The war for talent is over and we've won!

Posted on September 4, 2008 by Bruce Lewin

How so did we win I hear you ask? Well, did you know that there is a CEO who values the importance of developing talent that they suggest that everyone spends a day a week talking about this (and a few other things too)?

Just think about that for a moment. A company exists that understands the importance of its people, their talents and the inevitable organisational intangibles that come from managing them that everyone spends a day a week on things like this. This means that people are free to do things that they value most highly, the things they enjoy the most!

That is the path to victory!

We're not talking about 50 hours a year training and development time, we're not even talking about utilisation rates, we're talking about setting aside a whole 8 hours of each and every person's working week and letting them do as they see fit. This means they can use this time to work with their team, their manager or on anything they believe is valuable and important to them. Here's what the CEO said about giving people a day a week for such activities...

"It forces the conversation with a manager who is over-managing... I come to you and I say the project is late, you guys have screwed up, my classic old management style and you sit there and say you know what, I'm gonna give you everything I've got 80% of the time"

"It forces the dialogue, it serves as a check and balance on this sort of command and control management that a lot of companies have..."

That's it folks. Its that simple. Command and control management be gone...

With all this talk about talent management, engagement, people are our greatest asset and so on, it takes a pretty smart (or depending on how you view the world, pretty stupid) CEO to make such a bold commitment to employees, customers and shareholders. Clearly the CEO believes that every employee spending a day a week to win the war for talent has a huge payoff for everyone involved.

While it may look extreme, at its heart, the approach asks a really great question of other organisations, namely how much time and energy is being lost on activities that don't add to productivity and the bottom line?

Put another way, would the principle of spending a day a week on talent and talent development in its widest context improve the bottom line of other organisations?

Clearly, this CEO thinks it applies to their firm, so why not others?

So which firm am I talking about? Before spilling the beans, its worth taking off on a quick sidetrack. Like many of the firms who gain recognition for great work, their overall reputation and perception in the eyes of different stakeholder's can cloud our thinking. For example, if I told you this was GE, you're likely to first think about Jack Welch, Mr. Eddison, the financial performance of conglomerates and so forth. I believe my point would be lost. In a similar vein, if I said it was Toyota, thoughts of their culture, manufacturing methods and eco friendly cars would similarly come to mind before the point I'm making. I'm sure you can see the dilemma here...

Anyway, back to the point. A company has committed to giving everyone a day a week to get engagement, leadership, congruence and all the other good things that come from conversations about talent management right.

Why isn't this a bigger story or am I missing something here?

By the way, the company in question often tease us with their "I'm feeling lucky" gambit, along with their free massages and offering each and every one of us a bird's eye view of where we live (hint - its not NASA!).

p.s. Thanks to Jack for putting me onto this 🙂

p.p.s. The CEO in question is talking about these ideas here. You'll need to go to 47:05 to get the quotes, but the entire piece is well worth watching.

Posted in Culture, Intangibles, Strategy | 1 Comment

Dismal, Disastrous, Ouch!

Posted on September 1, 2008 by Bruce Lewin

Dismal, Disastrous, Ouch!

No, not the commentary from the recent Olympic boxing, but fallout from Alice, Kim and Dan's verdict on McKinsey's 'Making Talent a Strategic Priority'.

Rather than focus on the usual HR sponsorship issues, I thought it would be interesting to look at HR through the lens of Christensen's Values, Processes and Resources framework[1].

Values

The CIPD conference promises that

you will get up to date on the hottest issues in HR. Get fresh ideas and practical solutions to tackle the challenges you are facing in; organisational development, talent management reward, resourcing and recruitment, managing change etc.

Meanwhile, Kim suggests that

HR has an unfortunate habit of attracting folk who think people issues are all ’soft’ issues of motivation, leadership, relationships, ‘EQ’ and so on - all doubtless very important, but there are some critical quantitative issues that you just can’t deal with via chit-chat and arm-waving.

A bit harsh, but there is often a gap between the economic factors that drive the bottom line and the people centric values that follow[2]. Perhaps the human values should lead the economics? Either way, that is a discussion for another day...

Processes

One might suggest that processes are the meat and drink of HR. While this may be true, it is interesting to see that not one explicitly HR focused tool features in Bain's survey of top management tools. Regardless, Dubs suggests that HR processes lining up with business processes is key.

One of the things that make HR great is when HR is well attached to all the other cogs in the machine. When it’s not, our cog just makes lots of noise and does nothing of value.

In a similar, if perhaps bleaker fashion, Rick suggests

This McKinzie (sic) report is more evidence that HR functions are applying themselves with gusto to the wrong things.

Gosh!

Resources

Somewhat predictably, the third area illustrates further examples of the gaps between an ideal outcome and reality. Clayton kicks off with

the all-too-typical example of the HR Manager re-positioned as ‘HR Business Partner’, but clearly lacking the specific skills, knowledge, and in many cases intellect, basic business savvy and motivation to competently carry out the role in a way which leads to both success and credibility within the organisation.

He then goes on to say

Whilst the likes of the CIPD and SHRM are certainly encouraging a new commercial awareness amongst their new and existing members, something far more fundamental is required:

Given the gaps and contrasts between the relevant values, processes and resources, one cause may be the intangible factors that are hard to define and manage but which have a major impact on outcomes. While never easy, optimising intangibles such as behaviours, relationships and culture is likely to help rather than hinder. Rick sums this notion up well when he says

It’s a lot easier to focus on systems and processes because they are tangible, or at least they appear to be so.... Supporting, coaching and challenging managers to help them manage performance is a long hard slog that may take a while to produce results, yet it will have more impact on the way people are managed than yet another new HR process.

Happy Intangibling - the gold medal for that went to the Lin Miaoke btw, but don't ask me how she won it!

Footnotes

[1] Brian has a great example of the Values, Processes, Resources framework in action here
[2] Recent focus on Human Capital and metrics notwithstanding.

Posted in Culture, Intangibles, Strategy | 3 Comments

Willing volunteers…

Posted on August 27, 2008 by Bruce Lewin

Given the recent thoughts on collaboration, Mike Chitty has a great piece along similar lines, although he compares the private and public sector.

It is a strange paradox that many private sector clients are making genuine efforts at developing employee engagement in pursuit of profits while so many third sector and public sector organisations are developing processes and systems that alienate employees and volunteers in pursuit of efficiency.

As mentioned elsewhere, one possible way around this may well come from creating and encouraging ‘Small World’ networks.

Posted in Culture, Intangibles | 1 Comment

The Tension in Collaboration

Posted on August 24, 2008 by Bruce Lewin

Summary

There is a tension at the heart of our efforts to collaborate. This tension and its possible resolution is best captured by the following questions.

  • Should we be putting people first, before technology, in our efforts to collaborate?
  • Does collaboration benefit from a more formal process?
  • Can collaboration be encouraged in a replicable and systematic manner (as much as anything concerning people can be repeatable and systematic)?
  • Does the lack of a formal process for optimising collaboration hold back productivity and performance?

This article attempts to answer these questions and shine new light on what constitutes successful collaboration.

The Tension in Collaboration - Four Groups

What is collaboration?

At the outset, it is useful to consider what we actually mean when we talk about ‘collaboration’[1]. Wikipedia defines collaboration as “a recursive process where two or more people work together toward an intersection of common goals, for example, an intellectual endeavour that is creative in nature. In particular, teams that work collaboratively can obtain greater resources, recognition and reward when facing competition for finite resources.” By way of contrast, Google offers us 26 possible definitions.

While wanting to avoid any jargon, what is most striking about the various definitions is how frequently the concept of informality is seen as being intrinsic to collaboration. By extension (and certainly from a management perspective), it is this apparent informality that creates a paradox, or at least some significant contrasts around collaboration. The table below illustrates these ideas and the tension between collaborative ways of working and more formal approaches.

ExamplesPerceived StrengthsPerceived Weaknesses
Informal CollaborationInnovation, ad hoc projects, informal influencing, improvisationBetter use of resources, greater spontaneity, recognition and enjoymentIt is hard to control, measure and manage. Could be seen to undermine the status quo
Formal Process and Structure Customer service, business process reengineering, auditing, surveysCan be measured, systematically optimised and enhancedCan be restrictive, too easily satisfied with the status quo. Could be seen to undermine efforts to change

Whilst acknowledging that an organisation’s preference is for methods of working that can be most easily measured and managed, the paradox of collaboration lies at the heart of knowing which way of working is most suited to the task at hand. Put another way, it is a case of more control versus less control, more spontaneity versus less, or even greater adoption of change or not. It is these contrasts and inconsistencies lying at the heart of how we choose to organise work that creates an apparent gap or tension in collaboration. This is then especially relevant for those who seek to encourage or promote collaboration within organisations.

Continue reading →

Posted in 4G, Culture, Intangibles, Psychology, Strategy, Articles & Research | 22 Comments

The Value of Intangibles

Posted on July 3, 2008 by Bruce Lewin

Building on the piece on Managing Intangibles, I'm planning on adding some further examples of the increasing significance of intangibles in management. The first comes via the Bradman Group and CIO Magazine and is titled "9 Reasons Why Application Developers Think Their CIO Is Clueless". Some select examples;

1. The CIO is a control nut.
2. The CIO is aloof.
6. The CIO thinks changes can happen overnight.
7. The CIO doesn't know the difference between resources and talent.

The second, via the BBC and Leatherhead Blog talks about the idea that "Nurses are to be rated on compassion". From the BBC;

Nurses are to be rated according to the levels of care and empathy they give to patients under government plans. Health Secretary Alan Johnson... believes compassionate care was as crucial to the recovery of patients as the skills of surgeons. Mr Johnson said: "What nurses tell us is that you can have the best surgeon in the world, who carries out the most terrific operation on you, but your stay in hospital won't be satisfactory if you don't get a high level of compassion and care."

Posted in Culture, Intangibles, Psychology | 1 Comment

Managing Intangibles

Posted on April 13, 2008 by Bruce Lewin

Summary

By making the traditionally intangible aspects of an organisation tangible, managers can benefit from superior information and greater choice. This new perspective combines insights and knowledge that would previously only have been available by chance alone with a comprehensive view of the organisation in question.

Managing Intangibles - Four Groups

Factors that Drive Intangibles

The recognition and subsequent rise in the importance and value of intangibles has been an ongoing feature of management for some time. Examples such as Knowledge Management, Balanced Scorecards (BSC) and Strategic Planning all attempt to quantify and make tangible aspects of an organisation that are initially intangible in nature.

While there are many examples of tools and techniques to make information more tangible, it is also useful to ask why this trend has been put in motion and what advantages are available from it. The three ideas below are by no means exhaustive, but are an attempt to shed light on the factors that drive the importance of intangibles.

  • Economics
  • Execution
  • Experience

The economic aspect of intangibles looks at two main areas. The first is a broad consensus that intangibles contribute to superior financial performance. Examples include linking activities such as brand valuation, human capital and innovation to increased shareholder returns. A second economic aspect of intangibles looks at increasing efficiency and reducing costs through an improved understanding of intangible costs and the factors of production. Activity based costing is one example of this approach and by better understanding the tangible and intangible costs of production[1], it is possible to generate improvements and efficiencies in resource allocation.

Continue reading →

Posted in 4G, Culture, General, Strategy, Articles & Research | 17 Comments

A strong link between poor leadership and the risk of serious heart disease

Posted on January 7, 2008 by Bruce Lewin

Via the BBC, the Swedes are linking leadership to health and ultimately, mortality. Its certainly an interesting way to look again at the famed 'work life balance'!

Inconsiderate bosses not only make work stressful, they may also increase the risk of heart disease for their employees, experts believe.

A Swedish team found a strong link between poor leadership and the risk of serious heart disease and heart attacks among more than 3,000 employed men.

And the effect may be cumulative - the risk went up the longer an employee worked for the same company.

The study is published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

Posted in Intangibles, Leadership, Psychology | Leave a comment

Linking Financial Values and Cultural Values

Posted on September 29, 2006 by Bruce Lewin

Linking Financial Values and Cultural Values - Four Groups

The financial and cultural values of an organisation often appear to be two separate and distinct entities. However, simultaneously linking and managing them can have a major impact on the success of both strategy and its execution.

Typically, the financial values of an organisation do not mirror the cultural and behavioural values of the organisation. Financial values are the aspects of financial performance that are measured, rewarded and recognised. Examples such as revenues, return on equity, profit margins and share valuations are all included in here. Internal examples include the setting of targets and milestones, while the market may define price levels or influence market share and investors seek dividends or increases in the share price for example.

Contrast the financial values with the cultural values that firms often use in the form of mission statements, desired behaviours and emotional commitment. Such cultural values are highly likely to be defined internally (either deliberately or casually) and take the form of training programs, grading systems or competencies for instance. Ownership of such values may be with the board, HR, or it may lie with a combination of stakeholders. The point of this comparison is to say that often, financial and cultural values are defined and managed by entirely separate and distinct tools and processes [1].

The following example seeks to contrast two airlines [2]. Table 1 below shows a near perfect match between cultural values, as taken from their respective websites. Yet, despite the similarity, Brand 1 is a low cost, short haul, budget airline whilst Brand 2 flies long haul and emphasises their luxurious customer experience. Comparing financial values, differences are in margins, the cost base, customer segmentation, distribution channels and levels of competition for example.

Continue reading →

Posted in Culture, Strategy, Articles & Research | 26 Comments

New blog

Posted on September 28, 2006 by Bruce Lewin

We've just upgraded our blog software to the latest version of WordPress and hope to start adding some more posts and articles in the coming days.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Gap Analysis and HR

Posted on June 8, 2006 by Bruce Lewin

Systematic HR has an excellent post on HR strategy, both what it is and what it isn't. While the piece will likely ruffle a few feathers, I think it is interesting to look at the gaps in perception between HR and the business as a whole.

What it basically comes down to is your focus on the business. Each and every task performed should be with your executive team’s strategic business plan in mind. In other words, HR is not strategic when it is not coordinated with the business strategy.

While the above summary is reasonably well understood (or should that be that its been written many times in different forms?!) I still think there is scope to narrow the gap between HR and the business, where such a gap exists. Personally, I think that the use of Christensen's Values, Processes and Resources, or VPR (diagram here) view of the firm offers people the simplest and most comprehensive means to understand, act on and close the HR/Business gap.

In brief, I think HR has a great claim to two of the three aspects of the above, namely Values and Resources. Talk of culture, missions and values can be owned or significantly influenced by HR. Likewise, Resources is only one removed from Human Resources! This leaves Process and aside from HR processes, having an understanding and making a contribution to this from a HR standpoint is a distinct possibility.

N.B. despite my own enthusiasm for the VPR framework, this page from Google only returns two results!

Posted in Strategy, Culture, General | 2 Comments