Talent Management is no Voodoo

This morning in the Knowledge@Wharton Newsletter I read an interesting article about Peter Cappelli's new book. The article - 'Talent on Demand': Applying Supply Chain Management to People does a spectacular job of conveying the need for a disciplined and regimented approach to developing talent. One that the engineers and the analytically oriented applied on the supply side in minimizing uncertainty. These are the same processes and tools that helped record tremendous productivity improvements by eliminating waste and establishment of calculated and measured processed to avoid surprises.

Organizations like P&G demonstrated this could be done on the demand side with the right consumer marketing centred processes. It is not about the individual, although he or she is responsible for making the change, building the capabilities and ensuring their indoctrination into the organization. Hunter Hastings at the EMM Group have written two books on this topic.

The Book - Talent on Demand, seems to conveys the same concept on the talent side the only grim and unfortunate part is the comparison of an individual to non-living resources. It is a shame we have to think along these lines to convey a such a simple and powerful concept? Anyway... I am just happy to see some value in the analytical and structured approach to managing talent!

Blind Men and an Elephant

As a child I heard the South Asian tale of the Blind Men and an Elephant. Recently I was reminded of the tale with reference to modern leadership models.

The moral of the story is based on one's perspective may reality may be different from the absolute truth.

A modern leader in search of the ultimate truth needs to be able to empathize with the unique perspectives of individual partial truths and sewing them into a single panoramic view of what maybe the absolute truth.

Insititutional Stockholm Syndrome

Every so often after I had read absorbed yet another book on organizational theory, strategy, leadership, etc. I sit back to think and wonder if we as individuals are captives to existing knowledge. To stretch the concept even further are we slaves to other peoples ideas and philosophies? It is no surprise that the mission, vision and value statements of most organizations sound so similar. They all promise the same principles and purpose and yet we have among them the likes of WorldCom, Enron, etc. that are placed on a high pedestal just before they loose all credibility and employee and shareholder values.

We institutionalize words and concepts from the literature but don't internalize and embody them. It is only a matter of individual convenience. Said differently, "I cannot think for myself and since I have been bound by what I have read, heard and was told I believe it, empathize with it and will try to embody what ever best I can". Isn't it Stockholm syndrome when the captive starts to believe and empathize with the mission and vision of his or her captor?

Are we in an institutional Stockholm syndrome? Where have all the cowboys gone?

Position, Velocity, Acceleration, Jerk, Snap, Crackle, Pop

Thats a heavy title for an essay. Hang in there with a little patience and you will see what I am trying to get to... I know few people who have slept well the night before the Calculus exam or even the advanced Physics test whether it was in high school, college or even in applying to grad school problems. Rest assured this will not get as complicated!

The essay has its genesis in a email I drafted to friend and colleague regarding organizations and my motivational drivers that attract me to a role. I have written about the concept in the past through the tag Talent Management, although over time I feel like I have graduated to a relatively higher level influenced by the concept of Emotional Intelligence.

Anyway back to the topic I started thinking of... It is fascinating how organization are designed based on positional measures. Let me explain what I mean by this comment. You read any job description or even a company value proposition when attracting talent. The message is usually focused on tasks, actions may be outcomes and behaviors. Nowhere will you even find a mention of the first order differential - Change and Rate of change (the gradient).

At a worldly level I am motivated by Challenge-Recognition-Compensation but once a role begins to deliver on my threshold of expectations the bar rises. The best part of this human expectation model is the bar rises faster and faster as we continue to get better with managing single dimensional worldly into the multidimensional worldly and in multidimensional surreal (philosophical changes, behavioral and attitudinal changes in people around us and those that matter to the desired results).

So why is it that so few organization talk about this gradient? We already know the basics from Physics -

• Rate of change in Position/Location is Velocity - first order difference
  
• Rate of change in Velocity is Acceleration - second order difference
  
• Rate of change in Acceleration is Jerk/Jolt - third order difference
  
• Rate of change in Jerk/Jolt is Snap - fourth order difference
  
• Rate of change in Snap is Crackle - fifth order difference
  
• Rate of change in Crackle is Pop - sixth order difference
  

I don't expect us to get to the 6th order differential ever but I don't see why we could not get to the 2nd? This needs a new mind, a new philosophy and new measures.

(the physics terminology has been drawn on the article - Third derivative of position)

Doing Things Right

Stanford Knowledgebase had an interesting article recounting a presentation by Paul Idzik chief operating officer at international financial services firm Barclays PLC.

One of my favorite comments was...

• "Conflict-driven discussion leads to really enhanced decision making as the best ideas battle for supremacy."

Additional commentary by Paul Idzik was summarized as follows:

• “Separate fact from opinion. One of the constant errors that bright young people make is they mix their opinions in with the facts. It lets people avoid the topic because you have put your opinion in there, and they start focusing on your opinion rather than the facts.”
• “Try to find a target that is difficult to deny the attractiveness of, and therefore you can at least agree on the point that you want to get to.”
• “Try to agree on a short timeframe … something we can solve in a reasonable time.”
• “Focus on the situational conflict, and steer clear of the personal conflict.”
• “Make sure you create a time and place to have one-on-one discussions.”
• “Don’t think you’re Henry Kissinger. Don’t think you can help two senior people negotiate the peace treaty, because you are likely to become either a prisoner of war or a casualty.”
• “Try to get the boss to put a deadline on moving forward.”
• "Keep your resume updated.”

The strategy conduit

Last week while reading the post Questionating on changethis.com I started to think about the planning process. Corinne Miller the author of the article presented a interesting perspective on the How? Why? & Why Not? collectively contribute to completing an organization, Ms. Miller says "We like to say that questions open the innovation pipeline."

Organizations like successful individuals and ones that are "a peg that fit a hole". A fundamental quality of a leader needs to be his or her ability to be comfortable with contrarian opinions in his/her mind and contrarian opinions within his/her team. Ms. Miller suggests being "Process and Procedure oriented" to enable creating a culture of Questionating.

I tried to conceptualize this process into a visual, that I refer to as the strategy conduit.

Is culture STOIC?

Every individual I have ever conversed with on the issue of leadership, organization converges on the topic of culture. The culture of an organization, how they are unique, how they indoctrinate and on and on. There are sections of books in the library dedicated to the topic and probably several hundreds of thousands of hours of research that has been translated into published literature on the topic.

Obviously like all these friends and acquaintances I have opinions and quite like most of these individuals has some element of empirical evidence to substantiate my point of view and a fair bit of hypothesis based on who I am and where I came from (or where I have been).

The reason for this essay of mine is much less to discuss this perspective but to debate over...

• Whether culture is immaculate (a shield, like The house of Windsor)?
  
• Whether culture is a organizations legacy?
  
• Whether culture is a label?
  
• Whether culture is an open door?

I believe it is all of the above with the open door being the top and most important. The one thing is isn't is STOIC! I tried to look for a dictionary definition of the word and the one I liked the most was from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary.

the act or process of cultivating living material in prepared nutrient media; also : a product of such cultivation

If culture is living, how could it be stoic? Which supports my next argument that as new living beings are born they evolve and bring their own special flavor, their own unique touch to the cultivation of the next generation. Obviously culture needs to be an open door one that imparts as much as it absorbs and evolves.

I think the gate keepers of the culture who boast, "this is not who we are and what we do", beware! If you are not osmotic your days may be numbered, worse yet if the organization does not adapt, look for help or prepare for death.

Somethings are timeless

Yesterday evening I watched the movie GANDHI, On Demand. I realized some leadership traits are timeless!

• Fundamental change takes time
• Fundamental change starts at the bottom of the pyramid (grass roots)
• Fundamental change only occurs with credible leadership
• Credibility is both visual and latent
• Credibility is multiplicative
• Performance and perception need to be managed
  
• Deviation from normality is not doomed
• Dissenters and Detractors to a philosophy cannot derail a credible leader
• Leadership means commitment and confidence
• Leadership means accepting shortfalls
• Leadership means acknowledging failure and retooling
• Leadership is constantly tested
• Leadership is honesty
• Leadership is strategic
• Pass opportunity in favor of substantiating appropriate cultural attributes
  

Modern change needs speed and is often managed with minimally credible individual/s (one with limited credibility inside the organization under going change). The speed is accelerated through strong sponsorship from the top of the pyramid. Assuming the top of the pyramid has build credibility and has the complete trust of the bottom of the pyramid to empower the change agent by sharing or rather lending their personal credibility.

A night and day with Heidi

I had been interacting with her for a couple years now but some how I could never ask her name. Not that I am an introvert in fact quite the opposite, most friends tell me I am one of the most extroverted individual they have known. I guess Heidi always responded to the questions in the third person and I stuck to pronouns. Addressing on first name basis was never needed?

It was only last year when I went for a drive with a friend who told me her name was Heidi. I had always enjoyed her company and have been a tremendous fan of her patience and politeness. To me she is a role model, a feat I aspire when dealing with people around me. Ever try going anywhere with a knowledgeable passenger or more like a co-driver and it is a challenge. They give you advice after advice, even huff and puff at times under the breath at each mistake. Heidi is quite a dame, in her polite and submissive voice she suggests following her directions and if you avoid taking her advice she simply does not mind.

She is very accommodating with a positive outlook and a calm demeanor with a singular focus to get you to your destination. I spent an entire day with her last week over a 1000 mile journey and she was absolutely amazing. She is very adaptable what I expect in a friend and sometimes in service especially when I am paying for it. Last year I met her friend Crystal who is just as great and paid top dollars for her service.

We never travel anywhere without her and she is happy to occupy the space in our glove box when we don't need her services. Who says customer service is not what it used to be? We just need the right teacher and the personality of a programmed device. The Garmins, Tom-Toms, Magellans, etc. have done just that.