching is so successful.

Have you ever watched The Apprentice, and wondered what it would be like to work in an organisation where a single mistake would result in your summary-dismissal ? Can you imagine the sense of fear in the corridors, and how that would shape management behaviour ?  While The Apprentice may be an extreme example, the ‘blotted copybook’ leads many organisations to overlook and fail to develop good potential leaders.

A willingness to accept possible shortcomings and recognition of the need to develop, are vital ingredients in a progressive and competitive organisation. Without it an organisation is firmly in a ‘defensive climate’ – where expectation of success means the need to hide failure rather than learn from it. Therefore, a willingness to confront the truth, and a capacity to learn should be two key components in your future leaders.

Lesson 4: Expand the pool of potential leaders – which ‘good but imperfect performers’ accept they could have done better, and show evidence of changing their approach ?

 

So, what should organisations be looking for ?

Rather than simply identifying today’s star-performers, organisations should first take a step back. HR must be strategic and ask the questions:

• What are we developing people towards – what are the cultural values and strategy we need for this organisation in a 10-15 year time-frame ?
• What behaviours underpin outstanding performance at each level in this organisation ?

A clear answer to these questions will help determine what kind of competencies should be sought, and what support and development should be in place to deliver competitive advantage through the effective management and growth of your people.

However, below are three vital characteristics that all future leaders should have:

• Courage to face the truth and hunger to learn – is there evidence that this person seeks improvements in themselves and others ?
• Willingness to step forward – is there evidence that this person has taken accountability when the opportunity has arisen ?
• The ability to ‘connect’ – is there evidence that this person looks to understand their colleagues and can engage others ?

 How do you identify your future leaders, and can we work together to deliver competitive advantage through the effective management and growth of your people ?  What experience do you have of talent management or mismanagement ?

Share this:

The ‘star performers’ in your organisation today are not the same as they will be in 3 years time. Nor the same as they were 3 years ago. Being a ‘star performer’ is not an enduring trait of a person. Rather, it is a balance between the role and the capabilities of the person; the balance of factors such as challenge, capability, reward, ambition, constraints, and resources. The right person in the right role ignites star performance, but it very often doesn’t last. The organisation changes. The person changes. Balance is lost.

This is why so many organisations are wrong to identify their current “star performers” as future leaders, and invest too many eggs in the wrong development baskets. Strategic talent management should be about so much more. It should be a process by which an organisation puts the right mechanisms in place to deliver competitive advantage through the effective management and growth of its people.

 

Why is it important ?

How many times have you read “our most important asset is our people” ? The phrase has become such a cliché that its inferred consequences and opportunities are often overlooked. And yet, any aspect of an organisation – its ability to implement a competitive strategy (eg: use of technology or reputation for excellent service), its financial results, its resilience to competition, its ability to innovate and thrive – all are dependent upon the qualities and capabilities of its people; particularly its leaders and managers.

Payroll is typically the largest business cost. Payroll to an ill-led, poorly-managed workforce is even more costly. This is all about competitive advantage.

 

So, where can talent management go wrong ?

Four classic examples of talent mis-management will be explored in this feature; two today and a further two later this week.

 

Direction and misdirection

The first is an easy trap to fall into: taking the identification of ‘star performers’ as a starting point and fast-tracking them into leadership. The issue is not who your stars are now, but what kind of leaders you will need in order to deliver the organisation’s strategic intent in future. The starting point for effective talent management – and, consequently, for future organisation performance – is in decoding the vision, strategy, and long-term corporate objectives; “If we aspire to X then what would that look like in the leadership behaviours and capabilities at all levels ?”

The next step is then to measure current capability to establish what the gap looks like. And that includes those ‘star performers’. In the light of what will be required, they may not shine so brightly.

The planning horizon for talent management must be across five or ten years so, for many SMEs, the difficulty can arise where HR provides a supportive functional role; where the time-horizon is counted in months, not years.

Lesson 1: the executive board must recognise the strategic value of its people, and of HR. Equally, HR must tether talent development to the organisation’s future direction, and not today’s stars.

 

The problem of promotion.

We’re all familiar with the cliché of The Peter Principle; that in a hierarchy people are promoted to the point of their incompetence. With star performers this can have a double-whammy. The organisation loses someone highly effective in the current role and gains an ineffective manager. As leaders are required to achieve results through others, today’s frontline stars must develop and use very different skills and behaviours than those required to achieve results from their own effort. Otherwise they will quickly find themselves promoted into incompetence. I have observed this most often in sales where the very qualities which make an outstanding sales-person often make for an abysmal sales manager or team leader. But if the organisation has a clear picture of what their ideal next-position qualities should be, and the individual is willing to learn, then the future looks a lot more positive.

Lesson 2: the organisation must identify the behaviours behind outstanding performance at all levels (not just the best they have now) and should work with future leaders to consider how their current behaviours match those required for excellence in the next potential role.

 

I will continue this exploration of talent management in Part 2, to be published here in the next couple of days.

If you have any thoughts or comments to add in the meantime then do click on “Add Comment”. I would welcome your perspective.

Share this:

CIPD research, conducted in partnership with Simplyhealth, has found that for the first time, as job insecurity has become a more permanent part of the workplace, stress is the #1 cause of long-term absence. Employees are so anxious that they feel they cannot attend work.

Of course, in being the #1 cause of long-term underperformance, stress may still lag behind poor management, short-termist leadership, defensive organisational climates, and a lack of clarity when translating the vision or strategy into everyday objectives and behaviours.

But let’s focus on one thing at a time.

According to respondents in the survey, more than 40% of public sector organisations are planning to make further redundancies in the next 6 months. Those in the private sector should not sit comfortably either, with 17% of businesses planning to make redundancies in the next 6 months. These are testing times, and the impact is being felt on the mental wellbeing of employees at all levels.

Of course, a certain amount of stress is a good thing. It motivates. Put very simply, stress is the body’s response to stimuli by the production of adrenalin and cortizol. However too much stress can be very damaging. And it would appear that for many employees the present working climate offers a constant overload of anxiety. Either because the external environment is consistently stressful, or because the person’s internal monologue fixates on the problems, and not beyond.

 The good news is this: public sector absence has fallen from 9.6 days per employee to “only” 9.1 days per employee. To give you sense of scale – if that half a day gain per employee were in the NHS alone, it would be the equivalent of 5,340 full-time employees. For free. For any organisation this would be a tremendous boost to productivity.

Perhaps this improvement is a sign that investment in developing more capable, more inspiring managers has paid off. Different levels of managers may now be better equipped to adopt more supportive, challenging, and effective methods of motivating their teams. Consequently, employees may be more engaged, and feel more inclined to demonstrate their commitment.

Or perhaps this is simply a case of motivation by fear of (job) loss.  After all the threat of redundancy is one way to sweat the workforce assets, and evidence from the research suggests that where redundancies loom, absenteeism falls. And stress is increasingly being cited as the cause when staff are absent.

Interestingly, in the last year the private sector has seen an increase in absenteeism from 6.6 days to 7.1 days per employee. Why might this be ?

Encouragingly, in recognition of the impact of tough times, over 40% of public sector organisations and more than 20% of private sector businesses reported an increased focus on employee wellbeing and health promotion. So in that spirit, let me offer an activity taken from one session in a recent “Managing in Uncertainty” workshop.

One common cause of stress is the brain’s tendency to “catastrophise”. In other words, we are all adept at making the quick and sometimes irrational leaps from one setback to another, snowballing to our own eventual ‘destiny in a ditch’. Who hasn’t found that when their child or their partner is an hour late and un-contactable, they haven’t jumped at warp-factor 1million to the worst-case scenario ? For example:

 A report deadline is approaching and other commitments compete for your time and attention. Alarm bells start ringing and you find yourself breathing more quickly and shallowly, and trying to concentrate on not snapping. You’re more aware of the nagging ache in the pit of the stomach (it must be an ulcer !) so you really need to rest but you can’t afford to. If that report deadline is missed then you’re letting your boss down. Can’t afford to do that in the current climate. How would we survive without an income? So it’s yet another late night. Which means your wife/husband will be in a huff. And that imminent ulcer will keep you awake. Great – you’ll be exhausted and divorced and because it’s rushed, the boss might not even like what’s been written.

When you’re seeing the trees of your personal doom, it’s sometimes difficult to see the real forest. So try this:

1. Write down the different steps of the unfolding crisis (yet to occur). Make each sentence like a step on a downward staircase. Take each step at a time, asking yourself “which means that . . . “, or “so what ?” as you write each sentence. When you’ve reached the bottom, stop. (the bottom is usually, divorce, loss of home, loss of all your money, etc). Then try to calculate the actual percentage chance of the first two or three links actually happening. Pretty soon that almost-certain-doom is looking like the kind of three-legged horse only an idiot would put a bet on.
2. Then write down a best-case scenario; one that is so outlandish that it concludes with you winning a Nobel prize, going on a date with (add name here), or being a multi-millionaire. Once again, ask yourself “Which means that . . . ?” between each upward step.
3. Then somewhere between the two scenarios, write the most probable sequence of events. Interestingly, a plan of action tends to emerge. Write down these probable solutions.

In the case above, a number of options become clear: re-negotiate the deadline, find additional resources to complete the report, or explain openly to the husband/wife that work is overbearing and you want to do your best by them so you’ll need to devote time to the job otherwise you may not have an income. The options may be clear to us now, but in your own mind when the stress takes you to snapping point ?

As a side note, one big question being overlooked in the research is this: why are private sector organisations getting an average of 2 days more per employee each year than private sector organisations ?

 I suggest organisational culture is the obvious elephant-shaped culprit lurking in the room. But that’s for another time.