Thinking About Talent: Yours and Theirs

It's easy to get bogged down trying to define what kinds of skills you want to develop for yourself or your people.

We have so much information available in the way of competency list, talents, and behavioral descriptions that the task can become overwhelming and sometime convoluted. This is especially true when you're making decisions about these in a group.

I put together the graphic below for a client. It reflects the major headings of talents and skills at increasing levels of development, and is a synthesis of my experiences over the years. One could say it is more art than science.

However, I've found that it offers a simple and accurate structure that will prompt you to think about the right categories of competencies at the right organizational levels. The trick: identify  the 5-8 genuinely important items related to each that represent high performance. Giving yourself or someone else more than that is unreasonable and can be discouraging.

Remember: we're not expecting people to walk on water--we want great swimmers.

Let me know if this proves helpful.

Comments

[Jo]

Steve, I insist on working top down. I want to know the business we are in, the pattern of our revenue, how sales demand affects labor demand and then when I understand that, I can look at who we need, and the width and breath of the skills they need.

I find MBA students latch on to the the diagram you've reproduced above and it becomes an excuse not to understand the business. Good businesses in my experience require all line managers to have as much technical skill as any one else (though some will be above the minimum). Where managers are managing experts, then we can talk about how that is done (e.g., an F&B Manager managing a celebrity chef, for example).

I saw a very tiring model of leadership recently, regrettably in a text book I am required to teach from. No where did it require managers to understand a profit and loss account or understand the rudiments of the business they were running. We can talk about credibility, authority and trust. But I wouldn't waste my time! I would make a confident prediction that the business will last as long as any monopoly, license or barrier to entry that it has managed to contrive. Sadly of course many businesses are protected but they are deadening to work for and even with.

For me competencies kick in when I am trying streamline my training and/or selection. My 'competencies' don't have a life outside the HR department. On the job, we have business goals and good old fashioned concepts like respect, agreement and morale!

I'm being a downer here but too often managers exist as a 'class' rather than as part of the value chain of a business - if I continue this tack I will be on a soapbox at Hyde Park Corner!

[Steve Roesler]

Well, Jo, I'm visualizing you at Hyde Park Corner and your ladder is jiggling.

Your comment actually highlights the intent of the diagram. If you were in a room of managers and it prompted you to say what you are saying here, then the discussion would be spirited, deep, and focused on what you knew to be the important underpinnings of your business.

As for no competencies outside of HR: that sounds more like a failing of that particular organization to use competencies in the most effective ways.

Don't fall of the ladder!

[Maria]

This is a thought provoking diagram, Steve. I work in the nonprofit field, where the majority of organizational leaders are still hired for their technical expertise above any management knowledge or experience. As you well know, this causes tremendous problems with micromanaging the little stuff and letting the big stuff go!

Viewing an evolutionary model such as this one may allow some of my colleagues to understand the progression of competencies needed in the field.

[Meg Bear]

I love this diagram, thanks for sharing. I am not a diagram girl but I like the "conceptual" part, gets to the point of executive level cutters.

[JetJaguar]

I don't understand all of what Jo is saying. If someone could boil it down, that would be a nice exercise in hermeneutics and helpful to me. Here is what I DO get:

1. competencies are useful for hiring or promoting, but don't come into play afterward.

2. roles shouldn't be slotted into certain competencies, especially midlevel managers not knowing finance basics and as much technology as technical staff (I disagree with the latter).

[Jo]

@Meg,

Steve is talking about making an elegant model about the masses of things that people do (I think) and providing a structure for meetings to debate constructively.

I have several arguments embedded in my response. As you rightly detected, I don't like it when competencies become detached from business goals. Ideally we should be able to draw a matrix with goals along one side and competencies along the other. Actually we do draw this matrix as a standard process when we design assessment centers.

The business managers are focused on the goals. We track back to attributes that the goals rely on and that we can work with. The goals are not only financial of course. We can have soft goals underpinned with hard competencies and vice versa.

Hope that helps.
Jo

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Maria,

Your situation is a perfect one for initiating a conversation using the diagram. Asking the group 'Where do you think our talents are concentrated?" can help your colleagues arrive at an Aha! without you having to play the ogre:-)

You do a terrific job blogging about a breadth of related issues. In it you say, "Never the Same River Twice is a place to explore how we can act in our spheres of influence to deal with change in ways that are healthy, useful, and maybe even fun."

This could be one of those tools with which to influence change while having fun!

Let me know how it goes. . .

[Steve Roesler]

Hope you are able to use it as well, Meg.

[Steve Roesler]

Jet (can we be on a first name basis?),

Well,

1. Competencies actually do come into play later on. They are used to pinpoint developmental areas and developmental goals.

2. Not sure I am understanding what you mean here. The example, as I'm interpreting it, alludes to a caution about mid-level managers not having certain competencies necessary to play their roles effectively. Indeed, this is another place where identifying the competencies needed would be a useful exercise.

[JetJaguar]

Hi Steve. I was just trying to interpret Jo's post, actually. Those are not my views.

I do agree with the 'Shazam' diagram, though. I can see how it might prevent relying too much on gut feel, personal opinion, or any other overly subjective criteria. My first reaction was that as a manager, I should not need to rely on some chart to know who is capable of leadership. However, I can see how it might prevent relying too much on gut feel, personal opinion, or any other overly subjective criteria. You need to be objective and fair.

[Steve Roesler]

Got it, Jet.

You know, the fact of the matter is that most managers do have an accurate gut feeling when someone is hot or not. My experience is that competencies and behavioral descriptions are used to:

1. Put those gut feelings into descriptive language. It's tough for some people to accurately describe the elements of some specific performance.

2. Create profiles from which to interview and hire. In large companies there is usually an entire chain of people involved who need to be looking at the same things and comparing apples with apples.

3. The era of online resumes and computer-screening means you've got to have the famous "key word" criteria. So, these come into play.

4. In the event of potential promotion or potential termination, it's important to be as specific as possible. In the first case, it's helpful for development. In the second, it will make the legal department happy:-)

Thanks for jumping back in. . .

[James Hayton]

Hi Steve,
this is an interesting diagram. Amazing how similar it is to the one on p.10 of Richard Daft's Management textbook (my version is 6th edition, from 2003).

This graphic has been around for quite a while - I used to use it to teach with a few years ago. Another version of it can be found at: http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/ID/ID-236.html

and is attributed to Higgins, James M., The Management Challenge, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, 1994, p. 20.

Daft cites an article in HBR by Katz (1974).

I guess there are no new ideas ;-)

[Steve Roesler]

James,

Oh, man, I've gotta check that out. Have been drawing variations of this for almost 30 years, am not familiar with the textbook, and did this one in the comfort of my back porch while enjoying a cigar late at night.

Thanks for pointing me to toward the version; am going to check it out and if it is as similar as you say (I have no reason to believe it isn't), I'll want to cite it.

Appreciate the heads up and yes: I really think there are no new ideas, just folks re-thinking and re-casting them in words and pictures that make sense to another portion of the population.

Thanks again, James.

[James Hayton]

Hi Steve, I have a sneaking suspicion that all of it may go back to Mintzberg's work on management activities/competencies as well. Anyway!

Love the blog - leep up the good work!
J

[Steve Roesler]

James,

Once Mintzberg is evoked, my energy level increases. He's been a fave for many, many years.

Off to the library shelf. . .