26 One-liners for Employee Engagement

When David Zinger put out the invitation for an alphabet soup of employee engagement tips, it was too good to pass up. Others felt the same way. So David ended up producing the results as the 300 Free Employee Engagement Keys eBook which you can also dowload here.

David's dedication to professional development generated an entire network devoted to the EE topic. You can look and join here for free.

The idea was to use each letter of the alphabet to offer up thoughts on engagement, so I give you:

Steve's EE, A to Z

Amour: Am I doing what I love to do?

Bingo!: We have work experiences that make us want  to yell this every day.

Croon: Our projects make us want to sing about them--at least sometimes.

Destiny: We have a sense of more than just today.

Echo: What we do reverberates across the organization. We listen, so we know whether or not to make adjustments.

Federline: We don't make the same mistakes as Britney and skip the engagement part. Which means we also understand that winning a "trip to Paris" isn't always a good thing.

Glad: We take time to celebrate when good things happen.

Harpoon: When something starts to drag us down, we nip it in the bud.

Isolate: Only problems, not people.

Java: We're skilled at drinking it while the plug-in is downloading.

Killer-apps: We know how to apply our work to real business solutions.

Latitude: What we give to our colleagues.

Mojo: What our competitors think we've got an abundance of.

Nah!: What we say when others try to tell us we're too committed.

Oh yeah!: The kind of thing we say to each other when someone does something really good.

Prada: The stuff we'll never wear because we're too engaged to go shopping.

Quirks: What we admire in each other that the disengaged choose to criticize.

Rigor: We think this is a good thing, since the opposite is rigormortous.

Serious: About our mission, not ourselves.

Telemarketing: What we don't do with good ideas because we know the importance of face time.

Utopia: What we shoot for even though we know it doesn't exist.

Vacuum: We avoid operating in one. Because of our level of engagement, we may avoid using one as well. Life challenge: Learn the difference.

Why Not?: One of the first things we ask after hearing "Why?"

Xenogamy: We practice cross-fertilization of ideas. We also never say this word out loud in meetings.

Yin & Yang: We look for the complementary relationships in opposites.

Zone: What this is all about, as in, "We want to be in the . . ."

What would your alphabet include?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Talent and Learning: When Someone Moves Your Mouse

We've been talking about talent, learning, and generations for the past couple of days, so I thought you might like the little I Am Looking For My Mouse from professional friend Jo Jordan in the U.K. Jo tipped us off to the Clay Shirky video in the same article.

Off to NYC. Thanks, Jo.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Talent: Generational Differences That Do Make a Difference

Yesterday's Talent: Does Generational Difference Really Matter? drew a series of insightful comments. Most zeroed in on the fact that, regardless of the scenario, we humans want others to be more like us--and respond the way we want them to respond--regardless of what the perceived difference might be.

So, What Is Different Across Certain Generations?

1. Longevity. When it comes to a view of long-term employment, about 70 percent of the boomers born in the late 40s/early 50s say they see themselves sticking with an employer for more than three years. That figure drops to a little less than 40% when GenXer's are asked the same question.

I'm assuming that, for the boomers, retirement is in the back of their minds (or maybe the front), and a 3-year horizon would enable many to fulfill the related financial goals by not changing employers.

However: There's a clear business implication. Companies intent on retention and knowledge transfer are faced with a double-whammy. If one group is churning and the other simply won't be around for a long time, the problem becomes obvious. It's not new, it's discussed a lot, and it's real.

Which leads to:

2. How knowledge gets transferred.

Karl Kapp made a presentation to Lockheed-Martin Corporation titled Bridging the Boomer/Gamer Knowledge Gap. He underscored the fact that learning preferences do come into play:

• Boomer knowledge is formal, structured, hierarchical, and based on a distinction between the interface and information.

• Gamer (Net Generation) knowledge is informal, unstructured, non-hierarchical, and based on the assumption that the information is the interface (my italics).

Regarding the knowledge transfer that must occur as the baby boomers retire and the Gamers enter the workforce, Kapp recommends that organizations break out of the “class mentality” and think in terms of learning events.

Here's what that means: As soon as someone recognizes a need to know something, a person, group, or online resource is put together almost immediately to handle the need. It can happen from beginning to end in 10-15 minutes.

That also means knowing "who knows what" and having a process--and a culture--that enables learning to happen.

If you think that getting together in a classroom for a day is the way to go, ask yourself this: "How many minutes of learning really took place during the years I spent inside the classroom?"

3. Expectations of Work.

The silent generation--those born before 1943 and now in the retirement bracket--express a need for work that's interesting, fair pay, and recognition for a job well done.

Gen X folks say they want work schedule flexibility, bonus pay for outstanding accomplishment (vs. pay for seniority), and a path forward in the organization.

What to think?

When we compare similarities vs. differences, it's clear that all age groups have common needs that they want to have satisfied. The differences are pretty well known to most organizations and consultants; #2 is probably the one with the largest potential impact right now and, from my daily consulting work, the one that has real urgency.

What I hope will be a relief to readers of all organizational ilks is this: the fundamental desires of people remain consistent through the ages (and age groups). We want to be respected and acknowledged in some way for who we are and what we bring to a task; we want a good quality of life for ourselves at work and for our families at home; and we want our employers to treat us in those terms and not as a commodity that can be replaced without consequence.

Regardless of how many generations are seated at the conference table, each is looking for leadership that acknowledges the above. It's not complicated.

It does require a unifying heart, an understanding mind, and the willingness and ability to connect the two.

________________________________________________________________________________________

For more on generations:

Lisa Orrell focuses on just this topic at her Generation Relations site.

Jennifer Fisher is working on a research project and would appreciate your input at Generation Soup.

For something from the marketing side: James Chartrand's post at Copyblogger .

Photo acknowledgments:
www.celebheights.com/starimages/snoop-dogg.jpg
abcnews.go.com
alifecycle.blogspot.com
commons.wikimedia.org

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Talent: Does Generational Difference Really Matter?

Humans are fascinating creatures.

We call for unity, oneness, and world peace.

But what we really love is the "discovery" of perceived gaps in our expressed ideal. That allows us to highlight what's wrong and then, our differences, followed by a pronouncement that if "you" would just understand "me" or "them," we wouldn't have the huge problem that we now have.

This is what "reality" TV is all about.

As a public service before getting to the unifying heart of today's tome, please repeat the following out loud in order to cleanse your soul and start the week off in a more sanctified state:

"I don't really care all that much that you understand me. I just want to get what I want, when I want it, the way that I want it."

Doesn't that feel better? Confession is good for the soul.

And evidence is good for the mind.

A number of firms specialize in educating corporations about the uniqueness of the four generations now in the workplace. This is intellectually interesting and especially helpful to managers who may not be tuned in to some of the nuances of interpersonal life.

There are some obvious differences across age groups. The question is:

Do they make a difference?

Generations Not At War

Dr. Jennifer Deal at the Center for Creative Leadership surveyed 3,400 workers, looking for their interests, wishes, and values. Respondents skewed a bit more heavily toward the Boomer/Gen X era, with fewer participants from the Traditional/Silent generation of pre-1945 and the later Gen X period.

Here is a list of Dr. Deal's 10 Suggestions for Working Across Generations that I think will be helpful to managers and entrepreneurs everywhere.You can get her book with its related research here.

From CCL's Newsletter:

"You can work with — or manage — people from all generations effectively without selling your soul on eBay or pulling your hair out on a daily basis," says CCL's Jennifer Deal. Look past the stereotypes and learn these ten truths about generational conflicts at work, gleaned from a seven-year CCL study.

1. All generations have similar values. Many people talk about enormous differences in values between older and younger people as if these differences were an established fact. The most striking result from CCL's research is how similar the generations are in their values priorities. Family is the value chosen most frequently by people of all generations. Other values named to the top ten by all generations included integrity, achievement, love, competence, happiness, self respect, wisdom, balance and responsibility. So why do people at work think the values of different generations are so different? Because even though the values are the same, the behaviors that go along with those values may be very different.

2. Everyone wants respect. We often hear that younger people are disrespectful of older employees and people in authority. We also hear complaints that older people show no respect for younger talent and ideas. The reality is that everyone wants respect - they just don't define it the same way. Older people primarily talked about respect in terms of "give my opinions the weight I believe they deserve" and "do what I tell you to do." Younger respondents characterized respect more as "listen to me" and "pay attention to what I have to say."

3. Trust matters. The different generations have similar levels of trust in their organization and in upper management - they don't trust them much. People of all generations and at all levels trust the people they work with directly (bosses, peers and direct reports) more than they trust their organizations. And people trust their organization more than they trust upper management.

4. People want leaders who are credible and trustworthy. What do different generations expect from their leaders? It turns out that age does not appear to matter much. People of all generations want their leaders to be credible, to be trusted, to listen well, to be farsighted and to be encouraging.

5. Organizational politics is a problem — no matter how old or young you are. Everyone who isn't winning at the political game dislikes it. People from all generations are concerned about the effects of organizational politics on their careers, on being recognized for the work they are doing and for getting access to the resources they need to do their job. Even if they don't like it, employees know that political skills are a critical component in being able to move up and be effective at higher levels of management.

6. No one really likes change. The stereotype is that older people dislike anything about their workplace being changed and that younger people love change. These assumptions are not true. In general, people from all generations are uncomfortable with change. Only 12 people in the study said they actually liked change! Resistance to change has nothing to do with age; it is all about how much one has to gain or lose with the change.

7. Loyalty depends on the context, not on the generation. It's often said that young people are no longer loyal to their organizations in the way that young people were in the past. Our research shows that younger generations are not more likely to job-hop than older generations were at the same age. In addition, people of all generations don't necessarily think that being loyal in the old sense is good for their careers. The perception that older people are more loyal is, in fact, associated with context, not age. For example, people who are closer to retirement are more likely to want to stay with the same organization for the rest of their working life, and people higher in an organization work more hours than do people lower in the organization.

8. It's as easy to retain a young person as it is to retain an older one — if you do the right things. Just about everyone feels overworked and underpaid. People of all generations have the same ideas about what their organization can do to retain them. They want:

   • Opportunities to advance within their organization.
   • Learning and development.
   • Respect and recognition.
   • Better quality of life.
   • Better compensation.

9. Everyone wants to learn — more than just about anything else. Learning and development were among the issues brought up the most frequently by people of all generations. Everyone wants to learn — people of all generations want to make sure they have the training necessary to do their current job well. They are also interested in what they need to be learning to get to the next level in their organization. Five developmental areas have made it onto every generation's list: leadership, skills training in their field of expertise, problem solving and decision making, team building and communication skills.

10. Almost everyone wants a coach. We've heard that younger people are constantly asking for feedback and can't get enough of it. We've also heard that older people don't want any feedback at all. According to our research, everyone wants to know how he or she is doing and wants to learn how to do better. Feedback can come in many forms, and people of all generations would love to receive it from a coach.

Note: You are right...there are a few distinctions among generations that were discovered as well and that can make a difference. I hope you'll join me tomorrow for a look at those.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Talent Package: Include A Smart Heart

When a brief post generates wonderful discussion, it's fascinating and satisfying.

Many of the readers here are coaches, consultants, and training/HR pros; so, the  conversation can lead to even more learning as well as helpful information like this from Dan McCarthy.

A Smart Heart or a Well-Bred Head?

We are enamored of intellect and expertise. Yet when we look at who are asked to leave organizations, it's often the people who are "brilliant."

The problem? That "light of brilliance" shines down upon an area of content as well as the individual. It doesn't spread its warmth around in ways that touch and help the system as a whole. As a result, it's not life-sustaining.

My experience is that such folks do get a lot of feedback from their bosses along the way. No one really wants to see them fail; no organization wants to lose their expertise. But ultimately, some combination of unwillingness and inability to adapt to the needs of others becomes untenable; so, they have to go.

Talent Implications

Few would dispute the importance of learning in organizations. So here's something to ponder:

Is your organization deliberate about identifying--up front--people who have the heart to learn about themselves and the humility to make changes accordingly?

There are a lot of 4.0 grads out there who have been taught --and absorbed-- a body of knowledge exceedingly well.

I want my clients to get the grads who want to learn how to use it in the service of the people around them. People with a 'smart heart.'

A well-bred head lights up just one office.

A smart heart lights up the organization.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

What It Takes. . .

We say we want a mentor, a coach, a trusted advisor.

We want to grow and become more effective.

We ask for help. For "feedback."

This is what you need to make it a success:

The patience to listen, the humility to hear, and the courage to act.

Do you have all three?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Talent: Accurate Self-Awareness or Karaoke Feedback?

Mirror, Mirror On The Wall

Your success depends a lot on:

1. How accurately you see yourself

2. How honestly you allow others to experience you

You get a lot of information about "How you're doing" from those around you, so it makes sense to give them the real deal in order to get an accurate read.

When it comes to finding out how people experience your talents, just ask them. But:

Shun Karaoke Feedback

Ask a wide range of people, not just those who will give you Karaoke feedback. You know, the kind you get after you've had three beers, sing Billie Jean while sort-of Moonwalking, and the 10-beer audience cheers you on.

This works for managers and HR types who are hiring, assessing, and promoting as well. If you aren't already doing this, be sure to go outside the direct report/immediate colleague relationships. Find out how things are working across project teams, with customers, and in any setting where decisions have to be made.

For business purposes, the decision arena surfaces risk/reward thinking, sharing information, working through conflict, and timeliness and follow through. If you want to find out more about yourself or others, discuss decision process and examples: it's where I've always found the most revealing information, pro and con.

And remember: Feedback is more indicative of the person giving it to you than of you yourself. It tells you what's important to them, reflects underlying values and expectations, and reveals 'how you measure  up' in their eyes. When you're trying to get a feel for your talents and how the "audience" is reacting:

1. Understand that you are hearing about you in relation to their expectations (expressed or otherwise).

2. If you hold the same standards--and lots of people are telling you the same thing--it would be a good idea to take heed.

3. Who you are and your inherent worth bear no relationship to what anyone says.

4. Whether or not you are actually talented at something just may. Or, you may have a talent that isn't valued where you are right now but will give you star status someplace else.

Where do you find the most useful and accurate information about yourself and others?

Starting a conference call regarding an assessment; back later with more.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Why Interview? Just Dress Up and Show Up

Talent System of The Future for the Service Economy?

I'm betting that the folks at Screaming Frog Productions will be around to know the answer.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Systemic HR: This From The Real Workplace

The real world is weighing in on HR.

It's one thing to exchange thoughtful comments about Systemic HR; it's another to be a customer.

I received the email below from an employee at a large East Coast institution. An exchange revealed the juxtaposition of the terms "HR" and "Success" sent up a flag. The writer graduated from a major university with a high GPA, scholastic honors, leadership experiences,  and is multi-lingual:

"Your opening paragraph caught my attention:

HR folks may be the only ones in an organization who knew you before you got the job; participated in getting you into the job; helped orient you to your job; participated in your development for the next job; listens to what you hate about your job; talks to your boss about what you hate about your boss and how (s)he manages your job; and maybe even escorts you out of your job--and the building. (What the heck, Elvis became famous for leaving the building).

Participated in getting you into the job
I had one phone interview by someone who had been on the job for TWO days

Helped orient you to your job
By “orient,” you mean get my photo IDs and have me sign a bunch of papers, then yes…otherwise, that would’ve been the actual people in my dept.

Participated in your development for the next job
This is foreign to me

Listens to what you hate about your job
Also foreign

Talks to your boss about what you hate about your boss and how (s)he manages your job
Foreign

And maybe even escorts you out of your job--and the building
Foreign, fortunately – however, I did see this happen to someone on my floor

Considering how many other interviews I was on (or how many potential interviews I wasn’t even brought in for), I am convinced there is no rhyme or reason in the hiring selection process (perhaps resulting from a lack of ‘process,’ or a faulty one).

Honestly – and this is kind of scary – I’m not really even sure why I was initially hired.  Think about that for a minute."

What to make of this?

OK, it isn't a scientific random sampling. But the individual took the time to read the article, respond to it, exchange emails about it, and didn't dump on the company's name nor that of a manager, co-worker, etc. It was clear that the experiences had to do with deep impressions gained from interactions with different HR reps at many different organizations-- including the now-employer.

If we're talking about the systemic nature of organizations, how were the "hiring" organizations ultimately impacted in their "war for talent" efforts? Can a single HR rep almost bring an organization to its knees without anyone ever realizing what's going on at the front end? Does the effort to automate hiring using keyword searches and clunky websites really compensate for a highly qualified human interviewer?

What else is happening at the intersection of people and systems (specifically HR here) that isn't delivering the (hopefully professional) desired results?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

What are some of the real--and really readable--HR pros up to?

• The (apparently ever- expanding) Evil HR Lady is espousing Better HR Through Laziness.

• Who cares about those health care premiums when those wild-and-crazy Germans are firing people for, uh, not smoking? Really. Kris Dunn is on the case.

• Rowan Manahan splits HR hairs by offering up the court's answer to: Is Baldness A Disability?

photo attribuion: www.lanl.gov/

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Systemic Success: Why HR Really, Really Matters

Everyone loves to beat up on HR.

Me, too. It stops them from dumping on consultants.

But I think I've figured out the HR thing.

HR: Pediatrician, Cheerleader, Undertaker. . .

HR folks may be the only ones in an organization who knew you before you got the job; participated in getting you into the job; helped orient you to your job; participated in your development for the next job; listens to what you hate about your job; talks to your boss about what you hate about your boss and how (s)he manages your job; and maybe even escorts you out of your job--and the building. (What the heck, Elvis became famous for leaving the building).

Why does this matter?

We've been talking "systemic" thinking. When something touches every nook and cranny of a system, it has a huge impact. Constantly.

I've sat in meetings and watched millions of dollars get approved for Supply Chain systems and consultants.

I've also watched arguments about eking out a few extra bucks for "HR Stuff."

The HR Chain is to People as the Supply Chain is to Process

This was a quick take on a day-in-the-life of an HR pro.

I'm sure the HR pros online will want to add their own elements to complete the spider web of organization connections.

What's missing from the diagram is an over-arching theme: Organization Development. The execs that I work with expect HR pros to be equally schooled in OD.

What does all of this mean for HR people?

If you look at the range of services expected, then look at the breadth and depth of talents and skills required to deliver them well. Honestly, there aren't many individuals who are both talented and enthusiastic about all of those. I'm not sure it's realistic to expect it.  Most organizations run lean when it comes to HR support, yet the expectation remains.

Note: The EQ requirements for most of the functions are high. (Don't confuse high EQ with an ongoing group hug). If you really aren't into growth and development at the core of your being, you're not going to grow the people around you.

I'd put discernment, mature judgment, and systemic thinking at the top of the "must have" list.

If you like HR and have an eye for systems and details, by all means jump into one of the administrative roles if you can.

What does all of this mean for organizations?

Read the above.

Then ask yourself:

1. Are we clear about what we really want when we go out to hire an HR person?

2. Do we understand the breadth and depth of talents and maturity required?

    a. Are we willing to pay for that level of expertise?

    b. Do we know how to accurately assess that kind of candidate?

3. Are we looking at the HR Chain with the same level of resource commitment as our Supply Chain?

Thought for today: If your annual report says "People are our most important asset," be sure to double-check the financial pages.

Why?

"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:21

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Systemic Mismatch?: Talent and Education

We Don't Need As Many College Grads As People Think

You've suspected this for a long time. Me, too.

Look around at the growth of technical specialties, professional 'assistant' roles, and retail employees. Then look at the charts below:

It's important to differentiate between media headlines and sound bites that scream, "Ten fastest growing occupations!" at some given moment in time. The consequences could be far-reaching: Do we really need to be sending Brittany, Madison, Monroe (and maybe even John Quincy) into Saturday SAT tutoring to bump up those scores from 1218 to 1241?

Caveat: Just in case you think I'm dumping on the advantages of a good education, I'm not. I've been a public school teacher and college administrator in an earlier life. Which is also where I first began looking more carefully at the relationship between "what is taught" with "what is needed." Thus, the use of the term "good education."

If you look at the top chart of the 10 occupations with the highest rate of growth, you'll see that six require either an associate or bachelor's degree while the other four require short to moderate OJT.

Seventy percent of the the top 10 with the largest growth don't require college; 30 percent do.

Here is another graphic to tweak your career/talent/education synapses:

Add up the actual percentage of jobs requiring a Bachelor's Degree or more--now and in 2014--and you might be surprised at the results.

The Education/Job Implications?

Here are just a few that come to mind:

1. Is there a realistic connection, beginning early in public schools, with what is really going to be helpful to job candidates and employers?

2. Same question for colleges and universities.

3. The biggest piece of the pie (OK, Bar Chart) belongs to On-The-Job-Training. Yet the figures I've seen published in ASTD and other sources show that large companies are cutting back; (medium and smaller companies are actually increasing their T&D investment).

4. Is the intense competition--and unbelievable tense high school prep--an unhealthy response to an overstated and misunderstood need?

I want to be clear that what I've presented so far is designed to take interested readers to a more complete and fully contextual article in The Carnegie Foundation Change Magazine. The synopsis above is from the article. Kudos to Paul E. Barton on his clear and easy-to-digest explanations of the facts, the evidence and some of the implications in How Many Çollege Graduates Does the U.S. Really Need? He also does a nice job of clarifying the distinctions between fast-growing and largest growth; two terms that are often tossed around without a closer look at what they are really saying.

When it comes to Talent and thinking systemically about it, we can't ignore the institutions who educate and supply the workforce. We can and should question whether the current system is designed to effectively produce what, and who, is needed. In fact, while I was putting together the material for this post, Tammy Erickson was overhearing a here-and-now example.

Although these figures represent the U.S. the readers here at ATW are totally global. What are you seeing in your country that may reflect a mismatch between the education system and the real-life workplace needs?
 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Talent, Systems, Change, and Truthful Self-Perception

Earlier this week I was involved in a third  "talent" counseling session with a corporate person who is making a mid-career change.

I had the benefit of long-time observation in various situations as well as sound data from two good proprietary assessment tools that genuinely help differentiate innate talent from learned skills.

We hit a point where I described a consistent behavior I had observed over time and how it impacted numerous aspects of his work.

He was totally floored. Not because he had never heard it before, but because he had never connected that one idiosyncrasy with the totality of his efforts. Like a spider web, this one item affected time management, relationships, deadlines (un)met, and finally the desire--and need--to re-focus his career.

Robyn McIntyre noted in Systemic Talent Interaction the need to underscore "accurate" self-awareness when looking at things that influence one's talent as well as overall talent management. She's right, of course. We all have a tendency to bump up certain aspects of our self-perception as well as undersell others.

So how does someone 45+ in age get a huge behavioral surprise?

I Never Realized The Truth Before

"People have told me about that 'habit' but nobody ever described all the ways that it affected them. It never occurred to me that just one thing could be so damaging."

What happened here?

1. He doesn't automatically 'see' the systemic nature of behavior. And he's not going to. He needs to have an associate connect things for him but is unbelievably talented at attending to the details as they are presented.

2. He's a hard-working, well-intentioned guy, not a serial killer.

3. No one ever sat down and told the whole truth, nothing-but-the-truth. That goes for bosses, co-workers, friends, and family.

4. The truth was so overwhelmingly powerful that I watched him get re-energized, not discouraged.

Note: I don't offer potentially hurtful truth until I can offer a potentially hopeful solution. To do otherwise is just dumping.

Do You and Your System Tell the Whole Truth?

There is an admirable and desirable human tendency to not want to hurt other people. Thankfully.

At the same time, there seems to be a misunderstanding about what is hurtful and what is helpful. Wouldn't you think that a career filled with performance appraisals  might have surfaced this earlier? Or, perhaps there weren't any regular--or even sporadic--useful conversations about how things were going.

Let's face it: in addition to not wanting to hurt someone's feelings, we also don't want to be seen as ogres. So we often hold back the part of the information that is the most serious and, therefore, potentially the most helpful.

Ask yourself this: Who in your life do you trust the most? The people who give you mostly 'yeses' or the people who say 'no' and then explain why?

Building talent is serious business, for the individual as well as the organization. There's no way for someone to have an accurate self-awareness without truthful information. And there's no way to grow a healthy and effective organism that we call our 'business system' without  a watering can filled with truth.

Just so you know: The guy referred to above  already has opportunities  elsewhere. Because of a systemic look at his situation, it turns out that the "type" of organization (highly relational, upbeat) is probably the determining factor in his future success and satisfaction. Time management and deadlines aren't a problem--as long as he is orchestrating the activities and interaction of people most of the time. The time issue turned out to be a result of the job demands being refocused on the disposition of facts and figures.

It wasn't just a matter of talent. It wasn't just a matter of the system. It was the systemic interaction of the two carried out in a well-intentioned system of sort-of-the-truth.

The truth will, in fact, set you free.

I love this work.

photo source: shemesh.larc.nasa.gov

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Systemic Talent Interaction: What Else Do You Know?

Systems and People Pressing Against Each Other

The ongoing Systems/Talent: Systemic Thinking discussion has led me to do a back-of-the-napkin graphic on the elements that come into play.

This was a quick free-association and I invite you to add or refine, using your own experience and observations.

Here's the first cut:

We're pretty much agreed, through discussion, that Systems and Talent aren't mutually exclusive and that systems can help or hinder talent of any degree.

It's not either/or, it's really both/and.

The first take shows the number of connections that can impact individual or team performance.

1. Yeah, I know we said that good systems can lift up even average talent. And I agree. But I've gotta tell you, one's immediate boss will make you or send you running every time. Period. So both the Organizational Systems and  "Manager" boxes are set apart by color.

Note: Feel free to argue. I know you will:-)

2.  Opportunities for Development  rank  high on the current list of potential employees' "I want. . ." lists.
We could easily say these are part of the organizational system; I set the category apart because of its unique desirability amongst candidates.

3. HR plays a huge role. That's normally the first point of contact between candidates and a company; HR also plays a big part in the development of talent inside the organization. Therefore, the level of talent, discernment, and organizational savvy within HR itself has a big impact on ultimate performance.

4. Educational Institutions. This is going to receive special attention later this week. There is a large disconnect between what students are being told is needed; what educational institutions are churning out; and what the workplace really requires in the future.

5. Personal Stuff. The remaining categories all come into play when deciding on a job, discussing one's future on the job, and shaping the degree of accuracy with which one assesses one's contributions--and opportunities.

A quick primer for you

If you are joining the series for the first time, here are the articles that got us to this point. The running comments are educational and show the depth and breadth of thinking on the topic, so take a minute to read them:

• The Real Talent: Think and Act Systemically

• Systems + People Do Concern CEO's

• Talent, Performance, & Family Systems (?!)

• What Talents Create The Heart of Your Business?

• If Systems Trump People, Then. . .

• Talent Development: Evidence or Magical Thinking?

OK, your turn. . .

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Talent Development: Evidence or Magical Thinking?

"I don't understand how a system can predict high potentials. It can predict if I'll continue to perform well or poorly as an engineer, for example, but it has no data on how I'll perform as a manager or in marketing or in logistics.

No data = no prediction of any significance, statistical or otherwise.

Those deliberate job assignments and coaching opportunities and so forth have to come first in order to generate the data needed. After all, a mediocre, but generally honest, employee could become great at something else, if they are interested in that path"

This astute insight comes from Beth Robinson, a wonderful writer, chemical engineer, and MBA candidate whose web log tag line is Thinking Towards the Whole. Beth's comments are extra-welcome since we're focused on Systemic Thinking.

Talent Investors: Follow the Financial Caveat

Every financial prospectus carries the warning that "Past performance is no guarantee of future returns."

As Beth points out, the same is true of our own performance. Yet companies are locked in to the idea that past performance in one role can somehow indicate future success in another. The entire reality of systemic influence guarantees that the only way you know if someone is going to be successful is to put them into a new role. Assessment Centers offer the promise of simulating reality and many of them are darned good at placing candidates in situations to see how they will respond to given situations. They are helpful to the extent that you can see someone's actions and reactions, but in a sterile environment.

At work, people report to a real-life boss who is the biggest influence on their willingness and ability to perform; actual organizational systems and their idiosyncrasies are different than simulated ones; reward and recognition systems can lift up or demoralize the best performer; real marketplace changes will create sudden situations that will test character and adaptability; and none of these can be accurately captured outside of the system in which one has to operate.

Do you want to develop talent? Then give people hands-on experiences so they can learn and you can have evidence upon which to base decisions.

We don't put our money in a savings account to see how it will perform in the stock market. Why not show the same thoughtfulness to the organization and the people in it?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

If Systems Trump People, Then. . .

. . .Why Worry So Much About People?

My blogo-friend Chris Bailey at Bailey Workplay has a thought-provoking post.

Since we're talking here for a while about Systemic Thinking, Chris' post is directly related. He notes that:

In Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense, Jeff Pfeffer and Robert Sutton write that systems trump individual effort on a regular basis. They argue that “bad systems do far more damage than bad people, and a bad system can make a genius look like an idiot. Try redesigning systems and jobs before you decide that a person is ‘crappy.’”

I agree. "Bad stuff" that happens isn't always because of the people (but it can be traced back to someone who is allowing it to continue).

The systems vs. people thing makes me wonder:

If systems trump people, then should organizations be spending more time identifying honest employees and job candidates who simply have the minimum skills necessary to operate the system and not go so crazy focusing on the “best and the brightest”?

Sort of like the “minimum daily requirement” in vitamins. They’ll keep you healthy (not necessarily super-charged) for a long period of time.

It would save money on salaries, time in the hiring cycle, and limit expenditures on “development.”

This is actually a legitimate question to ponder if the systems vs. people argument is true.

Do weigh in on this--it's a good one!

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

What Talents Create The Heart of Your Business?

If You Are In Business For the Long run. . .

. . .then you need the kind of people who will:

1. Take you there

2. Keep you there

Do you know who those "kinds" of people are?

I'm in the midst of working with a company to genuinely hire and develop talent for the future. So I put together an activity (doesn't take long with the right cross-section of people) to pinpoint the talents needed by everyone in order to take this company where it wants to go.

Below is a graphic that shows the results of the session. These are now being used as an over-arching set of characteristics by which to hire and identify current talent.

I'll explain a little more following the graphic.

One important note: When we talk about "ability" in the examples, we are talking about an observable, consistent tendency to demonstrate the related behavior in a variety of situations. We are focused on people who will demonstrate these talents regardless of role, job description or business unit.

Have a look:

The Benefits

1. A key group of people has to dig deep--mentally and emotionally--to agree on these fundamental talents.

2. We are talking about a systemic issue here. Instead of talking philosophically about building a culture, a critical mass of people with these talents will create and sustain it.

3.These are tied directly to the long-term strategy.

4. We can assess/identify who exhibits or possesses these, even if they haven't yet had the opportunity to display them in hugely noticeable ways. That is, the organization is committed to uncovering what may not have been obvious in the way it operated in the past. They are not willing to toss people by the wayside without a real good look at what they are all about.

What Will Be Tough

1. Have you thought about the biases that people build toward others after a period of time working together? (The expression "Familiarity breeds contempt" comes to mind). So we're setting up a methodology that won't allow any one ticked-off manager or colleague to have enough singular power to zap someone because of some historical, one-time incident.

2. It's not clear that some of the HR staff have many of these characteristics. As a result, there is concern that they wouldn't be able to genuinely recognize them in others. Not a good thing for hiring or development.

3. We don't know what we don't know. And we admit it.

This is a fairly bold step. I don't know all the answers, nor does my client. We're willing to go with what we believe is a well thought-out methodology and learn some things along the way.

One more really important note:

Have a look at Business Orientation. This is one of my favorite and most satisfying realizations of the past 30 years.

Companies naturally hire top-notch researchers, technology pros, and other specialists for their expertise. Then the company is disappointed when these folks don't pay attention to the P&L statement and other related business factors.

So, my urging is this: Start looking for people who  begin their day with a business mentality and use their specialty to contribute to results. That is, find  people who have the self-image of a business person who does great research, or who "practices" I.T. It's a different way to look at this whole talent thing-- give it a try. You will discover that by changing your thinking you'll change how you begin to filter candidates and "promotables" more accurately.

Would this work well for you and your organization?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Talent, Performance, & Family Systems (?!)

I think the real advantage to reading and discussion is the opportunity to finally "hear" something and get it for the first time.

That's why so many similarly-titled books, blogs, and training programs can still command a large audience. We participate until we find the voice and the language that finally makes us go "Aha!"

Talent and Systemic Thinking falls into that niche. Just check out the discussion threads here and here and you'll see what I mean.

Today, I want to offer a couple of simple ways to look at the relationship between people and systems in order to highlight the nature of Systemic Thinking.

Is It Talent or The System? Yes.

Your favorite singer will disappoint you if the staging, lights, and sound don't offer the right technical support and atmosphere.

A lousy singer won't sound any better in Carnegie Hall. In fact, the results may be worse because of the magnificent acoustical systems and orchestral support.

It takes a director (manager) who can see how all of those link together to make sure they're connected and generate total performance that leads to a standing ovation.

What To Learn From Family Systems

Family counselors worth their salt know that an individual who comes with a "personal problem" is impacted in some way by the family system. If there is some normal dysfunction (you heard it right--people simply have problems that cause them to seek outside help), the counselor will look at the system in which the individual lives. The family.

Some families support and perpetuate unhealthy behavior. Even if the individual tries to change, there is an equilibrium that the family has established that simply won't allow it. I'm not saying that people aren't responsible for their own behavior. However, there is often a lack of awareness on the part of the individual and the family: they don't view themselves as a systemic entity. It becomes part of the counselor's task to help them see the connectedness within the system and the impact that each person--and the group as a whole--has on behavior (performance). When that begins to happen, healthy behavior (performance) can increase.

Organizations and the people in them can look at maximizing performance--and organizational health--using the same kind of thinking.

What To Do. . .

Instead of doing a an amateur pop-psych number on someone whose talent seems to be faltering, ask:

1. "What part(s) of our systems actually getting in the way of performance?"

If the systems are solid and connected, then ask:

2. "Does this person have the willingness and ability to move forward with us?"

And, of course, have that conversation directly with the person. Second-guessing will put you in the category of mystical soothsayer, a special role normally reserved for marketing researchers:-)

Where does your organization focus its attention when it thinks that the "talent isn't performing?"

photo source: andre.lt/projects

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Systems + People Do Concern CEOs

As I sat down to create some visuals for the series on Systemic Thinking and Talent, I received a welcome phone call. It was to discuss "a better way" of looking at managing talent. How's that for a pleasant coincidence?

So I've been off "doing stuff" and am back with some first-hand news--good news--about the state of executive thinking regarding this whole talent issue. It's also kind of interesting. Here's the scenario--I'm curious to know what you see and how it matches your experiences.

The CEO's Observation: Systems

This is a CEO who has spent a little more than a year implementing well-disciplined systems in a company that previously had concerned itself a bit more with the top line than the bottom. In good times, who cares? But these aren't good times for most. It caught up with them in a pretty big way.

The new systems are exceedingly clear and most of the employees have what it takes to put them in place. It will take some time and he knows what the reasonable time period is. As a result, he manages the implementation results very regularly but doesn't beat people up when there is a gap. He asks three questions:

1. Why is it happening this way?

2. What are you going to do about it?

3. When do you think it will be sorted out?

Then, like clockwork, he follows through at the designated time.

The CEO's Observation: People

If the people are in place to put the systems in place, then all is well, right?

Wrong.

He sees a problem on the horizon, and this is where the conversation got good. Not because he has a problem, but because of his desire and willingness to look at a systemic solution. He connects the dots.

The issue is needing effective talent and managerial talent to take and connect the current systems and strategy with the future. He's not not convinced that those charged with developing, finding, and recruiting that kind of talent are actually adept at thinking systemically themselves.

As a result, the development, recruiting, and hiring systems may be the right ones. But an inability to properly discern all the ways in which candidates are capable of contributing and moving around the organization could undermine the systems.

Systemic thinking: constantly connecting the dots

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check out all of issues that impact organizations from an HR viewpoint at HR Carnival #30, hosted by Rowan Manahan at Fortify Your Oasis.

And just in case you do a lot of reading to help make connections, this post at Managing Leadership may help in making better choices.

Systems photo source: www.csimars.com

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Talents, Skills, Companies & Education: All Week

Getting A Grip On What's Underneath Talent Issues--And What We Can Do

This headline from Reuters grabbed my attention:

"AT&T CEO Says Hard To Find Skilled U.S. Workers"

The specific issue: Chief Executive Randall Stephenson says AT&T can't find enough  skilled workers to fill all the 5,000 customer service jobs it promised to return to the United States from India.

Anyone with any telecommunication "customer service" interaction might be inclined to say that those already employed don't have the skills either. (I don't think that's true, by the way. I believe that too many  companies measure success in ways that serve internal paper-pushers and have little to do with resolving customer issues).

The surprise: Instead of talking about recruitment and retention, Stephenson talked about public education. He is distressed that in some U.S. communities and among certain groups, the high school dropout rate is as high as 50 percent.

"If I had a business that half the product we turned out was defective or you couldn't put into the marketplace, I would shut that business down," he said.

Now: fast forward to the world of luring talented people away from their existing jobs.

Personalized iPods and "Passive Candidates"

Just when I thought I was pretty much on top of what's happening, I found this on BusinessWeek.com:

"Tempt Talent With Creative Recruiting"

It really is an interesting read and will give you a sense of just how creepy competitive the job market is getting. And I learned a phrase I hadn't heard before: "Passive Candidates." This is a euphemism for people who are already happily employed but highly desired by other companies. "Passive Candidates" gave me the same queezy feeling that I had when I first heard an HR director announce that he was in the process of "right-sizing" his company. (About 750 soon-to-be-former employees wondered exactly what made it "right").

How does one reach this targeted "passive" talent?

• Send a personalized iPod with artistic packaging and a recorded message from the CEO

• Need programmers? Design a coded message only potential hires can decipher, then put it on a billboard directly in front of the offices of your rival (from whom you want to extract the programming talent).

• Design a Resignation Toolkit that helps the object of your desire take the guesswork out of kissing the current employer good-bye.

This Week Is About Talent For the Long Run

Businesses want to hire the right people. You want to know what your real talents are and how to get them used. While organizations wring their hands over a shortage of talent, current employees scream that they are being underutilized. And in the midst of all of this, educational institutions are not focused on building the talents and skills needed--and projected--by businesses of all sizes.

I'm deeply invested in surfacing the systemic nature of the Talent "issue." I spend much of my speaking and consulting practice working with individuals and companies on all aspects of the talent equation. I can say this with great confidence: It's not about hiring or retention or T&D or public education. It's about all of those and how they are currently disconnected.  To treat them individually without systemic context can lead to doing the wrong things really well and wondering why there's still an overriding problem.

I hope you'll join in and add your own observations, experiences, concerns, and questions.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.