The DNA of Human Capital

People Challenges the Same...Whether Public or Private Sector

2012-01-29T15:10:00.003-05:00

Greetings,

I have perspective these days. Not that I didn't have perspective before, but has greatly enhanced itself with time.

As I have engaged with counterparts in our profession of human resources, talent, and learning & development, a common perspective has been created for me. That perspective is this...

The people challenges that organizations face, whether public or private, are the same...the only differences are the context/environment and what levers you have available to mitigate them.

That may seem over simplified, but think about your organization right now. You are probably dealing with new employee integration and retention challenges, strategic people capability needs challenges and talent identification and development challenges. What is different for each of us is the context/environment (risk adverse financial organization or an innovative technology organization) and the levers available to mitigate the challenges (infrastructure, processes, compensation, performance management, etc.).

Why should this matter? A person once shared with me that when they hired people within the profession...they hired for the relationship building/management skill set. They felt they could teach them about the business and they probably had professional experiences in talent, HR, or learning & development...but they needed people that could build and manage relationships with customers.

As our organizations time horizons become less strategic and more dynamic...people that are agile and adaptable in our profession will become more important. It will not be as important (Or shouldn't be anyway) to have industry experience, but the ability to integrate and leverage different solutions for the context/environment we find ourselves and make our organizations successful.

Cheers,
Keith

J. Keith Dunbar is a Global Talent Management Leader...Creator of Talent, Leadership Capability, and Culture Change...He can be found connecting and sharing knowledge on Google+, Twitter and LinkedIn.

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: J. Keith Dunbar
Google+: J. Keith Dunbar
Blog: DNA of Human Capital

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the SAIC.

So You Want 2012 Predictions...Not Happening!

2012-01-02T13:09:00.003-05:00

Greetings,

Well...here we are. The start of a new fresh and what we all hope is a fantastic year...I know I do. This is typically the time of year where people in a variety of professions...including our own...provide their predictions for the year. We look into our crystal balls, shuffle the Tarot card deck and throw some chicken bones around. We will discuss what the next fad will be, the next new technology or best practice that will shake the foundations of leadership development, talent management, learning or people.

Sorry to disappoint...Not going to happen...

We do these things to try and provide some amount of certainty in an increasingly uncertain world. We are heading into 2012 with the same levels of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA) that we started ended 2011 with...

When people are involved...what you can do is prepare yourself for it.

The futurist Alvin Toffler once said the following:

"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read & write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn."

Our ability to learn makes us more agile and adaptable and ready to enter 2012 and excel even in VUCA conditions. At the end of the year...it is not what we predict, but the opportunities we create for ourselves, our teams and those around us.

All the best in 2012.

Cheers,
Keith

J. Keith Dunbar is a Global Talent Management Leader...Creator of Talent, Leadership Capability, and Culture Change...He can be found connecting and sharing knowledge on Google+, Twitter and LinkedIn.

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: J. Keith Dunbar
Google+: J. Keith Dunbar
Blog: DNA of Human Capital

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the SAIC.

Integrated Leadership Development - Potential Answer to the Importance-Effectiveness Gap

2011-10-23T18:15:00.000-04:00

Greetings,

I have written a couple of times about the gap between the importance of leadership development activities and the effectiveness of organization's efforts. Typically a pretty large gap exists...many understand its importance, but have a really hard time with determining their effectiveness at doing it.

Research from Dr. David Weiss and Dr. Vince Molinaro, from their book "The Leadership Gap: Building Leadership Capacity for Competitive Advantage" may present a solution.

In the book, Weiss and Molinaro indicate that "Emerging research links an organization's ability to develop its leadership capacity to it's competitive advantage." this is important as other research cited by the two indicates a linkage between the greater the robustness of a company's leadership capacity and the greater its financial return in critical financial measures such as shareholder returns, growth in net increase, growth in market share and return on sales. Pretty significant linkages as we discussed in an earlier DNA of Human Capital piece on an apparent lack of linkage between leadership and organizational performance titled "Leadership and Organizational Performance...Lack of Linkage."

Weiss and Molinaro discuss the differences and importance of the single-solution and multiple-solution approach to leadership development and that while single-solution is probably the most prevalent...the multiple-solution approach represents a more evolved approach. Because leaders are exposed to a greater number of leadership development options, they are better positioned to develop leadership capacity utilizing a mixture of options around assessment, coaching, learning and experiences.

Weiss and Molinaro discuss several factors creating a new sense of urgency in leadership development activities and driving an integrated approach. These include...

1. The complex business environment - understanding that leaders operate in environments that are more complex and intense than before.
2. The need to deliver results on many levels - pressure is on leaderships development activities to deliver results in transference of skills and ides to leaders, enhance leader performance, reinforce corporate culture and values, drive business results and adapt to changing business realities.
3. The high expectations of leaders - Senior executives want to see their investment in leadership development maximized and deliver on the promise of increase leadership capacity.
4. The need to sort through a maze of leadership development options - Leadership development is big business. Estimated to be as much as $50B per year business. There is much to choose from, but what makes sense?

Because of this, Weiss and Molinaro propose integrated-solution approach to leadership development. This includes the following components:

1. Develop a comprehensive strategy for integrated leadership development - A strategy defines what kind of leader the organization needs. The strategy also ensures development options are relevant, align to business needs, and add value to leaders.
2. Connect leadership development to the organization's environmental challenges - Connecting leadership development to an organization's environmental challenges creates focus and ensures that leadership development is being used to prepare leaders to succeed in the future.
3. Use the leadership story to set the context for development - Organizations need to have and use a compelling story to tell employees what the organizational leadership philosophy and culture is. The story serves as a focal point for development options.
4. Balance global enterprise-wide needs with local individual needs - Organizations must identify development options that are needed by all leaders of the organization such as creating a common leadership culture, enhancing core leadership competencies and responding to changes in the business environment.
5. Employ emergent design and implementation - because the business environment is now so much more complex, this suggests that leadership development must be emergent in that organizations must continually be in touch with what is happening in the business and be ready to respond to it.
6. Ensure that development options fit the culture - Leadership development options must fit in the culture and the organization's readiness.
7. Focus on critical moments of the leadership lifecycle - Leadership development focuses on new ways of thinking specific to leader roles and their transition points. Times when leaders are at their highest risk is when at these leadership transition points between new positions and activities.
8. Apply a blended methodology - Blending various solutions involving assessment, coaching, learning and experience are key to leadership development.

While this approach suggested by the authors is more complex, it has greater potential to create the leadership capacity needed within organizations to succeed. For your leadership development organizations to create and execute an integrated leadership development you will need a team whose leader can take a systems thinking approach in seeing the forest from the trees and the right people to execute their component of the approach.

Big Data = Big Talent Needs

2011-10-16T16:10:00.001-04:00

Greetings,

A recent McKinsey article drew my attention. Titled "Are You Ready for the Era of "Big Data"?, it details a current environment where people can mine and leverage data to develop new business models and become more agile and adaptable to evolving business conditions. This story at the front of the article resonates this approach...

The top marketing executive at a sizable US retailer recently found herself perplexed by the sales reports she was getting. A major competitor was steadily gaining market share across a range of profitable segments. Despite a counterpunch that combined online promotions with merchandizing improvements, her company kept losing ground. When the executive convened a group of senior leaders to dig into the competitor’s practices, they found that the challenge ran deeper than they had imagined. The competitor had made massive investments in its ability to collect, integrate, and analyze data from each store and every sales unit and had used this ability to run myriad real-world experiments. At the same time, it had linked this information to suppliers’ databases, making it possible to adjust prices in real time, to reorder hot-selling items automatically, and to shift items from store to store easily. By constantly testing, bundling, synthesizing, and making information instantly available across the organization—from the store floor to the CFO’s office—the rival company had become a different, far nimbler type of business.

The article lays out five key questions that organizations need to ask about their use and investment in "big data" to transform their business and/or maintain competitive advantage as the story above indicates. At a deeper level the article briefly touches on the talent and human capital needs required to make "big data" a reality. The research by McKinsey even insinuates the possibility of "big data" taking the place of management. Now...I am not interested in tackling the issue that last question raises by McKinsey, but I am interested in tackling what the talent and human capital implications are of such an approach.

If organizations are going to leverage the "big data" environment, they will need people with different skills and not just technical skills. Just the leadership skills required to leverage this new environment (Regardless of it taking the place of management...) are not necessarily new...but potentially new combinations. Some of these include the following:

Pattern Recognition - Ability to see the data and make decisions based on the data...White space management...

Creativity - Ability to recognize those patterns and identify creative solutions and products to mine the opportunity...

Innovation Management - Ability to see creative solutions developed and gotten to market quickly...

High Emotional Intelligence - Ability to leverage the skills of your people...

Dealing with Ambiguity - Ability to make decisions within high levels of volatility, ambiguity, complexity and uncertainty...

Strength Seer - Ability to see what strengths and skills are needed to exploit new business models and mobilize teams with the right skills and strengths...

So while companies look to leverage these new capabilities across their organizations to develop new and sustainable business models, you have to think of what the talent needs are to create this capability. You may even want to read this article from Forbes.com on hiring based upon data...7 "Moneyball" Hiring Tips.

Good luck...

Cheers,
Keith

J. Keith Dunbar is a Global Talent Management Leader...Creator of Talent, Leadership Capability, and Culture Change...He can be found connecting and sharing knowledge on Google+, Twitter and LinkedIn.

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: J. Keith Dunbar
Google+: J. Keith Dunbar
Blog: DNA of Human Capital

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Being a Leader or a SuperDoer...

2011-09-05T09:50:00.005-04:00

Greetings,

A couple of weeks a go, my new leader (only of about 6 months, but have worked together since 2005) made an interesting observation about our leadership culture. He said "Are we creating leaders or SuperDoers...because it looks like SuperDoers..."

I thought this was an incredibly powerful statement that has really caused me to reflect about my own leadership skills in the last 10 years...specifically back to my leadership journey that started on September 11th, 2001.

At the time, I was a U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer stationed in Bahrain supporting Commander U.S. Naval Central Command on the watchfloor. Recently chosen for promotion to Lieutenant Commander, I was doing what I do best...intelligence analysis, while working with my watch team. I remember it being a little after 3pm local time when CNN interrupted our normal routine with what was happening back in the U.S. It was certainly an eye opening day as we dealt with activities in U.S. and starting to get our resources and plans in place even then.

Unknown to me until the next day was the fact that the plan that hit the Pentagon took out Naval Intelligence's premiere watchcenter named Chief of Naval Operations Intelligence Plot (CNO-IP). The loss of life, while significant for the U.S. that day, saw our Naval Intelligence family loose eight people that day. A huge and devastating loss that included the Officer-in-Charge, Commander Dan Shanower, Assistant Officer-in-Charge Lieutenant Commander Otis "Vince" Tolbert (A classmate of mine), and six others.

I had successfully built a reputation during my career upto that point as an analyst and high performer, that in August 2002, I got a call asking me to change my orders back to the U.S. and take orders to CNO-IP as the Assistant Officer-in-Charge working for Commander Robert "Bob" Rupp as the new Officer-in-Charge. We would be the permanent replacements for those volunteers filling the roles. It was a great opportunity and one that I looked forward to with great anticipation.

Upon arrival just two weeks after Commander Rupp, what we found was a group still in shock from the events from September 11th, 2001. There were three distinct groups of people...those in the building that had survived, those that were part of CNO-IP, but not in the building, and then those that were thrown into the breach after the tragic loss of life. What this group needed was leadership from me specifically. As I reflect...I think what I really did was become a SuperDoer because that is where I was comfortable.

This is not unlike many organizations where we identify people that are excellent performers because of their technical expertise. They may not be adequately prepared for these roles and instead of being leaders and leading...they revert back to what they are comfortable with which is being a SuperDoer. For many they may not even know the difference...

For me...I did and made the changes in my leadership capability to be a leader and not a SuperDoer. While I continue to learn much about leadership and myself as a leader everyday...I have learned so many valuable lessons as we approach the 10 year anniversary of September 11th, 2001.

1. Humility as a Leader - I could have been much more of a leader when at CNO-IP. I know that now. As leaders, we all need to understand that our roles as leaders are about leading people and understanding the impact we have on people as leaders. While I haven't asked those who I led at CNO-IP...I would think that I could have been much better.

2. What got you there won't take you forward - Being a SuperDoer is great...but that will not take you or your team forward in the future. Being able to assess your leadership capabilities and gaps is vitally important in your metamorphosis from that role into a leader.

3. Develop others as SuperDoers and create Leaders - Once you make that transition to a leadership role...your job is to develop and create SuperDoers and help those few with leadership potential to make that transition from SuperDoer to leader.

I have been extremely blessed to be able to reflect on my leadership experiences and evolve my leadership skills and be a better leader of people. I think it is what I owed those I have led and those we lost ten years ago...I thank them for opening my eyes.

Cheers,
Keith

J. Keith Dunbar is a Global Talent Management Leader...Creator of Talent, Leadership Capability, and Culture Change...He can be found connecting and sharing knowledge on Google+, Twitter and LinkedIn.

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: J. Keith Dunbar
Google+: J. Keith Dunbar
Blog: DNA of Human Capital

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Looking for the Right Leaders for Growth

2011-08-28T11:09:00.006-04:00

Greetings,

It is great to be back after a hiatus getting through the Summer activities, work and my Doctorate program at UPenn.

Let's get down to business.

In July, our friends at McKinsey completed and posted a study titled "Do you have the right leaders for your growth strategies?" In this study, McKinsey looked at the linkage between leadership competencies and revenue growth. This is important research. In my efforts working on my Doctorate, there is a lack of conclusive research just on the linkage between leadership and organizational performance. I wrote about that in a previous blog post titled "Leadership and Organizational Performance...Lack of Linkage." So it is great to see other organizations like McKinsey taking a crack at this important topic.

The big takeaway is that leadership quality is critical to growth. You might say..."Well that is a no brainer Keith." You are probably right. The real issue is identifying the right set of leadership competencies needed for future business capabilities...like growth...and then identifying current leadership capacity in those competencies. Not just from an individual leader perspective, but from an organizational leadership capability. The key is to identify the leadership behaviors you need...in this study McKinsey focused on eight.

Thought Leadership
Market Insight
Strategic Orientation

People and Organizational Leadership
Change Leadership
Developing Organizational Capability
Team Leadership
Collaboration and Influencing

Business Leadership
Customer Impact
Results Orientation

The difference between executives in top quartile companies by revenue growth versus bottom quartile companies across all eight competencies was statistically significant. The study also found relevance in companies with multiple growth strategies vice singular growth strategies had excellence in a range of leadership skills of managers across multiple levels of the organization.

This is an important point when compared with another key aspect of the report dealing with Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A). It specifically states:

"By contrast, companies in the top quartile of M&A-driven revenue growth had top-leadership teams that excelled at a broad range of skills. The first is market insight—in other words, looking beyond a company’s current business landscape to discern future growth opportunities. That competency no doubt supports the identification of deals, while another competency crucial for M&A-driven growth—a well-honed orientation toward achieving results—helps in post merger integration."

There is a significant gap in research on the importance of leadership at the organizational-level, not just the C-suite, in M&A activity. Specifically, are there specific organizational leadership behaviors that would indicate a M&A has potential to be more successful or less successful.

As this research indicates, there appears to be key leadership behaviors associated with critical business areas like growth. The key for Human Capital Management leaders and leadership development professionals are to identify these key leadership behaviors based on the business needs, context and environment of the organization and then create them either through hiring or developmental activities.

If you take this approach, you and your organizations are better positioned to communicate the importance of leadership development and your effectiveness at doing it...explicitly.

Nuff Said!

Cheers,
Keith

J. Keith Dunbar is a Global Talent Management Leader...Creator of Talent, Leadership Capability, and Culture Change...He can be found connecting and sharing knowledge on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: J. Keith Dunbar
Blog: DNA of Human Capital

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Creating Talent Champions...

2011-06-26T13:56:00.006-04:00

Greetings,

I had a very interesting conversation this past week with a Senior Vice President of Talent at a Fortune 500 company. The intent of the conversation was to get a good understanding of how their organization developed talent and integrated it into the overall strategy of the organization. We focused on leadership development specifically during our conversation, but it was obvious that this organization's culture had the concept of talent and development embedded in its DNA.

As I reflected on that conversation this weekend, it became apparent that this organization didn't get to this point overnight. It is unlikely that it started with Talent Champions, but over time has created them and ingrained it into their culture.

The key for organizations in this new talent war is to create Talent Champions. In this new war for talent it is not just a Human Resources (HR)/Human Capital Management (HCM) or a line responsibility. It is a shared responsibility

Why is this important? Corporate Leadership Council research titled "Creating Talent Champions" explains...

"While few business leaders are Talent Champions, most business leaders have the skills necessary to become Talent Champions. HR’s role is not to develop a new set of skills in business leaders but instead to help business leaders apply their existing business skills to talent management. When accomplished, HR can improve business unit revenue by as much as 14%."

Additionally, CLC indicates that the HR/HCM-Line partnership accounts for 68% of talent management program effectiveness.

It is not about creating talent management programs for the sake of having talent management programs. They need to be connected to business strategy and positioned where line managers can leverage the programs to successfully meet their business needs. In many organizations, the partnership piece is missing. To get to that partnership requires healthy HR/HCM engagement. Leading and educating line managers that also helps build a climate and culture that creates talent that flourishes.

Our organization's success depends on it.

Cheers,
Keith

J. Keith Dunbar is a Global Talent Management Leader...Creator of Talent, Leadership Capability, and Culture Change...He can be found connecting and sharing knowledge on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: J. Keith Dunbar
Blog: DNA of Human Capital

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Leadership Development in a Funk...

2011-06-19T08:30:00.007-04:00

DDI recently released their Global Leadership Forecast 2011 - Time for a Leadership Revolution. The good news is that the study points to the continued importance of leadership in organizations and on a global scale. Leadership is recognized as driving employee engagement, organizational performance, and creativity and innovation.

"Today’s leaders make decisions in an increasingly unpredictable business environment. In a recent IBM study of 1,500 CEOs worldwide, more than 60 percent believed that their businesses today were more volatile, uncertain, and complex (IBM Global Business Services, 2010). It’s no wonder that the quality of leadership can make or break the sustainability of any organization. The difference between the impact that a top-performing leader and an average leader has on an organization is at least 50 percent, according to leaders participating in Global Leadership Forecast 2011. This degree of difference is staggering, considering the hundreds (or possibly thousands) of leaders employed at any given organization. In fact, this research demonstrates that organizations with the highest quality leaders were 13 times more likely to outperform their competition in key bottom-line metrics such as financial performance, quality of products and services, employee engagement, and customer satisfaction. Specifically, when leaders reported their organization’s current leadership quality as poor, only 6 percent of them were in organizations that outperformed their competition. Compare that with those who rated their organization’s leadership quality as excellent—78 percent were in organizations that outperformed their competition in bottom-line metrics."

The bad news is that we continue to think we are not good at developing future leadership capability. Whether organization leaders or Chief Human Resource Officers (CHROs), most feel the same when addressing the dichotomy between importance of leadership and leadership development and effectiveness of creating leaders. I consistently ask these two questions at speaking engagements and had the same opportunity a couple of weeks ago. The importance of leadership development graded at a 4.62, while the effectiveness to develop leaders graded at 2.21 for this group. These are similar numbers from IBM's 2010 Global CHRO Study.

So we are still in some kind of funk.

Elliott Masie and the Masie Center's Learning CONSORTIUM just concluded his first LeadershipDev conference in Las Vegas last week where he brought leadership development people together to discuss assumptions, rituals, investment decision making and new models for development. Why is this important? It is estimated that just in the United States we spend $14B on leadership development. That is a lot of money not to be getting it right. To help determine some answers the current University of Pennsylvania Chief Learning Officer Doctorate Program is conducting a series of quantitative and qualitative data collection to understand how leadership development investment priorities and content decisions are being made to better understand what is driving this perspective. The results of this study will be shared in a series of white papers from my fellow Doctoral candidates and myself.

My hypothesis at this point about the consistent gap in Importance and Effectiveness is this...We are are making assumptions because we don't really know whether we are effective at developing leaders. How you respond to the Effectiveness question is almost totally dependent on what you know...when you don't know and are unsure...uncertainty creeps in and your answer is less confident.

I discussed this in a blog post last year on the lack academic research linking leadership and organizational performance and by default leadership development titled "Leadership and Organizational Performance...Lack of Linkage." I recently revisited it in February with this Corporate Leadership Council research that I also wrote about titled "Now We Know...Why CHROs Don't Think They Are Effective at Leadership Development."

The age-old question has consistently been how do we measure learning investments. Typically we perceive it as too hard to do,,,I am here to tell you to get off your butt and just do it. I am not talking about Return on Investment, because quite frankly...I find that a huge waste of time. No one else has to prove ROI...why should we? Read my concept of measuring leadership capability here...

Studies indicate we have been in this funk for at least the last 5-10 years. Time to get out of it and meet the expectations that leaders have for our efforts.

Nuff Said!

Cheers,
Keith

J. Keith Dunbar is a Global Talent Management Leader...Creator of Talent, Leadership Capability, and Culture Change...He can be found connecting and sharing knowledge on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: J. Keith Dunbar
Blog: DNA of Human Capital

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Creative Leaders...Are We Biased Against Them?

2011-06-05T20:35:00.007-04:00

Greetings,

Last year IBM's Global CEO Study titled "Capitalizing on Complexity" was released. It discussed the concept of creative leadership and CEO's perspective that it would be very important in the future to have creative leaders in the organization based upon an uncertain and complex future. I wrote about the implications of the study in this blog piece late last year...Are CEOs and CHROs Aligned on Leadership?

I personally think that the CEO and CHRO studies brought the important and salient points of what kind of leaders we need to develop in our organizations. During the recent recession, this type of leader really had the spotlight as the economic environment required new ideas and ways of conducting business in constrained resource situations that many organizations found themselves. Additionally, creating growth opportunities then and now require leaders with the creativity and ability to manage the innovation process. In fact, I would say having this type of leader actually positioned to lead the organization in the future might be something that organizations may want and strive for...

Guess what...that assumption may be incorrect.

Academic research conducted by Jennifer S. Mueller (University of Pennsylvania, The Wharton School), Jack A. Goncalo (Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations), and Dishan Kamdaris (Indian School of Business) is shedding light on what we really think about creative leaders. The same ones that CEOs think they need for the future. You can read the research here "Recognizing Creative Leadership-Can creative idea expression negatively relate to perceptions of leadership potential?" or a synopsis of it here at Knowledge@Wharton - "A Bias against 'Quirky'? Why Creative People Can Lose Out on Leadership Positions"

But here is the gist and some highlights from the research...

Basically...we say we value creative leaders, but after three experiments that is not really the case.

"By integrating attributional theories of creativity and prototypical theories of leadership, we demonstrate that the expression of creative ideas can trigger impressions which, at least for leadership potential, are not automatically positive. Unless charismatic leadership is brought to mind or is chronically accessible, creativity might not necessarily signal leadership capability."

So if we don't also consider creative leaders as charismatic or transformational leaders in our organizations...our initial impressions are these people are not the kind of leadership potential we are looking for in the organization.

Additional findings included the following...

"Our findings also suggest that organizations may face a bias against selecting the most creative individuals as leaders in favor of selecting leaders who would preserve the status quo by sticking with feasible but relatively unoriginal solutions. This may explain why in their analysis of scores of leaders, IBM's Institute for Business Value found that many leaders expressed doubt or lack of confidence in their own ability to lead through times of complexity. Our results suggest that, if the dominant prototype of leadership favors useful, non-creative responses, then the senior leaders in the IBM study may have been promoted based on this prototypical perception of leadership and now find themselves in a world that has vastly changed, one that requires much more creative responses and thinking. Indeed, this bias in favor of selecting less creative leaders may partially explain why so many leaders fail and why so many groups resist change, as the leaders selected may simply lack the openness to recognize solutions that depart from what is already known."

So what are the implications to organizations, Human Capital Management (HCM) leaders and creative leaders themselves? For organizations...you might want to rethink your position on creative leaders and their overall potential to lead your organization...not just the creativity and innovation efforts. You also have to keep in mind that you want leaders with different strengths, so creativity is just one strength, but you should take a measured approach from a succession planning approach to look at the whole leader and not bias decisions on just one strength.

For HCM leaders, your job is to help organizational leadership identify these leaders in the organization and make sure your organizational leadership is not just asking questions, but asking the right questions about their contribution to the organization. Additionally, think about the creative leaders that are on your team...how do you think about them from a leadership potential perspective? This research may change your ideas about what these creative leaders bring to your team.

For creative leaders, you may not want to hang your hat just on your ability to be creative and innovative...particularly if you have aspirations to be the CEO one day. You have to sell the collective you and ensure that your bosses know all of your strengths. Think of yourself from the actor perspective...do you want to be typecast as a creative leader or a transactional leader?

Cheers,
Keith

J. Keith Dunbar is a Fearless Transformational Global Leader...Creator of Talent, Leadership Capability, and Culture Change...He can be found connecting and sharing knowledge on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: J. Keith Dunbar
Blog: DNA of Human Capital

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Looking for Great Fossils and Great Leaders...

2011-05-31T08:35:00.008-04:00

Greetings,

I am writing this week's blog while on vacation in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina this week with my family. It has been time to relax and reflect on two things that are important to me...fossil hunting and creating great leaders.

It may not be readily apparent to you the similarities between these two very different topics, but let me share with you what part of my vacation includes. This week I will get up early and drive two hours away to meet a guide and other people with similar interests. I will get taken to an area, given insight on the area and the history, given tools to dig and sift through mounds of mud and sand to find those key nuggets of a fantastic past. It will be hot, tiring, and back braking work...but the payoff in pride and satisfaction will be amazing.

Now let's look at identifying great leaders. Those in this line of work usually are up early and working with teams. You and your team get and create information on the role of talent and leadership capability in the organization that provides a sense of the context and environment you are working. You bring with you sets of tools and processes to dig through the mountains of data available on leaders in your organization with the goal to find those great leaders or those with the potential, as early and as broadly as possible, to be great leaders in the future. It is hard and tiring work.

Like my fossil hunting trip this week...your search for great leaders in the organization may be for naught. Leadership and leadership development continues to be an important topic for many organizations. Recently, Deloitte published their Human Capital Trends 2011 study layout a number of areas of revolutionary and evolutionary approaches to human capital management (HCM) and human capital development (HCD). In the study, it references another Deloitte study from 2010 titled Talent Edge 2020: Blueprints for the new normal. When executives were asked about their most pressing talent concerns, developing leaders and succession planning came out #2. This concern is unlikely to change anytime soon. Identifying and developing leaders has been a consistent talent challenge raised by CXOs across a multitude of studies in the last five years.

So what do we do about it is the key question. There are estimates that we collectively spend over $14 billion on leadership development. A previous blog post from me indicates that academic research has not firmly made a connection between leadership and organizational performance (Leadership and Organizational Performance...Lack of Linkage...). So we know we have challenges and enormous expectations from our customers on what it is we are doing and the impact it is having.

Organizations that are better able to manage expectations, develop and identify great leaders will be the winners of the future. Diligent and consistent preparation will put you and your organization in position to succeed...just like it will for my fossil hunt this week.

Cheers,
Keith

J. Keith Dunbar is a Fearless Transformational Global Leader...Creator of Talent, Leadership Capability, and Culture Change…He can be found connecting and sharing knowledge on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: J. Keith Dunbar
Blog: DNA of Human Capital

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The Osama bin Laden OP...Leadership and the Long-View

2011-05-08T10:48:00.006-04:00

About a week ago we got the news that I didn't think we would see...a successful effort against our #1 threat...Osama bin Laden It was going on over 10 years since September 11, 2001 and the scars from that fateful day are still long and raw...But there is a lesson in this successful operation for public and private sector organizations. That is taking the long-view...

In many organizations we are so tied to the here and now and achieving short-term results and generating immediate self-gratification that strategy or long-view activities are really not a factor in discussions. Like you...I have seen it time and time again. That is why the Osama bin Ladin operation is so important from a leadership lesson in achieving long-term success of an organization.

Soon after the events of September 11th, our primary goal became to bring Bin Ladin to justice. While much has occurred in the intervening days that were both short-term wins and setbacks, we continued to focus on that long-term goal. Resources and planning were dedicated to this one goal that would represent a culmination of a nation's need to bring closure. Through three different presidencies...this has never waivered.

A leader must consistently balance the need for short-term results with planning and preparing for events that provide long-term success of the organization. My perception is that we sometimes forget this...whether Wall Street or 4-year Presidential terms...people that can envision and enable a long-term strategy are worth their weight in gold...even at today's prices. These people need to be identified and put in positions to use their skills to enable organizational success...not this instant...but at a point in the future.

Look around your organization and think of the numbers of people that operate as tactical, day-to-day task oriented people and the numbers in the organization that can truly develop a vision and long-term strategy for organizational success. There are PLENTY of the first and FEW of the latter. The few that you have are probably not being utilized for the strength they bring to the organization and if your leadership falls into the "PLENTY" category...unlikely that they will see it or value it. That has to change...

Take this lesson from the bin Laden OP and take a different perspective in your organization...you will be amazed at what results you will achieve.

Cheers,
Keith

J. Keith Dunbar is a Fearless Transformational Global Leader...Creator of Talent, Leadership Capability, and Culture Change…He can be found connecting and sharing knowledge on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Google's Leadership Case Study for Us Watchers

2011-04-24T17:00:00.000-04:00

Google and new CEO Larry Page have been making news in last couple of months both purposely and inadvertently around the topic of leadership. It has provided a near constant case study of leadership in large organizations. The question is what does it mean and what is the impact of these activities? If you are a big financial services firm...you are only interested in the bottomline quarter-to-quarter. If you are an employee...you want to know what it all means to you and your work and life.

First, there was the identification of the 8 Point Plan to Help Managers Improve + 3 Pitfalls. Google put its collective data mining and analytic capabilities to task to scientifically identify what good mangers need to do to be effective leaders, codenamed Project Oxygen. The NY Times discussed it and its implications in a lot of detail. A number of people have written about what Project Oxygen developed, so I don't really have anything to share. It is a solid list and one that many organizations would do well to base the creation of the right leadership culture.

Next, Larry Page took over as CEO from Eric Schmidt. A surprise move that many felt signaled not so much a new direction, but an attempt to "Go Back to the Future" by creating the conditions and culture needed to return to Google's start-up roots. Many people that are in leadership roles have a vision of what they think success is and could be like in the future. Larry Page is no different. He has taken charge to drive the Google future...What is that you may ask?

Larry Page has been very direct and quick to point towards a future that he thinks Google has to win to maintain growth and that is social. By doing this, Larry Page is exhibiting the behaviors that Project Oxygen outline, specifically these four by sending the note to the employees.

1. Empower your team and don’t micromanage. Give freedom to employees in carrying out tasks, but make yourself available for advice.

2. Be productive and results-oriented. Help the team prioritize work and use seniority to minimize roadblocks. Don’t be afraid to step in and give direction when needed.

3. Be a good communicator and listen to your team. Encourage open dialogue and listen to the concerns of your employees.

4. Have a clear vision and strategy for the team. Don’t lose sight of the goal. Involve your team in setting goals and identifying the group’s vision.

He is telling employees what is important, but not how to get there. He is helping them to prioritize their activities around a major goal. He being a good communicator in a major transition. And finally, Larry Page is setting a clear vision for the team.

Finally, like many new leaders...Larry Page adjusted the deck chairs on his leadership team...significantly. I see the same thing in many organizations. A new leader comes in and desires to shake things up by pushing the old guard to the side and bringing in new people to the leadership team that basically...the new leader thinks they can trust. My career experiences are that new leaders tend to put in people much like themselves. So tactical task doers...usually put in other tactical, task doers and don't look for the balance in Senior Leadership Team strengths required to have a successful team.

The other challenge is that by moving people in to these new very important leadership positions at Google or any other organization...are you putting them there because they are good, even great leaders, or because they are great technical experts. It makes a huge difference in the ability of organizations. Many of us have seen the great technical expert that understands their job and are very good at whatever that is...but can't lead people. It demoralizes and eventually saps the strength out of teams.

So as Larry Page continues to bring his new Senior Leadership Team together...considering the Project Oxygen outcomes and ensuring they are "walking the talk" in relation to the identified behaviors will be important.

Key to success for Google is how they will take the next step and measure the behaviors outlined in Project Oxygen. Measure it and make adjustments to building the best-in-class leadership capability that Google will need for the future.

Cheers,
Keith

J. Keith Dunbar is a Fearless Transformational Global Leader...Creator of Talent, Leadership Capability, and Culture Change…He can be found connecting and sharing knowledge on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Leadership, Dark Matter and the White Space...

2011-04-03T17:00:00.000-04:00

Greetings,

Much has been made of the concept of white space in the last several years. Specifically from an innovation or new market identification and exploitation perspective. Mark W. Johnson's book "Seizing the White Space - Business Model Innovation"...(you can see his website here...Seizing the White Space) details how corporations and businesses need to focus time on the white space to speed innovation. He uses a series of case studies of where corporations like Lockheed Martin and Xerox ventured into the white space (Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works is a classic example) and created new innovative products, but their business models weren't ready. For Lockheed Martin this took the form of a new class of hybrid airship that was developed to carry heavy reconnaissance payloads or the U.S. Government. Yet, the hybrid airship created a buzz for use in a series of markets that Lockheed Martin's business model was not suited or prepared to execute in the new market.

In many respects, our efforts like leaders are sometimes like a successful business model. Because we think or perceive what makes successful leadership in the organization, we are unable to see new and innovative ways of leading because, much like Lockheed Martin, we are not operating in the white space of great leadership.

This topic is not new. Eric Schulz of The Occasional CEO blog wrote about this in 2008. He raises the concept of dark matter being discovered that binds the universe together and using the analogy to discuss what holds talent together in organizations. Of course that dark matter in this respect is leadership.

But for leadership to act as dark matter...it also has to operate in and out of the white space of teams and organizations. As a leader operating in the white space, you must look for opportunities to engage and align your team's activities in relation to the business strategy or mission. This requires using your skills to look at where potential connections within the white space need to be exploited. As I have led organizational restructures, my efforts operating in the leadership white space have been to look for these opportunities where there hasn't previously been value-added connections. These connections have increased efficiency and/or effectiveness of what the team was doing to support the organizational culture.

As a great leader, you have to recognize what these opportunities are in the white space, provide direction and then step out of the white space. This then provides the fertile ground for innovation creativity within the team. Now the leader watches and observes the white space. They don't tell people how to operate in the white space...they allow the team to experiment and learn.

So as you engage with your team this week...act like dark matter to keep the team together. Then think of the white space opportunities you can create and the type of environment that will allow your team to learn and grow. The benefits are enormous...engaged employees, learning employees, quality products, and satisfied customers.

Cheers,
Keith

J. Keith Dunbar is a Fearless Transformational Global Leader...Creator of Talent, Leadership Capability, and Culture Change…He can be found connecting and sharing knowledge on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The End of Management...Long Live Management!

2011-03-20T16:30:00.000-04:00

That was the title of a very enlightening article from the Wall Street Journal on what management has been, where management is, and more importantly...where management will evolve to in the future. The article titles "The End of Management" details the world we find ourselves in now. Corporations and managers created value and organized resources around the most important activities. In many ways, management thoughts and practices served their purpose greatly to drive organizations to achieve. Then this little thing called the Internet occurred and concepts of management started to change immediately. Now management is not a top-down driven activity, but a multi-directional ability to change organizations and enable tapping into the strengths and dreams of the entire organization to achieve new goals.

This is important as the article points out because management now is seen as bureaucratic and something that impedes progress, innovation and creativity because in many respects management seeks to self-perpetuate itself. In our minds, you need managers to control, micromanage, keep workers in line and focused on work (because they are obviously not smart enough to just take direction), and avoid risk. But in a world that is Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity (The VUCA World)...we have to learn to adapt faster than the world under these VUCA conditions. That specifically requires a new management model or models and a distinctly different leadership style than what we have today.

Which brings me to the real gist of this blog this week...How as Human Capital Managers (HCM) do we create people with the right skills and knowledge to leverage and thrive in this new golden age of leadership?

First, you have to understand the environment, conditions and challenges that organizations and leadership will face in the future. That will be primarily one of speed. Those organizations and leaders that can learn faster than their competition will be Kings and Queens of this new environment. Learning agility will dictate how quickly a leader can adjust to VUCA conditions, mobilize their people resources, and create competitive advantage in micro-periods of time that might be measured in weeks or months.

Second, understanding this now allows you to determine the right set of competencies to create within leaders to create the right conditions to evolve management and leadership. In the Lominger competency model, a set of competencies known as "The Big Eight" are an excellent starting point. These eight are considered critical to individual performance, but in short supply. They are in no particular order...

1. Dealing with Ambiguity
2. Creativity
3. Innovation Management
4. Motivating Others
5. Planning
6. Strategic Agility
7. Building Effective Teams
8. Managing Vision and Purpose

Consider these the building blocks of great leaders and by default great organizations.

Finally, it is not enough to create the individual and organizational capabilities to create great leadership...the organizations needs to experiment and innovate the function of management internally. Enter Gary Hamel and the Management Innovation eXchange (MIX). Gary Hamel has been solely focused on what types of management models will be created and needed to enable the future of the profession. Taking a a similar approach with our leaders and organizations in order to continue to evolve, as HCM leaders we should identify champions and lead innovative management and leadership efforts. Take what we learn and apply it across larger parts of the organization in order to enable competitive advantage and the learning agility that we will need in the future.

In these challenging times, we need to keep our eyes on the opportunities to help the people and our organizations be successful. Understanding that the old principles of management will not enable this future success are critical. Understanding the role that we have to enable this future success...is a no brainer!

Cheers,
Keith

J. Keith Dunbar is a Fearless Transformational Global Leader...Creator of Talent, Leadership Capability, and Culture Change…He can be found connecting and sharing knowledge on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Now We Know...Why CHROs Don't Think They Are Effective at Leadership Development

2011-02-27T18:00:00.000-05:00

Greetings,

I have discussed on DNA of Human Capital a couple of times (OK...maybe more) about importance of leadership development and various studies that detailed importance and effectiveness considerations for leadership development. The most recent study was the 2010 IBM Global Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Human Resource Officer (CHRO) studies. The CEOs communicated that leadership was important, even going as far to say that creative leadership is what is needed in today's world. The CHROs echoed this, but 2 of every 3 CHROs also indicated that they were not effective at building and developing leaders. That is not a good sign...

So at an event two weeks ago, I was expecting more of the same. At this meeting of Federal government leadership development leaders and practitioners was the Corporate Executive Board's Corporate Leadership Council (CLC) to discuss "Improving Returns on Leadership Development." At the beginning of the presentation were the details that I expected...In the CLC study, many organizations were moving to increase their investment in leadership development...that much was understood. Additionally, I wasn't surprised to find that only 19% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that their "Programs have delivered the Leader Capabilities Needed by the Organization."

So there I am sitting and thinking...OK...same results from the IBM work, but not anything new. The important questions for me were the following:

- Why do CHRO's think they are not effective?
- What do CHROs do to fix it?

I was pleasantly surprised to hear answers to those questions...

According to the CLC research, root causes for the poor returns on leadership development investments are attributable to three things:

1. Disconnected Strategy: Leadership Strategy is not integrated with business strategy.

2. Misaligned Outcomes: Leadership outcomes and metrics are not connected with business outcomes.

3. Uncoordinated HR Activities: Leadership activities are not integrated with other HR activities.

The rest of the presentation looked at three organizational case studies that were considered best practice. While I would like to discuss the details of the case studies...that goes beyond my agreement with CLC to share these results at a high level with each of you.

The great thing for my organization is that we were already working on developing both a Leadership Strategy and Leadership Capability Measurement Strategy, and aligning our leadership development processes with other Talent Management processes. While there is no magic dust that will help you and your organization in creating great organizational leadership capability, these three basic activities (OK...they are basic...maybe not easy...) these steps are the right things that can start to raise the veil of leadership development and the ability to improve returns on leadership investment.

Cheers,
Keith

J. Keith Dunbar is a Fearless Transformational Global Leader...Creator of Talent, Leadership Capability, and Culture Change…He can be found connecting and sharing knowledge on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Why You Want Your Organization On This List

2011-02-20T18:35:00.003-05:00

Greetings,

Fortune magazine just released its 2011 “100 Best Companies to Work For in America” list. You will see the list of companies with great perks, great work atmospheres and job satisfaction, yet we still strive to understand the “So What? Factor.” What does it mean to be on the list? Outside of more resumes that will require screening because some people want to take advantage of the wine bars or Botox injections…does it really matter about the list?

First we have to take a look at the underpinnings of how companies make the list…Fortune magazine states the following and you can read it here…

“Most of a company's score (two-thirds) is based on the results of the Institute's Trust Index survey, which is sent to a random sample of employees from each company. The survey asks questions related to their attitudes about management's credibility, job satisfaction, and camaraderie.

The other third of the scoring is based on the company's responses to the Institute's Culture Audit, which includes detailed questions about pay and benefit programs, and a series of open-ended questions about hiring practices, internal communication, training, recognition programs, and diversity efforts.”

So it would appear that this revolves around an organization’s leadership, employee engagement, and employee value proposition that drive talent attraction and commitment. To a rational person, these are important factors to consider unless you are Paul Hebert of the blog Incentive Intelligence and the edgy Fistful of Talent posse. He writes in a recent blog titled “You Don’t Need to Measure Employee Engagement” that while we continue to measure elements of employee engagement…we may not need to so. He does reference that there is plenty of research that shows that employee engagement is a probable driver of business performance, but he does raise concerns about causality and correlation.

So back to original question…what is the “So What Factor” of being on the list? Now enter Professor Alex Edmans, a finance professor at Wharton Business School, and his scholarly article titled “Doe the Stock Market Fully Value Intangibles? Employee Satisfaction and Equity Prices.” The Abstract gives the big picture of the paper and why you should read it…

“This paper analyzes the relationship between employee satisfaction and long-run stock returns. A value-weighted portfolio of the 100 Best Companies to Work For in America earned an annual four-factor alpha of 3.5% from 1984-2009, and 2.1% above industry benchmarks. The results are robust to controls for firm characteristics, different weighting methodologies and the removal of outliers. The Best Companies also exhibited significantly more positive earnings surprises and announcement returns. These findings have three main implications. First, consistent with human capital-centered theories of the firm, employee satisfaction is positively correlated with shareholder returns and need not represent managerial slack. Second, the stock market does not fully value intangibles, even when independently verified by a highly public survey on large firms.” (Yes it says three implications…I didn’t find the third relevant to this thought piece though…)

The nature of human capital capabilities on firm performance and stock price is historically difficult to quantify as a tangible aspect of stock price. For this reason, intangibles are historically not considered. But in Professor’s Edmans’ research between stock price and inclusion on the 100 Best Place to Work For…there is reason to want to be included on that list. Proactively seeking to apply and obtain recognition by placement on the list is significant from the stock price valuation and opportunity to quantify intangible areas like employee satisfaction, but it also leads to enhanced attraction and commitment of talent.

Edmans admits that while there is a correlation between employee satisfaction and stock price, he cannot make strong claims of causality because of the number of variables involved (So Paul Hebert’s warnings are valid here as well).

While there has been and continues to be an interest in measuring intangibles like human capital capabilities and their impact on organizational performance…it continues to be difficult, but also a necessity. As Arie de Geus stated…

“The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage.”

If you agree with that…our ability to create organizations that are learning organizations, employee engagement, and great places to work and measure their impact is critical. In a recent blog post on my DNA of Human Capital blog, I discussed the concept of measuring leadership capability on Initial Public Offerings (IPOs). If you are going to invest in a company…wouldn’t you want to know what the intangibles of the human capital are just like the tangibles of the financials?

Cheers,
Keith

J. Keith Dunbar is a Fearless Transformational Global Leader...Creator of Talent, Leadership Capability, and Culture Change…He can be found connecting and sharing knowledge on Twitter and LinkedIn.

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Asking the Right Questions About Talent

2011-02-13T16:00:00.000-05:00

Greetings,

I follow Scott Anthony, a Managing Director at Innosight Ventures, a venture capital and equity firm. Scott is a consistent contributor to the Harvard Business Review blogs focused on innovation and recently discussed his engagement with a company. The gist of the blog post "The Power of the Right Question" was just that reframing or asking a different question can lead to breakthrough innovation. He realizes though that it is not easy...

"Coming up with the right question isn't easy. There may be an "a ha" moment in the shower, but many times the right question comes from conducting substantial market research, combing analogous industries for inspiration, holding structured discussions with experts, and having thoughtful discussions about a company's real strategic constraints and objectives. Sometimes these efforts feel frustratingly disconnected with the charge of creating an innovative growth business, but the right framing can make the right answer self evident."

The same perspective that Scott discusses is extremely applicable to our work as Human Capital Management (HCM) leaders. If we don' ask the right questions...how can we possibly know what talent we have, what the talent is doing and not doing, and what the talent should be doing...

We historically ask questions that we are able to answer because we don't want to appear that we don't know what we are doing in HCM activities. The kinds of questions that we usually ask are things like the following:

- How many people have been trained?
- How many new hires have been made?
- What is our attrition rate?

In many respects, these are good questions that deserve an answer, but do they get to some of the previous questions about talent? Yes...a loaded question that the answer is a resounding NO! We need to ask the really informative and hard questions like Dr. Bradley Hall's questions from his book "The New Human Capital Strategy."

- Are our executive teams more effective this year than last year?
- Are those in key positions outperforming their peers in competitor organizations?
- Has workforce performance improved since last year?
- Are we managing our human capital more effectively than last year?

These type of questions generate a whole different perspective on the organization and talent. These kinds of questions generate a different approach to what we do. These kinds of questions drive a different set of metrics to focus upon...not the easy metrics, but the ones that really determine the impact that our collective efforts have in our organizations.

Asking the easy questions is just that...easy. If you aren't asking the questions that get to the impact of human capital initiatives on talent and the business strategy of the organization...then we aren't doing our job. We are doing what is easy...

Nuff Said!

Cheers,
Keith

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Core, Common, Critical - Understanding Where to Invest Human Capital Development Resources

2011-02-06T17:00:00.000-05:00

Whether you are human capital development resource heavy or light...knowing where to apply resources to have the biggest impact on organizational performance is a critical business skill for Human Capital Management (HCM) leaders. One approach to take is the defining of Core, Common, and Critical skills...

Whether your HCM governance structure for your organization is centralized, decentralized or federated...this approach can enable informed resource decisions and drive closer integration across aspects of the organization that may not have existed before.

To gain the buy-in of all parts of the organization involved...it is recommended that you determine the Core skills needed to achieve current and future business results. This not only gives you the HCM leader understanding of what the organisation is doing and why, you are better positioned to support it as an individual component. A key piece of this effort is to ensure that the findings are validated by the unit's leaders to ensure that the right skills are drawn out for it to succeed.

By conducting this with each individual unit within the organization...you are in a position to aggregate findings across the organization and identify those set of skills that are Common across the entire organization. While this is a great data point...it is not the complete answer.

After identifying these Common skills, you must work with organizational leadership to understand the business strategy and identify the Critical skills that will drive superior organizational performance and business results. By understanding what these Critical skills are, we are better prepared to measure their impact and make the right set of resource decisions.

While this process is not rocket science...it can be easily repeated to enable organizational and business success.

Nuff Said!

Cheers,
Keith

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Complex Adaptive Systems Approach to Human Capital Development

2011-01-30T17:00:00.002-05:00

Greetings,

In any organization there are a lot of great human capital professionals that are doing their best to enable organizational success. Typically we approach human capital processes and activities in isolation from one another...we pull, push and prod these levers not really understanding the impact they have on each other.

The Department of Defense has learned this through experience...because of these lessons learned it utilizes a concept called Organizational Network Analysis (ONA) to examine complex adaptive systems. This provides the ability to look at complex adaptive systems made up of Political, Military, Economic, Social, Infrastructure, and Information (PMESII) systems and start to determine critical nodes, vulnerabilities, strengths, weaknesses, links, relationships and key nodes. This then allows determination of the appropriate types and level of responses using Diplomatic, Information, Military and Economic (DIME) levers. By taking this integrated approach, you are able to apply the appropriate response at the right place and at the right time to generate the correct response in the complex adaptive system.

Now think to your own organization...in many respects it is like any other complex adaptive system. But in many organizations, we don't take an organizational network analysis approach to human capital development. We have a number of human capital processes and levers available, but no sense of the true overall state of the human capital system (HCS). So we continue to apply what we know and have available hoping for the right response. As Albert Einstein stated...

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

So it is time for change...

Just like PMESII to determine the organization, we have access to similar tools to understand the human capital component of our complex adaptive system. Those things are Leadership, Engagement, Adaptibility, Knowledge, Skills and Strategy (LEAKSS). Having a complete picture of these critical pieces and how they are connected with one another allow for a complete picture of the organization and its strengths, weaknesses and vulnerabilities. It also allows Human Capital Management (HCM) to apply appropriate levels. It comes down to asking the right sets of questions...

Leadership - What is the overall leadership capability of the organization? Are we developing the right leaders to spur innovation and growth in the organization?

Engagement - Are employees engaged? Do they understand what it is we do and do they do what they need to do to enable it?

Adaptability - Is the workforce agile and adaptable to change?

Knowledge - What are the knowledge creation and management capabilities of the organization? Are the right people and groups connecting at the right time and place to foster innovation?

Skills - What are the skill capability needs of the organization? What is the workforce capacity to execute on these future capabilities? What is the gap in capability and capacity?

Strategy - What is the business strategy? How does human capital and talent enable the business strategy?

By taking a holistic systems thinking approach to the organization's human capital system, only then can we hope to enable it to meet business strategy.

Nuff Said!

Cheers,
Keith

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Does it really matter what we call what we do?

2011-01-18T12:00:00.000-05:00

Greetings,

So I have caught my share of people who were unhappy with me using the term "human capital." My general perspective has been to "virtually" shrug my shoulders and think to myself...Who cares what it is called? If it is us...then get over it. Our bosses don't care...they just care about results.

We expend so much energy on debating what we should call what we do...that we forget what the real goal is...getting quality people to come and stay in our organizations and fuel the organization's success.

At the end of the day we can call it any of the following things...

Human Resources
Talent Management
Social Capital
Human Capital
Coherent Human Infrastructure
People

It really doesn't matter...all that matters is our cumulative efforts enabling the business or mission success of our organizations.

So a little less bickering about the name for what we do and a little more focus on what is important...the people and the results they bring to the organization.

Nuff Said!

Cheers,
Keith

In My Business...This is an Indicator! A Talent Indicator...

2011-01-09T18:00:00.000-05:00

Greetings,

The United States Intelligence Community has suffered through a number of surprises. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor created the Intelligence Community and other world events like the the North Korean attack on South Korea and the 1973 Yom Kippur War helped precipitate the modern Indications & Warning system used to help limit strategic surprise. The goal? Identifying a set of critical indicators to prevent or negate strategic surprise.

Indicators are important...really important. Indicators allow us to try and see patterns in the events that are occurring around us and that may have a significant impact on our organizations ability to execute business strategy. Indicator is defined in this document from the then Joint Military Intelligence College titled "Indications Warning Terminology."

"Indicator: A generalized, theoretical statement of a course of action or decision that is expected to be taken in preparation for an aggressive act and that can be used to guide intelligence collection resources."

Why should you care about this in relation to your organization's talent? A recent query for the term "Talent Acquisition" on LinkedIn "indicates" an interesting dynamic taking place...there are a lot of companies gearing up for a new War for Talent. Looking for these types of "Talent Indicators" is important to track. This one for "Talent Acquisition" would tell me my competition is preparing for "an aggressive act" like the definition indicates. If you were preparing to start hiring...seems a critical indicator would be hiring Talent Acquisition positions in preparation for it. This would not only tell you who is hiring, but also lead you to what talent segments an organization is targeting. This can help you focus retention efforts within the organization if they are critical to your organization's success.

This concept of Talent Indicators is not all that strange. The concept of metrics and dashboards are intended to do the same thing...provide you the ability to make proactive, strategic decisions before they turn into strategic surprise...the new War for Talent that is upon us will demand it.

Cheers,
Keith

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

The opinions or views expressed here are mine alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency.

IPOs and Organizational Leadership Capability

2010-12-29T10:45:00.000-05:00

The book "The 2020 Workplace" by Karie Willyerd and Jeanne Meister discusses a future where organizational teams are hired intact into new organizations and where you are hired into an organization based upon your social capital. So it was with interest when I got a response from last week's blog on Leadership Capability Portfolio Management from one of my LinkedIn connections...Suranjan Benjamin Soans. He asked the following questions, which were intriguing:

"Keith, do you think sometime in the future, investors are going to have access to Leadership Capability Portfolio Management of companies? Or, is it better if that is treated as a company's secret? Do investment bankers take a good look at this (LCPM) before an IPO is issued?"

It's possible that understanding and measuring the overall organizational leadership capability as a critical component to an organization's financial rating in the future. Why? Let's look at some examples of why leadership capability already matters in organizations...

- Leaders impact the organization through factors such as employee retention and employee engagement. Both critical to organizational performance and financial performance.

- The 2010 IBM Global CEO Study indicates that CEOs continue to see the relevance of having a leadership capability that are creative, act under uncertainty, drive innovation and organizational performance.

While I study the impact of leadership and leadership development on organizational performance at the UPenn Chief Learning Officer (CLO) program, I know that before I invest in companies, I want to know what the company's leadership capability is. Companies leverage their position on such lists as Leadership Excellence's top leadership development programs and Fortune Magazines Best Places to Work when advantageous.

While award winning leadership development programs are good publicity, I reference Dr. Bradley Hall's quote from his book "The New Human Capital Strategy." There he states that "Success is not world-class leadership development but best-in-class industry leaders." If you believe that...we need an ability to measure the best-in-class industry leaders part of Dr. Hall's statement.

With this in mind, wouldn't you want to know whether an organization's leadership capability is having the intended impact on organizational performance...especially before you invest in it?

Cheers,
Keith

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

Playing Talent Mad Scientist...

2010-12-18T15:25:00.004-05:00

Greetings,

I recently came across a very cool game called Phylo. It was part of an article in Wired Magazine titled "Computer Games Makes You a Genetic Scientist." The intent of the online game is to take advantage of the prowess of the human mind's pattern recognition capabilities. As the article states:

"Phylo players move colored squares representing the four nucleotides of DNA to find the best alignment between snippets of DNA from two different species. These particular sections of DNA, called promoter regions, determine which parts of the genome end up as traits in the organism, whether it be blue eyes or heart disease."

The connection of this game to our role as Human Capital Management (HCM) and Talent Development leaders is interesting...Just as Phylo is leveraging the human ability to see pattern's, we should be doing the same. Looking for patterns in the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) environment is difficult, especially when it is focused on talent that drives our organizational success. Driving to success in this type of VUCA environment, while difficult, is not impossible.

Dr. Charles Dwyer of the University of Pennsylvania and the Aresty Institute's Leading and Managing People Academic Director at the Wharton Business School stated recently at a session I attended, that leaders need to think strategically and systematically. This is no more apparent than it is now in relation to acquiring, developing and retaining talent to drive business and mission results. Effective HCM leaders are able to identify strategic capabilities needed to fuel innovation, agility and competitive advantage. They are able to understand and see patterns in their current workforce capacity in respect to the identified capabilities. With this knowledge, they are able to make informed engagement with organization leadership to recommend the right approaches in enabling Buy, Build, Rent and Partner decisions.

When I visualize this activity...I see a Talent Mad Scientist...identifying the basic talent DNA building blocks for organizational success. Attempting to find the right pattern that will make an evolutionary leap in capabilities for the organization...

When you think of the Talent Mad Scientist...what do you see?

Cheers,
Keith

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

You Need a Leadership Capability Portfolio Manager...

2010-12-05T21:15:00.005-05:00

Greetings,

So we know that the 2010 IBM Global CEO and CHRO studies identified that both groups believe that leadership and leadership development is important, but 2 of 3 CHROs didn't think their organizations were effective at doing it. Let's start to take a closer look at something that can help change that equation.

Learning can be directed in one of three areas based upon the Unit of Analysis. This is typically focused on individuals or teams, but it can also be at the organizational level. The linkage to today's blog is by taking this same approach in the management of the learning and in this case...focused on an organization's leadership capability.

Disclaimer - I am NOT a financial investments expert. That is why I pay for the service from the pros to help me manage my resources. So what I am about to say is my simplification in terms for today’s blog.

In the financial services sector, it is fairly well known that as individuals we can make investments in a number of different financial instruments like money markets, bonds, stocks, etc. Each of these involves a strategy to maximize the return on investment, but each carries a form of risk. Investment strategies are intended to develop a portfolio of financial instruments that can weather periods of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity…like today’s global environment…for both short-term and long-term gains.

Now look at the investment your organization is making in leadership development. As discussed in previous blog posts, it is estimated that within the United States, that over $9.5 billion is invested in making leaders better. However, that investment is typically focused at the individual level. By investing in the individual’s leadership development, it is assumed we will reach a tipping point in the organization that will lead to maximizing the overall organizational leadership capability.

This doesn’t account for risk though. In the current global environment that is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous…the VUCA environment plays havoc with the development of an organization’s overall leadership capability. In order to maximize short-term and long-term investments and returns on leadership development…a different approach is not only recommended, but required…that is portfolio management. Like a mutual fund manager, organizations need someone that can act as the Leadership Capability Portfolio Manager or LCPM.

To do this requires a strategic perspective by understanding the business strategy and the leadership capability needed to execute that strategy…so that is a no brainer. However, we know that most competency models that leadership development programs are based upon are focused on what leadership capability you need now and not building the kinds of leaders you need for future competitive advantage. Additionally, if you take a strengths-based approach to leadership development like me, you know that there are going to be some capabilities within your competency model that no matter how important they are…not everyone is or will be a 5 (On a 1-5 scale) in every competency. The law of diminishing returns kicks in and increased investment in developing a tactical execution focused leader into a strategic vision leader will be wasted.

Now enter the realm of the LCPM…Because this person or group in your organization understands the business strategy, HR/HC strategy, leadership competency model, future leadership needs to execute, etc. your team is better positioned to manage for risk in the leadership pipeline and make targeted investments in areas where more risk can be taken or areas where less risk is advisable. This approach also allows you to manage individuals as a true capability. For example, if you know that the business will need frontline leaders that are collaborative and with high emotional intelligence in the next 2-3 years and reduced change management because your future looks stable (OK…this is probably WAY unrealistic)…then you can afford to “divest” change management investment in the leadership development program in order to “invest” in more leader capability in collaboration and emotional intelligence.

Taking this approach shows a direct understanding of the business and future HR/HC needs o enable its continued success AND a prudent approach to human capital investment. So the only thing left is one question…

How are you managing your leadership pipeline?

Cheers,
Keith

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

Is HR too big to innovate?

2010-11-21T17:00:00.001-05:00

Greetings,

A recent story on Google got me thinking about the state of our profession. In the story by Business Insider titled "Internally, Google Knows It Has an Innovation Problem", they discuss the key differences between Google and Instagr.am and their respective abilities to innovate. While the overall story made a number of key points, the one that caught my attention was this one...

"Google can’t keep its teams small enough. Instagram was started by two guys who rented a table at DogPatchLabs in Pier 38 (the first time I met the Instagr.am team was when Rocky and I did this video on Dogpatch Labs). The exec I was talking with said Google Wave had more than 30 people on the team. He had done his own startup and knew the man-month myth. For every person you add to a team, he said, iteration speed goes down. He told me a story of how Larry Ellison actually got efficiencies from teams. If a team wasn’t productive, he’d come every couple of weeks and say “let me help you out.” What did he do? He took away another person until the team started shipping and stopped having unproductive meetings."

The story of Ellison and his approach to innovation seems counter-intuitive as the author points out...it does to me, but I want you to think to some point in your past. Were you ever on an important HR team that was really attacking an important problem in the organization and feel like it was too big to make decisions or...yes...innovate? I have...

The recent 2010 IBM Chief Human Resource Officer (CHRO) Study identified three key areas requiring attention.

1. Cultivating creative leaders.
2. Mobilizing for speed and flexibility.
3. Capitalizing on collective intelligence.

All three of these focus areas will rely heavily on the ability of HR to innovate itself at a pace that keeps up with the global changes taking place. But a key question for HR is are we too big to innovate? Are we so focused on tactical and operational that it inhibits creativity and innovation in HR? I discussed this in July when talking about an HR Skunk Works approach.

My perspective is HR may be too "big" because it is burdened with a "little" thinking approach. A report from the Korn/Ferry Institute titled "Business Today Demands a Comprehensive Talent Strategy. Can HR Deliver?" argues that HR leaders need to be more strategic. To do that, then HR needs to build the right competencies for itself. The report specifically states the following:

"Developing Strategic HR Leaders - Strategic capability includes a number of competencies: business acumen; strategic agility; problem solving; perspective; and the ability to deal with ambiguity, to learn “on the fly,” to manage innovation and creativity, and to make quality decisions on complex issues that have long-term consequences."

The key for HR to innovate and meet customer needs in the future...find the right people and put them in charge! Find the right kind of people early in their HR careers...and nurture them!

Then it won't matter how big HR is in the future...

Nuff said!

Cheers,
Keith

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

Are CEOs and CHROs Aligned on Leadership?

2010-10-24T15:00:00.002-04:00

Greetings,

So an interesting question that I pose. On the outside it seems a no brainer. CEOs have a business strategy and they know that the need leaders to enable the strategy in the organization. CHROs know that they need to deliver leaders through recruiting and development that can execute the business strategy. Yet here we are in 2010 and we find the appearance of misalignment...so let's review the bidding.

In 2008, IBM's CEO Study titled "Enterprise of the Future" laid out five key areas for consideration that organizations needed to be successful. These areas included Hungry for Change, Innovative Beyond Customer Imagination, Globally Integrated, Disruptive by Nature, and Genuine, Not Just Generous. There was a realization in this study that organizations needed a new breed of leaders. This was made explicit in the 2010 study. In May, IBM's Global CEO Study was released titled "Capitalizing on Complexity." In the study, CEOs identified "creative leadership" as a core need of their organizations in the future. This quote from the study shares some of the implicit thinking behind creative leadership...

"Creativity is often defined as the ability to bring into existence something new or different, but CEOs elaborated. Creativity is the basis for “disruptive innovation and continuous re-invention,” a Professional Services CEO in the United States told us. And this requires bold, breakthrough thinking. Leaders, they said, must be ready to upset the status quo even if it is successful. They must be comfortable with and committed to ongoing experimentation."

Then in October 2010 comes IBM's Global Chief Human Resource Officer (CHRO) study titled "Working Beyond Borders." In it, CHROs continued to indicate the importance of developing leaders in the organization as captured in this piece from the study...

"Building an organization with flexibility and dexterity requires leadership with the creativity to adapt to a constantly changing environment. These leaders must be able to negotiate through a maze of differing cultures, complex inter-generational dynamics and varied communication styles...Creative leaders share a set of common characteristics that help them innovatively lead their organizations. They challenge every element of the business model to realize untapped opportunities and improve operational efficiency. Leaders grow their businesses through the exploration, selection and execution of diverse, even unconventional, ideas about the potential of new markets. They leverage new communication styles to motivate talent and reinvent relationships, both internally and across the supply chain, to create collaborative productivity. They focus on the bigger picture — the global marketplace — and how to lithely optimize the collective skills of their organizations."

So there appears to be alignment in the need for creative leaders or at least that CHROs read the CEO study. But then 2 of every 3 CHROs admit their organizations are ineffective at developing future leaders (See the attached graphic from the IBM Global CHRO Study). That is surprising (IBM thought so as well)...

So taking a different perspective based upon the CHRO study is important, because admitting that we are ineffective at leadership development has ramifications. First we are saying that the estimated $9.5B per year we are spending on leadership development is being wasted. Second we are saying that what is most important to CEOs we are not good at doing for them. Are these the messages we want to communicate to our bosses and organizations? Kind of doubt it, but that is how it came out...

Are CHROs and their teams ineffective at building leaders? Probably not...In an earlier post here titled "Leadership and Organizational Performance...Lack of Linkage" I raised the aspect that academic research had problems, for a variety of reasons, in linking leadership to organizational performance and by default leadership development programs have the same challenge.

So how do we adjust and meet expectations? For starters, as Human Capital Management (HCM) leaders we have to get serious about defining leadership capabilities needed to execute the business strategy and workforce analytics needed to measure whether we are being successful. In fact, the effort put towards measuring the impact leadership development should equal the effort we put into leadership development itself. Without the key metrics, we are unable to determine impact or make adjustments in leadership development programs...this is critical to changing the perspective we have set for the organizations we serve.

Nuff said...

Cheers,
Keith

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

I'm Looking for Great Leadership...Not Just Effective Leadership...

2010-10-17T14:00:00.001-04:00

Greetings,

The role of leadership in organizations is recognized as a critical need for their evolution. This has become even more important in a world so complex and volatile as the one we operate in now. CEOs taking part in IBM’s 2010 Global CEO Study titled “Capitalizing on Complexity” admitted the following:

“In our past three global CEO studies, CEOs consistently said that coping with change was their most pressing challenge. In 2010, our conversations identified a new primary challenge: complexity. CEOs told us they operate in a world that is substantially more volatile, uncertain and complex. Many shared the view that incremental changes are no longer sufficient in a world that is operating in fundamentally different ways…Today’s complexity is only expected to rise, and more than half of CEOs doubt their ability to manage it. Seventy-nine percent of CEOs anticipate even greater complexity ahead.”

Yet, our current leadership model is hurting our ability to deal in a world loaded with volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity…a VUCA world. I recently read a blog post by Ted Coine on his 21st-Century Business blog. In his blog titled “Management is War? Make That Was.” Ted discussed the role of World War II in creating our current organizational structures in the private and public sectors. Watch HBO shows like “Band of Brothers” and “The Pacific” and you will see it…command-and-control leadership. People with experience and capability are put in positions of authority to get goals accomplished. Whether storming beaches or taking a town one house and street at a time…the great thing about command-and-control leadership in World War II is it got results. Missions were achieved and the war won…But according to Ted it has created challenges and an overall inability to leverage the talent in our organizations as noted in his comments below….

“Here's the thing, though: top-down leadership creates vast waste of human talent. It motivates us to do what the big boss orders, but it also turns off our inner drive to exceed when no one's watching, or monitoring, or counting one acute measurement of our output.

Order your people around, and they'll do the bare minimum to keep their jobs. Measure their performance by the numbers, and they'll give you those numbers - and very little more. Think for them, and they'll stop thinking for themselves - they'll stop thinking for you, for your company.”

The importance of leadership has never been more important in our country than it is now. Yet, we find ourselves wanting for great leadership. This was recently brought home for me when the Partnership for Public Service announced its 2010 Best Places to Work rankings for the Federal government.

While many factors are considered in the overall index ranking for organizations...the key factor shaping how employees see their workplace, for the fifth time in a row, was effective leadership. Much of what you would expect is rolled into determining the grades for this category. The survey asked about the ability of senior leaders and supervisors to generate motivation, commitment, opportunities for employees to lead and developmental opportunities. Scores for the largest Federal departments and agencies varied from 73.5 at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Who was recognized as the #1 place to work in Federal government) to 46.5 at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. But there is something deeper as Ted Coine sees from his perspective of the private sector that is even more prevalent in the public sector.

When you look at scores for large Federal organizations in "Effective Leadership"...It's kind of sad...for the top 28 organizations with scores it averaged out to the following overall grades for "Effective Leadership" in the Federal government since 2007:

2010 - 55
2009 - 53.2
2007 - 51.7

While there has been improvement in the average scores since 2007, even if you grade on a significant curve...a 55 is a failing score (Let’s be honest…the 73.5 that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission scored is just average). These kinds of scores speak to what can only be seen as a leadership gap not because people are leaving positions, but because they are in them!

So why don't we have more of it in the Federal government? Could be any number of reasons. My experience and perspective tell me this...in top-down driven, bureaucratic organizations where the working environment is about rules, standards, process and tasks driving organizational activities, senior leaders and supervisors are more like a boss than a leader. I discussed this in a previous blog post on my DNA of Human Capital blog titled "Is Your Boss Your Leader?" There is a big difference between the two and what benefits they bring to an organization. Leaders inspire people engagement and drive innovation and results by leveraging talent in the public sector and not wasting it. In the future, Federal government organizations will need great leadership and not just effective leadership to create and fuel the kind of results that efficiently manage resources and effectively achieve results that drive the United States. The kind of great leadership that is transformational...The American citizen requires no less.

Cheers,
Keith

Flexible Human Capital Response Options...

2010-10-11T15:00:00.000-04:00

Greetings,

The world is filled with volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA) as I have discussed several times. This kind of environment makes agility and adaptability a premium in being able to deal with this environment and prevent what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls "Black Swan Events." Taleb's theory "refers only to unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence and their dominant role in history. Such events, considered extreme outliers, collectively play vastly larger roles than regular occurrences."

The United States Intelligence Community (IC) and military understand the importance of trying to identify Black Swan events early and prepare plans that allow commanders Flexible Deterrent Options (FDO) in the deployment of available forces. These show of force operations usually involve the build-up or deployment of forces, an increase in readiness and level of activity. The concept of Adaptive Planning provides the following:

"The adaptive planning concept calls for development of a range of options during deliberate planning that can be adapted to a crisis as it develops. Where the crisis builds slowly enough to allow, appropriate responses made in a timely fashion can deter further escalation or even diffuse the situation to avoid or limit conflict. Where such options fail to deter or there is not time to execute options, a stronger response may be required to protect vital interests. The eventuality of attack without prior warning must also be considered."

So in understanding this approach and why it is used in the Department of Defense, I turn to Human Capital Management(HCM). The current economic environment has created challenges in looking at strategy as a "long-term" need. In some respects during the initial stages of the financial meltdown...strategy was emerging on a weekly basis in many organizations. In that context, it was difficult for HCM to be proactive and support the business and really precipitated reactive tendencies.

So this provides the context for application of adaptive planning in creating flexible human capital response options (FHCRO) in private and public sector organizations. HCM leaders must start by getting into the organizations strategic planning cycle. Playing a proactive role in this process by understanding the organizations short-, mid-, or long-term strategy allows for defining the human capital capabilities (knowledge and skills) required to execute the business strategy. This however, is just to start...to create FHCROs, HCM leaders should conduct scenario planning sessions that seek to identify the most and least likely human capital situations aligned to the strategy. This allows thinking about potential Black Swan events and their effect on the organization's human capital.

By combining scenario planning and business requirements definition, the HCM leader can develop a series of tailored FHCROs that are agile and adaptable enough to adjust to quickly changing events. Because in the future...organizations that can adjust the fastest to VUCA environments will be the ones best positioned to excel.

Cheers,
Keith

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

Leadership and Organizational Performance...Lack of Linkage...

2010-09-25T22:27:00.007-04:00

Greetings,

So imagine my surprise last week as I started my Doctorate of Education program at Wharton and the UPenn Graduate School of Education when the creator of the Executive Program in Work-Based Learning Leadership, Dr. Doug Lynch, stated that there is a lack of academic research linking leadership to organizational performance. As a lifelong learner, I was curious about this statement, so I started looking at what research is there and was amazed…

It is a common belief…maybe in this case an assumption…that effective leadership is key to organizations. Think of any number of great organizations like GE, Cisco, Google, etc. and you immediately think of great leaders. Yet, the research can’t make a connection. Most research has focused on the different leadership paradigms like differences of visionary and transactional leadership styles in organizations. For example, it has always been believed that visionary leaders played a larger role in organizations than transactional leaders…but because of research limitations the findings are not clear. One study by Fenwick Feng Jing and Gayle C. Avery of Macquarie University in Australia titled “Missing Links in Understanding the Relationship between Leadership and Organizational Performance” states the following:

“No clear picture has emerged about the relationship between leadership and organizational performance. Despite increased research into the leadership-performance relationship, many problems and gaps remain in existing studies. There is a lack of integration concerning the relationship between leadership and performance, a narrow set of variables has been used in previous studies, and context and levels have been ignored. Therefore, there is a need for clarification.”

Another key challenge in linking leadership to organizational performance is the issue of performance measures itself. The same study by Jing and Avery states:

“One problem relates to the quality of performance measurement. When selecting the measurements of performance, previous researchers have employed either financial measurements or non-financial measurements, rather than employing both kinds of measures in order to enhance the validity of the research. They have neglected the interrelationship between financial performance and customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction. This provides a narrow measurement of performance that may not have appropriately evaluated the sought-after performance effects appropriately. Thus, both financial measurements and non-financial measurements of performance are essential in order to enhance research validity.”

The implications to the profession of Human Capital Management (HCM) and development are significant. If there is no academic research to directly correlate leadership styles to organizational performance, then there can be no linkage of leadership development programs to organizational performance. According to Bersin and associates 2009 High-Impact Leadership Development study, it assesses that leadership development is a $9.5 billion industry. That is a ton of cash to be spending on something and not know whether it is having the intended impact on the organization.
Of course, many organizations make use of anecdotal evidence that leadership development is having the intended impact. One private sector organization uses the number of new $1 billion businesses generated by action learning projects (ALP) during its leadership development programs. But as Bradley Hall states in his book “The New Human Capital Strategy,” our focus should not be on world-class leadership development programs, but world-class leadership capabilities. Because leadership capabilities should be driving organizational performance as we have seen…Even as I lead my organizations leadership development capabilities, I can’t tell you whether organizational performance is improving or even changing! Again…lots of assumptions and anecdotal evidence is being used across the HCM space in many respects.

I think it is important to understand the relationship, or in this case the potential lack of a relationship between leadership and organizational performance. Our organizations, and in particular, HCM leaders and their organizations should be engaging with the academic community to enable research that helps understand what we assume as a linkage between leadership and organizational performance. If we are unable to understand the linkage and the role that leadership development most obviously plays in our organizations…then we can’t leverage it to its full potential.

Nuff Said…

Cheers,
Keith

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

Is Your Boss Your Leader?

2010-09-06T14:00:00.000-04:00

Greetings,

As most of you, I have had many different supervisors over the last 25+ years. During my time in the Navy, I got a new supervisor every 1-3 years because of rotations in and out of the organization. My experience during that time would be very similar to those of you reading today...it is fairly easy to segregate the great from the not-so-great leaders...that ratio is probably in some cases 1-to-100.

In my time as a Naval Intelligence officer, we had a tool that was called the "Alpha Roster." The Alpha Roster was something of a planning tool that listed all of the Naval Intelligence officers, their current command/unit, and when they were due to rotate to a new job. While its intended purpose was for career planning purposes...it also had another...it provided a way to track those not-so-great leaders to ensure you didn't end up even in the same geographic region with them again. In many respects, those these supervisors were in leadership positions...they were really my boss and not my leader.

How does this story relate to the topic? I think there is a significant difference between bosses and leaders...While your boss can be your leader...that doesn't happen nearly as often as your boss never being your leader.

There are a number of great perspectives on what makes great leaders standout from people that are playing your boss. The Faster Times Fred Wilson recently posted on "The Three Things CEOs Do." In the post a Venture Capitalist shares what CEOs do and importance on organizations...

"A CEO does only three things. Sets the overall vision and strategy of the company and communicates it to all stakeholders. Recruits, hires, and retains the very best talent for the company. Makes sure there is always enough cash in the bank."

While this seems simplistic, the first attribute is a critical component in differences between bosses and leaders. Rosalyn Carter, wife of former President Jimmy Carter, once shared her perspective on just the difference between leaders and great leaders.

“A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go, but ought to be.”

This quote gets to the Venture Capitalist comments on what CEOs do...in this case great leaders have to set a vision of the future and get the organization and its culture to move to this new proposed future.

Bosses have their role to play...detail-oriented, efficiency focused, standards, risk management, and process driven (Let me clarify that this is my view of bosses). There are of course much more negative attributes of people I lump into the "boss" category that we have all seen and said to ourselves..."That is not the way to lead and I am not going to do that when I am a leader"...I focus on more of what I see from bosses. These "boss" attributes lead to results that can move organizations, teams, and individuals to new levels, but at the end of the day...these things do little to inspire or enhance employee engagement.

To be the great leader that Rosalyn Carter discusses...you have to create a future shared vision for the team and/or organization, communicate clearly and effectively, inspire trust and openness, create a culture of innovation and disruption and how the team working collaboratively can achieve results.

Great leaders with these abilities are talent magnets...drawing people to them and their organization because they see a new and potential future that this talent can play a part in creating...Like the Venture Capitalist discusses as the number two thing that CEOs do. This is why companies like Apple, Cisco and IBM draw great talent to their organizations.

So...as you sit around today contemplating this blog post...think to your past supervisors or your current set and ask the question...

Is your boss your leader...your great leader?

Cheers,
Keith

Clarity Agents and Chaos Double Agents...You Need Them...

2010-08-22T15:00:00.001-04:00

Greetings,

A good friend shared with me the perspective of someone he knew as we spoke about leadership. The quote went something like this...

"Leaders create clarity from chaos and create chaos when there is clarity."

That is a profound statement and really sets the tone for what great transformational leaders are and should be about in their organization. Our organizations are going through massive swings in volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity...the VUCA world I have discussed in prior blogs. A great transformational leader is able to embrace what is happening in a VUCA world and turn it from challenge to opportunity for them and their team and organization. To do that requuires someone that can see through the fog and move the team in the right direction to achieve results that are impactful. These leaders take the chaos of the VUCA world and add clarity to it...become a Clarity Agent...This allows understanding within your team and sets the tone for accomplishing those things that are most important to business or mission impact.

In 2006-2010, as we merged the Defense Intelligence Agency's learning capabilities with those of 12 global Combatant Commands, my team and I were in VUCA trying to create clarity from chaos in some respects. All felt they were unique and requiring tailored support, training, and opportunities. But by setting a strategic vision to align learning, communicating that vision and executing a cross-organizational plan, we were able to make the transition smoothly in a global environment.

The more interesting side of the equation is creating chaos when there is clarity. So why would you want to do that? Why have a Chaos Double Agent?

The enemy of improvement in performance and enabling the ability to innovate is being comfortable and allowing the status quo to maintain. In the future, successful organizations will be defined by leaders that are disruptive and creative. These leaders will have a sixth sense about the why and when of change. In a VUCA world, leaders with this vision and skill will define their organizations success. The ability to create chaos from the inside-out or outside-in depending on the contextual environment will be a key skill.

Bottomline...You need this kind of leader on your team and in your organization. You need to grab them and cherish them and covet what they can bring. The current environment that we are all operating in is likely to continue...Having Clarity Agents and Chaos Double Agents is the key to success.

Cheers,
Keith

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

Measuring Action Learning Projects in Public Sector Leadership Development

2010-08-09T20:00:00.002-04:00

Action learning projects in leadership development have continued as an important development tool for many organizations. It was a recent topic in the Imagining the Future of Leadership blog series hosted by Harvard Business Review in one blog post by Trina Soske and Jay A. Conger titled "Its Time to Focus Executive Development on Real Business Issues."

In the blog, Soske and Conger make the case that...

"The complexity, interconnectedness and transparency of today's organizations mean that no one individual can get much accomplished by themselves. Most challenges and opportunities are systemic. Leadership is distributed and change now requires a collective sense and a coordinated set of actions."

My team enables a key leadership development program named GEMSTONE. The intent of the program is to take the best and brightest leaders at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and create the next generation of DIA leaders. Like many other leadership development programs, GEMSTONE utilizes action learning principles through Capstone projects to enable key program goals. These include skill development, collaboration and team building, and critical and creative thinking.

Key aspects of the Capstone projects are their alignment to a specific Directorate (Business unit equivalent in private sector) with senior executive sponsorship. Through a series of conversations with Directorate senior executives, we are able to determine key challenges facing the organization that are within the control and authority of that senior executive to take action.

Our Capstone projects lead to a series of project recommendations. The senior executive sponsor has one of four options:

1. The project plan is accepted, a team is formed and funding is procured;
2. Interesting elements of a plan are evaluated further;
3. The project plan is accepted but staged for future investment; or,
4. The project is halted because the timing or investment is not right.

The intent of GEMSTONE is not unlike other private sector leadership development programs. Cisco's Executive-Action Learning Forum is a case in point. Led by Annmarie Neal, vice president of the Cisco Center for Collaborative Leadership, the program looks to accomplish the following:

"While executive leadership programs are common, the Cisco Center for Collaborative Leadership – known as "3C" – is unusual in how it implements such teachings. As part of the program, Neal's team helped design Cisco's Executive Action Learning Forum (E-ALF). In E-ALF, five to six teams of 10 promising executives work together to build the strategy and tactics for addressing crucial business issues that have $1 billion in potential revenue generation or cost-savings. In most cases, the work of the teams leads directly to major initiatives the company implements. Each program has at least one senior executive sponsor."

Key differences between measuring the impact of action learning projects between the private sector and public sector is the revenue generation measurement component. In Cisco's case, addressing crucial business issues that have $1 billion potential in revenue generation is a key metric. Since public sector doesn't engage in revenue generation, we have to focus measurement in other areas that also show impact and program effectiveness.

Key areas to measure for GEMSTONE and other public sector programs include the following:

1. The number of organizational challenges addressed - Tracking the number of challenges is really just a first step. If recommendations are accepted by the senior executive sponsor on aspects of mitigating the challenges to improve organizational efficiency and/or effectiveness, ultimately measuring these outcomes and their impact are the goal.
2. Resource optimization - In the public sector, optimizing resources to enable more efficient use of the taxpayer investment are important. Measuring these types of outcomes may enable investment in new capabilities to overcome other organizational challenges.
3. Project alignment to organizational strategy - In many organizations, just aligning projects to the strategic goals of the organization can be extremely helpful. In some organizations, leaders can't always see the alignment.
4. Social Network Analysis - Creating leaders of the future as Soske and Conger discuss is about collaborative and collective engagement. Bringing
together future leaders from across the organization should lead to measurable improvement in collaboration and communication that are critical for the future success of organizations.

The benefits of action learning projects are well established in leadership development. Now take the next steps to align the impact of this helpful tool to developing your future leaders in the public sector and the key metrics that tell the story of its impact on the organization.

Cheers,
Keith

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

Jonathan Kayes...Passing of a Learning Leader

2010-08-06T14:52:00.003-04:00

I just found out that Jonathan Kayes passed away the evening of 5 August quite unexpectedly. Jonathan was the former Chief Learning Officer (CLO) at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) until his retirement earlier this year. He had in retirement started working with Elliott Masie of the The Masie Center and was serving as the Learning CONSORTIUM CLO.

I had known and admired Jonathan for his learning leadership within the Intelligence Community since 2005. He was a driver in collaboration across the Intelligence Community learning enterprise. Because of his insights and perspectives not only on learning, but more importantly leadership, I had asked him to serve as a mentor to me, which he graciously accepted and did with the utmost professionalism.

So this blog post is to recognize Jonathan for what he was...a great person. You will be missed.

God bless...

Keith

Importance versus Effectiveness Gap...Closing...Slowly

2010-08-04T18:25:00.002-04:00

I attended and presented at the Human Resource Management Institute 25-27 July. It was a great opportunity to engage with senior HR executives representing the areas of talent, diversity, learning and compensation.
It also presented the chance to validate of key findings from the IBM 2009 study I have referenced in previous blog posts.

I asked the group, using Turning Technologies audience response system (great tool to engage the audience and collect data), to rank the nine human capital challenges from the study by voting for their top three challenges.

The voting came out this way...

#1 - Defining skills, knowlegde and capabilities to execute business strategy.
#2 - Developing succession plans and career paths
#3 - Sourcing and recruiting individuals.
#3 - Retaining valued talent within the organization.

I then asked the group to rate their organizations on a 1-5 scale regarding importance and effectiveness....

1. Defining knowledge, skills and capability requirements for executing business strategy is an important need for my organization.

2. My organization is effective at defining knowledge, skills and capability requirements to execute business strategy.

Importance rated a score of 92 out of 100 and effectiveness rated 51 out of 100. This provided an Importance vs. Effectiveness gap of 41%. This compared favorably to the IBM study gap of 48%, but still a pretty big gap.

So what does it mean? For starters, I was pleasantly surprised at what was #1. While the other eight human capital challenges in the study are important, organizations will have a difficult time negating these challenges without knowing what human capital capabilities are required now and in the future.

My concerns continue that there is such a wide gap between importance and effectiveness. There could be some good reasons for it. There has been such volatility and uncertainty since the financial meltdown starting in 2008, that attempting to identify skills, knowledge and capabilities was a bridge too far. Many organizations were making strategic decisions on a week-to-week and month-to-month basis and couldn't focus much more strategic than that. That kind of environment is not good for anything other than reacting.

The message for Human Capital Management (HCM) leaders...now is the time to position your organizations for future success. A number of HCM leaders of prominent organizations are successful at defining the workforce capabilities needed for their future strategy...IBM, Cisco, and Google are a few. If you don't spend time with your customers understanding where they want to drive the business and culture, you have a difficult road ahead. If, on the other hand, you have a sound approach in place to work with organizational leadership to define current and future needs...you are ready to play an important role for your organization and our profession.

Cheers,
Keith

Twitter: JKeithDunbar
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/

Skunk Works...Innovating from the Outside-In...

2010-07-31T18:22:00.010-04:00

My team went through a major change initiative starting in 2006 that involved merging with ten organizations with geographic and functional responsibilities. While each conducted the same mission by collecting, analyzing and disseminating information to support leadership decision advantage, in many respects...each felt it was unique and did their mission differently. Each had learning functions that ranged in size of 1 to over 40...so this was the environment and scene my team faced in building a global learning enterprise that leveraged my organization's learning capabilities, while integrating their capabilities.

What my team came to find out that in order to integrate effectively and efficiently...we would have to change from the "Outside-In." What this meant is that in many respects, while trying to integrate and align these various learning capabilities, changing how we conducted business at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) would be possible by changing how we operated with our new customers. For example, within DIA's schoolhouses we used different course evaluations with some standard questions, but in large part no common standards. One of the first initiatives with our learning integration efforts was to develop and accept a common set of evaluation questions. This move precipitated a similar discussion internally.

We accomplished this and other key initiatives by treating our effort as a Skunk Works...Made famous at the height of the Cold War, Lockheed Martin created a group that revolutionized and transformed airborne reconnaissance.

Our internal Skunk Works supported change management during the integration and alignment period. By leveraging a world-class best practice in defining a common set of skills, knowledge and capabilities for all organizations...we were able to integrate learning and align existing solutions at a quicker pace. It allowed our new customers to see that while their organizations had different responsibilities, the challenges faced, the work they did and the type of human capital capabilities needed were very similar.

The lesson for Human Capital Management (HCM) leaders, creating a team within your HCM organization that has the green light to try creative and disruptive new approaches can enable change across the HCM organization. That can lead to new efficiencies and effectiveness in meeting customer needs and in our case...accelerating major change initiatives...from the Outside-In.

Cheers,
Keith

Is There a Positive in BP Crisis?

2010-07-17T07:58:00.011-04:00

Greetings,

So great news that BP has finally stopped the unrestricted flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It took a long time and as an organization they have suffered greatly and in many people's eyes deservedly so.

As an example, I looked at a total of 25 blogs written in Harvard Business Review about a number of angles on the BP crisis. The most positive...and that is relative speaking of the BP oil disaster...was by Vineet Nayar titled "I'm Thinking About BP's Employees." Most however focused on some aspect of BP brand, culture and of course failure of leadership.

But I wonder if a silver lining can't be found for the future of BP or other organizations able to get BP talent in the future...

In many organizations, we attempt to replicate the conditions of the organization in our leadership development programs. We do this through action learning activities that help participants practice what they learn through business projects or solving organizational challenges. While these things are of immense value to the organization...it is difficult in a classroom setting to replicate crisis. The kind of crisis that comes in a world ripe with volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity...the VUCA world.

The environment that new leaders in BP are growing up in now will pay dividends for them in the future. These BP leaders will be able to take advantage of volatility, make decisions under conditions of uncertainty, create clarity from complexity and adapt to ambiguity. All priceless traits for leaders of the future.

It would be extremely easy to just focus on the negative of the situation, but as a strategic human capital management leader...I prefer to focus on the positive.

Cheers,
Keith

DOCGI Leadership in a VUCA World

2010-07-06T08:00:00.003-04:00

DOCGI Leadership in a VUCA World

In the past few weeks I have seen a number of blog posts and articles discussing different leadership attributes and their application to our current world state. All of these have one thing in common…they are intended to allow leaders to function in a world that is consumed by Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity…a VUCA world.

Coined by the U.S. Army to define environments that forces would operate in, it allowed personnel to make sense of the world. Our Armed Forces don’t only operate in a VUCA world though. Our CEOs and Directors operate in this world daily. A world so complex and volatile, that CEOs taking part in IBM’s 2010 Global CEO Study named it “Capitalizing on Complexity.” In the study, CEOs admitted the following:

“In our past three global CEO studies, CEOs consistently said that coping with change was their most pressing challenge. In 2010, our conversations identified a new primary challenge: complexity. CEOs told us they operate in a world that is substantially more volatile, uncertain and complex. Many shared the view that incremental changes are no longer sufficient in a world that is operating in fundamentally different ways. Four primary findings arose from our conversations:

Today’s complexity is only expected to rise, and more than half of CEOs doubt their ability to manage it. Seventy-nine percent of CEOs anticipate even greater complexity ahead. However, one set of organizations — we call them “Standouts” — has turned increased complexity into financial advantage over the past five years.”

So at this point in the blog I want to use my power of engaging the reading audience and ask you whether you think your organization is operating in a VUCA world? If you don't...It would surprise me to find anyone who thinks they are not in a VUCA world now...

So if we agree that this is what is facing our organizations, what kind of leaders do we need to develop that can thrive and excel in a VUCA world? Some hints have started to come out in a number of places. Attribute areas that I consider important. I am calling it DOCGI Leadership…

Disruptive - This was written by Heather Vogel in her HR Whisperer blog titled “Aim To Misbehave.” In it she discusses the principles of Disruptive Leadership and what that can do for an organization.

"Disruptive leadership is a concept that is rapidly gaining ground in the new millennia – leaders create problems that must be solved. The solving of the problem serves as the catalyst for the organization to create change, whether that change is a new product, new service, or just a new way of doing things. When an organization has to solve a problem, it can provoke the necessary motivation to make a huge leap in innovation."

Open – Charlene Li co-author of “Groundswell” and her new book “Open Leadership” makes the case that in today’s super-connected world and the level of complexity associated with it, that leaders will have to give up need to be about relationships and a culture of sharing. Charlene Li believes the following statement about Open Leadership:

“Having the confidence and humility to give up the need to be in control, while inspiring commitment from people to accomplish goals.”

Creative – The 2010 IBM Global CEO Study identified Creative leadership as a key area for leaders in the future to focus in order to overcome uncertainty and complexity.

"Creativity is often defined as the ability to bring into existence something
new or different, but CEOs elaborated. Creativity is the basis for “disruptive
innovation and continuous re-invention,” a Professional Services CEO
in the United States told us. And this requires bold, breakthrough thinking.
Leaders, they said, must be ready to upset the status quo even if it is
successful. They must be comfortable with and committed to ongoing
experimentation."

Globally Integrated –
IBM’s white paper titled “Developing Global Leadership” discusses the following perspective in developing their global leaders:

“For greater global effectiveness, decision-making authority needs to be owned and executed by those who are best positioned to make quick decisions and be responsible for outcomes.”

What Does It Mean

So what will a DOCGI Leader look and feel like? A DOCGI Leader is someone that can thrive in a VUCA world by being a risk manager and nurturing their workforce in the same environment. It is someone that is OK with failure, because the organization learns from that and creates and innovates further. A DOCGI Leader is agile and adaptable that can make decisions quickly to take advantage of shortened time lines, mobilize global teams for execution, and develop strategies that are short or long-term in nature.

The consideration in the future with Gen Ys moving into leadership positions now...is how do we develop these attributes in our future leaders? That...is a story for another time.

Cheers,
Keith

You Don't Know What You Don't Know...In This Case...We Do...

2010-06-27T19:45:00.000-04:00

I'm a big fan of Cisco and their CEO John Chambers. In a recent Newsweek interview, he focused on "Knowing What You Don't Know" and impact on the future of leadership. His perspective, always refreshing to me, gets to heart of issue facing strategic Human Capital Management (HCM)...looking into the future at what is coming and its impact on HCM leaders to enable business and mission success.

We recently hosted an Enterprise Symposium at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) focused on looking at areas of collaboration across the Defense Intelligence Enterprise. A very good friend and I were co-leads for a session titled "Developing the Workforce of the Future" where we sought to frame the 2020 workplace, challenges faced executing the mission in 2020 and attributes of both leaders and intelligence professionals needed in 2020. The session provided a great opportunity to engage participants and provide an update to the DIA Workforce of the Future white paper from 2003.

We were honored to have Karie Willyerd (Former Sun Microsystems CLO and now Future Workplace) share with the audience insights from her and Jeanne Meister's new book "The 2020 Workplace". While there were many key points and new knowledge taken away...several things stood out for me.

1. By 2020, the Generational mix at the workplace will be drastically different per the attached slide. The implications to leaders and leadership development are significant.

2. The understanding that to become an expert requires 10 years of dedication. However, knowledge is doubling every two years and in some areas every one year. Impact to you and I you ask? We can't possibly keep up with that much data. Hence our reliance on social networks will continue to grow and expand.

This gets to topic of this DNA of Human Capital blog today...The old phrase "You don't know what you don't know" is really not applicable to HCM leaders and the tsunami of the 2020 workplace, five generations in the workforce and the continued expansion of knowledge that will make expertise not nearly as important as your social network to get work done.

The task at hand for HCM leaders is to prepare their organizations for what the future is bringing. In today's challenging environment, it is difficult sometimes to look into the following week or quarter, much less at 2020. Yet, like the certainty of the tides...this new environment and workforce will inevitably come ashore like oil in the Gulf of Mexico. We will have to collectively look at this new future and determine how we position our human capital capabilities to ensure success in this environment.

For our own credibility, we will not be able to say we didn't know what we didn't know...because in this case...we did.

Cheers,
Keith

Human Capital Dominance...That is the Goal!

2010-06-11T20:06:00.009-04:00

My Department of Defense experience has provided me depth and breadth in a number of areas over the past 25 years. One of those is the concept of Information Dominance and application to our work as Human Capital Management (HCM) Leaders. The formal definition for Information Dominance is captured in this issue paper and is located below:

"Information Dominance" - the degree of information superiority that allows the possessor to use information systems and capabilities to achieve an operational advantage in a conflict or to control the situation in operations other than war while denying those capabilities to the adversary. (Current - FM 100-6, Information Operations)

When we think to what we are trying to achieve for our organizations...strategy execution, competitive advantage, long-term growth, etc...this is applicable to our activities in HCM. What a similar definition of Human Capital Dominance would look like is below:

Human Capital Dominance - the degree of HCM and workforce analytics superiority that allows the organization leadership to use human capital capabilities to achieve an strategic or operational advantage in a competitive market or industry sector while denying those human capital capabilities to the competition.

As HCM Leaders...this is what our goal should be. Providing our companies Human Capital Dominance and Superiority. A number of challenges impact our ability to achieve this ultimate goal in positioning our organizations for future success. We discussed one last week in the defining of knowledge, skills and capability requirements to execute business strategy. Others from the study included the following:

1. Determining headcount and FTE capacity requirements by job assignments and location.
2. Sourcing and recruiting individuals.
3. Developing training strategies.
4. Retaining valued talent within the organization.
5. Evaluating workforce performance.
6. Determining strategies for reduction in force, redeployment and retraining.
7. Understand collaboration and knowledge sharing.
8. Developing succession plans and career paths.

Recent articles and studies indicate challenges are on the horizon that will impact Human Capital Dominance at our organizations.

A recent i4cp survey of senior executives indicates "Nearly 50% of business executives say that the pace of change is becoming hard or impossible to predict...and it appears many companies will suffer as change inevitably happens: almost 20 percent characterize themselves as poor or very poor at handling such initiatives."

This has a direct impact on at least three of the human capital challenges addressed above. Particularly collaboration and knowledge sharing. The most agile and adaptable organizations now and in the future know that one person like the CEO must depend of a collaborative network of leaders to embrace and execute in the complex world we exist in now. This then impacts retention of valued talent and succession planning to provide organizational leadership the right human capital capabilities to succeed.

A recent survey by Execunet also identifies items for consideration. In its annual 2010 Executive Job Market Intelligence Report identified the following trends among senior executives.

• 45% of corporate leaders considered or prepared to voluntarily leave their organizations in 2009
• 80% of HR executives are concerned about retaining executive talent in the coming year
• 46% of CEOs claim their résumés are ready to send to a recruiter right now

What these informative surveys tell us is that Human Capital Dominance, while the goal, is a challenge to achieve. Those organizations that can negate their importance vs. effectiveness gaps at executing these key human capital challenges and can establish strong workforce analytics capabilities (human capital information superiority) will have a greater opportunity to achieve Human Capital Dominance. These organizations will enjoy greater alignment of HC to strategy, greater agility and adaptability in executing strategy, and a greater competitive advantage...no matter what market or sector the organization decides to engage.

A storm is brewing...as the economy improves, HCM Leaders will get opportunities to really show what our profession's contribution is to the organizations we serve. Doing our best to provide Human Capital Dominance will speak volumes!

Cheers,
Keith

The Holy Grail...Human Capital Development Aligned to Strategy...

2010-06-05T16:44:00.019-04:00

For a long time our profession seems to have had an identity crisis. We wanted to be strategic business partners but we couldn't get there. IBM's 2009 report titled "Getting Smart About Your Workforce: Why Analytics Matter," showed key strategic human capital (HC) challenges that Human Capital Management (HCM) leaders face and their perception of importance vs. effectiveness in overcoming them to impact business results. One of those areas with a significant gap in importance vs. effectiveness (48% in last weeks graphic) was the definition of "knowledge, skills and capability requirements to execute business strategy."

In my honest opinion, the HCM leader's capability to act on this particular human capital challenge is more important than other importance-effectiveness gaps the report identified. Why? Because as HCM leaders...if we can't define organizational capability requirements (That is really what our customers want...not HR speak like knowledge, skills and competencies...we can do that internally) to execute the business strategy...we are in essence lost. No "seat at the table" is forthcoming. So we have to execute on this one human capital challenge gap with the agility and adaptability the organization requires to function in the global complexity. And we have to do it...flawlessly.

At the Defense Intelligence Agency, we faced a similar challenge as DIA merged with ten worldwide Combatant Command Directorates of Intelligence. Treating the merger as a major change management project as Combatant Command civilian employees were integrated within DIA, the DIA learning team decided that for a successful merger, we needed a simple approach. The approach was to define the individual Combatant Command capabilities that would allow the team to look at common, core, and critical capability requirements across the Combatant Commands.

Pioneered by Dr. Reza Sisakhti of Productivity Dynamics and used by successful companies like IBM, Cisco, and HP, we were able to focus on three mission critical job roles at the Combatant Commands to drive our efforts...Intelligence Analysts, Collection Managers and Intelligence Planners.

The process involved two simple steps...

1. Engage strategic leaders and determine each Combatant Command's mission, strategy, strategic initiatives in place or planned, and the challenges faced in executing the strategy.
2. Identify top performers in the organization. These top performers are top performers because they are able to overcome challenges and achieve results. What behaviors make them successful at executing the strategy and overcoming challenges?

With this data, the team was able to start alignment of available learning at DIA and at the Combatant Commands in direct support of mission strategy execution. From a change management perspective, ten Combatant Commands with different functional and geographic responsibilities were able to see the knowledge and skills necessary to execute their mission strategies for the three identified roles were the same. The only difference was the application of these human capital capabilities in their respective environments.

The decision to take this simple, but proven approach in a massive change effort was risky. But the payoff was a group of global learning professionals at the Combatant Commands and DIA that are considered the vanguards of enterprise integration by senior leaders within the Defense Intelligence Enterprise. It has ushered in a new level of collaboration and innovation that led to the team's recognition in 2009 by Chief Learning Officer Magazine with a Learning-in-Practice Gold award in Division I for Global Learning.

So the message this week HCM leaders...focus on defining knowledge, skills and capability requirements to execute business strategy and take a risk...it could lead to a huge payoff for your organization and HCM.

People Skills Key to Strategy Execution? CEOs Think So...

2010-05-31T14:44:00.002-04:00

First, I want to wish everyone a Happy Memorial Day...please take time to remember why we get these opportunities in the United States.

Last week I discussed what I considered a "hidden message" in the IBM 2010 Global CEO Study - "Capitalizing on Complexity" because of the precipitous drop in CEO's view of the impact of People Skills as an external force which will have the biggest impact on their organizations. This week, I go deeper in to the study and the implications of CEO's thoughts and perspectives on strategic Human Capital Management (HCM).

While the thoughts of CEO's on the idea of creative leadership to deal with the complexity and ambiguity in their organizations got all the air play after the release of the study on 18 May, there are other parts of the study that provide a wealth of information on what your CEO is thinking that can help us shape approaches to HCM. One particular section is in the chapter discussing the reinvention of customer relationships. In the survey, IBM asked CEO's what was the most important dimension to realize their strategy in the next five years. What came out number one at 88% was "getting closer to customer." Makes sense...if you want to execute a strategy you will need to be closer to the customer to understand what is driving their most pressing challenges so you can develop solutions that help them overcome those challenges.

What came in second though is the important piece for me. With 81% of CEOs stating that People Skills are an important dimension to executing their strategy. So it presents a little dichotomy in that CEOs saw reduced importance as an external force having the biggest impact on their organizations, but they consider it the second most important to executing their strategies.

So the key opportunity for HCM leaders is having the ability to translate CEO strategy into clearly defined people knowledge and skills...something that is apparently not easy for our profession. In IBM's 2009 report titled "Getting Smart About Your Workforce: Why Analytics Matter," it surveyed Human Resource (HR) professionals. One of the key findings was the following:

"Defining the requisite knowledge, skills, and capability requirements needed for the execution of business strategy. Organizations must have a firm understanding of what skills and capabilities they have in-house, where gaps exist, and the best ways to fill those gaps through external hires or internal mobility."

The interesting piece from this study as evidenced by the graphic is HCM leaders understand the importance of identifying knowledge, skills, and capability requirements to execute business strategy...we are just not effective at it as represented by the 48% gap in importance vs. effectiveness. So when we compare data from these two studies...we find ourselves in a conundrum...

CEOs understand the importance of people skills to executing strategy as do we...but if we can't figure out a means to do it effectively we will become just another perceived resource drain on the organization.

All is not lost though. A number of organizations are really effective at defining necessary people skills to execute business strategy and develop the right sets of integrated human capital solutions. HP, Cisco, and IBM come to mind for me, as well as my own organization, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). So we have organizations we can learn from and continue to show our own profession's skill in enabling business success.

In my next blog...we will go in to a Human Capital Development (HCD) model that can really start to shape your HCM ability to be effective in defining the necessary knowledge, skills and capability requirements to execute business strategy. Our profession depends on it!

Cheers,
Keith

The Hidden Message - The 2010 IBM Global CEO Study

2010-05-22T20:15:00.012-04:00

I really look forward to IBM's bi-annual Global Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) studies. This year's study titled "Capitalizing on Complexity" was like having to wait for the World Cup or Olympics since the 2008 Global CEO study,titled "Enterprise of the Future." During the time between the 2008 and 2010 studies the landscape in the private and public sector has changed significantly. Additionally, the studies have historically provided some great insights and perspectives in the thinking of two key groups that I am interested in understanding...CEOs and CHROs/CHCOs.

So first...hats off to IBM for another quality study and kick-off even where the results were streamed live over 24 hours. You can get to the recordings here.

This week there were a number of organizations that picked up and focused on the main message of the 2010 study and that was creative leadership. Austin Carr at Fast Company wrote a great article earlier this week highlighting the study results ("The Most Important Leadership Quality for CEOs? Creativity") as well as a Harvard Business Review (HBR) blog by Prasad Kaipa, Navi Radjou, Jaideep Prabhu, Simone Ahuja titled "How To Ignite Creative Leadership In Your Organization." Because of this immediate focus this week on the 2010 study...I think we can count on seeing a number of books and new vendor training that will tell and show us how to create armies of creative leaders. But for today's blog...I am going to focus somewhere else and the more subtle or hidden messages that global CEOs may have been communicating that we need to understand as strategic Human Capital Managers.

My interest is on the overall trends in external forces with the greatest impact on their organizations. Since 2004, when the first study was conducted, one of these factors considered by CEOs was People Skills. It was in a strong second place and had increased in importance, while maintaining its second place status from 42% to 48% between 2004 to 2008. In the 2010 study however, People Skills goes from 48% to 37% and fourth place on the list (Please see attached chart). Now rated above People Skills are Market Factors, Technological Factors and Macroeconomic Factors. The only significant hole in the study in my opinion is no discussion on why this has occurred. So we are left to hypothesize for now...

Trying to understand why this may have occurred, let's look at what has happened in last two years. Mass layoffs, whole companies disappearing, recession, and slow growth. Part of the surprise for CEOs is that massive cuts still left a workforce able to do more with less. This of course has led to trust issues in many organizations because of how this all transpired. This HBR Blog post by Tammy Erickson titles "Restore Trust with Employees? Forget About It" details challenges organizations will face.

Some questions that will need answering...

1. Did the shift in employee demographics after layoffs change CEO perspective on what is needed to be successful?
2. Did organizations during the layoffs actually layoff the right people...those without high performance and/or high potential allowing a more capable workforce to stay at the organization?
3. Did organizations have the proper alignment of people skills to strategic direction within organizations meaning that HCM had prepared organizations for the future events between 2008-2010?

What I hope is that the 2010 Global CHRO/CHCO Study will answer some of these questions...to me that is the hidden message to understand and learn.

Cheers,
Keith

Taking the Long View...Why "Strategic" Can't Mean One Year...

2010-05-15T12:30:00.000-04:00

So I am a huge believer in Strategic Human Capital Management (HCM). Taking a strategic approach allows for you and your team to play a more proactive and impactful role in positioning the organization for success. Yet I am the first to admit that in today's world of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA)...the ability to look strategically and plan for the Human Capital Capabilities (HCC) to execute the strategy is extremely challenging.

Because of VUCA pressures, the need for agility and adaptability are forcing time compressed strategy development and execution. During the recession, it appears strategy took a backseat to managing the organization's resources on a day-to-day basis. The external environmental factors were changing so quickly that survival was critical success factor...nit strategy.

A March 2010 Harvard Business Review blog titled "Strategy on the Morph" by Walter Keichel (Author of "The Lords of Strategy: The Secret Intellectual History of the New Corporate World") really provides insight in to what was happening in respect to strategy. In the blog, this quote really points to the perspective that strategy is wounded.

You may have read one such proclamation in the Jan. 25 Wall Street Journal. "Strategy, as we knew it, is dead," argued Walt Shill, who leads Accenture's North American consulting practice. An article titled "Strategic Plans Lose Favor" goes on to quote him saying, "Corporate clients decided that increased flexibility and accelerated decision making are much more important than simply predicting the future."

So if HCM leaders buy in to this view...we should just sit and react. We can sit and wait for our customers to come and tell us what they want and how they want it and we can deliver on it. So if you believe that...you may be in the wrong profession.

Research by the Stanford Center on Longevity released in February that taking a strategic and "long-view" in HCM will be critical. The report titles "Population Age Shifts Will Reshape Global Workforce" indicates taking the long-view will be important based upon future workforce demographics. If we don't take a proactive stance to drive customers to think strategically about HCM and impact to future capabilities required to execute the strategy...then we are really not doing our job to support the organization's continued growth and mission accomplishment.

My virtual friend, Daniel John Roddy (HCM Leader for the Institute for Business Value (IBV) at IBM Global Business Services) stated it simply in a discussion on the One HCM Global Community on LinkedIn...

"But would you really want to recommend a major investment in building out your workforce in any country without understanding the social and economic implications of its urban development and demographic trends? I don’t think so.

And what if, in taking the long view, the emerging market workforce strategy itself could become a source of sustained competitive advantage? An input to strategy formulation, rather than only a work stream of the business execution plan?

In my view, firms hoping to differentiate on their emerging market workforce strategy will need to add three additional competencies to their current workforce analytics toolbox: population demographics, cross-cultural attributes analysis, and an understanding of, and vision for, what the United Nations has termed ‘Human Development’.

So actually, I don't think the quantification attempts in relation to human capital are the problem, more at issue is the typical reactive and short-term perspective we are bringing to the task.

Maybe I have been in China too long, but I have become a big believer in the importance in taking the long view of desired outcomes, in business and in life."

Taking the long-view is a critical competency for HCM leaders...one that we will need to continue to develop in order to lead our organizations in to the future.

A "Once-in-a-Career" Team

2010-05-02T16:35:00.010-04:00

Three weeks ago I was asked to lead the Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA) Global Leadership Academy. I consider it an honor and validation for my efforts in the last three years to get this opportunity to shape the future leadership capability of DIA, the Defense Intelligence Enterprise and the Intelligence Community. But I also know that my new and exciting opportunity is because of the hard work of a team that I started to put together starting in May 2007. Today's blog post is to honor and thank them for being that "Once-in-a-Career" team.

As an unknown person once stated "A leader without true followers, is simply going on a walk." My current team, the Global Learning Solutions Group, exudes this statement. While I took "walks" from a mission and vision perspective over the last three years...this team took the walk with me and together we achieved amazing results. My team learned to depend on each other's strengths and when we needed to come together for big projects...we did so with the utmost professionalism and energy to ensure success.

The week of 26-30 April, we came together for possibly the last time for our annual professional development week where we continued to expand our knowledge and skills and determine the best ways to meet our customer's mission needs. That week we shared dinner and said our goodbyes...While we are a high performing team, we were also in many respects family. We looked out for each other and were always available to lend a hand when we needed to help each other whether at work or outside of it.

Scott Williams once said that "A great leader doesn't care about being the leader, but instead cares about the mission, the vision, and the people they are leading." While I make no pretenses of being a great leader...that is for my team to decide...I know that my interactions with each of them individually and collectively made me a better person and a better leader.

So I say thank you to a group of professionals that have not only enabled our customer's individual and mission success, but gave me the privilege to lead them on this journey and provide me this new opportunity. You will all have a special place with me as that "Once-in-a-Career" team...and family.

For those of you reading this today...I say cherish the time you have with your teams today...it could be a "Once-in-a-Career" team.

Human Capital - Bad Grammar or Organizational Success?

2010-04-10T16:57:00.009-04:00

A January HBR blog post by Roger Martin titled "Why Good Spreadsheets Make Bad Strategies" makes the case that organizations have gone too far to the quantitative side in an overwhelming need to make sense of an environment that is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) at the expense of the qualitative nature of organizations. The great example he gives is that you can measure the number of people in the room, but you don't know whether they are happy, sad, motivated, etc.

Mr. Martin's blog elicited an interesting response from Charles H. Green, co-author of the book "The Trusted Advisor" and CEO of Trusted Advisor Associates. In his comment, Charles states the following:

"We now talk about "human capital" with the proper roles of adjective and noun reversed, largely so we can measure the impact of behavioral change."

So the question is have we as Human Capital Management (HCM) leaders done ourselves a disservice by approaching our work in such a way as to allow the measurement of behavioral change and its impact on business strategy execution? In order to position our profession as a "strategic business partner" that could affect the company's bottomline, we put our profession in terms that we thought would resonate with leadership...human resources, human capital, talent management, etc. This has created some angst as people inside and outside our profession saw this as lessening the "people" side of our business because we weren't treating them as people but as commodities of the business like cash or buildings.

Historically, organizations have treated people like resources making decisions about their application to business strategy and execution (See my earlier blog post about impact of layoffs...). John Boudrea's book titled "Beyond HR" advocates for a decision science around human capital...My experience in the Department of Defense indicates there is a chasm between the ability to enable decision advantage in human capital and the need to do it.

My perspective is that human capital decisions made based on incomplete and faulty data can be catastrophic to an organization. If decisions about necessary capabilities to execute the mission and the workforce's capacity to execute the mission are based on anecdotal and incomplete analysis of the challenges being faced then we do our organizations and our profession a disservice.

I believe there is a balance that exists and is developing to address HCM activities and solutions in quantitative and qualitative perspectives...recognizing that we as HCM leaders are striving to create individual and organizational capabilities to execute the business strategy...it takes people in our profession with the ability to see the forest and the trees as part of a larger talent ecosystem that is alive with hopes, desires, and feelings acting in a global system driven by the strategy of the organization.

Does it need a new name or a correction in grammar? I am not sure. I know we need to enable business and mission success. Whether we do that as the Chief Human Capital Officer, Chief People Officer, Chief Human Resources Officer or Chief Talent Officer should not matter and/or be transparent. What matters is enabling individual and organizational success through human capital decision advantage. Those organizations whose human capital can thrive in VUCA environments with greater agility and adaptability will be hugely successful in the future. Those who are not...well think Enron, Lehman Brothers, etc.

Talent Blinking...

2010-03-30T21:55:00.008-04:00

So can we enable better informed talent decisions? That is the question...

George Anders in his Harvard Business Review blog this week, titled "Today's Biggest Talent-Management Challenges," shared his perspective after attending a Conference Board conference focused on talent management. During his attendance he came away with some relevant insights we have to consider...

1. We aren't sure what we're looking for.
2. Talent development is just a slogan, not a way of life.
3. We don't know how to get better.

The information and perspectives he shares would lead you to believe that we are unable to create simplified processes that enable talent decisions within our organizations. Talent decisions are so complex that we need complex processes to make them work.

Marc Effron of the New Talent Management Network thinks otherwise. Marc Effron's new HBR book "One Page Talent Management: Eliminating Complexity, Adding Value" will come out later this year. His premise is we add layers of complexity that slows the process down. And in today's hyper-competitive global economy where competitive advantage can last for seconds or minutes...as Human Capital Management (HCM) leaders we have to enable fast talent decisions.

So now you are thinking (I assume...because I did), how do we speed up talent decisions for the business. Let's take a page from Malcolm Gladwell.

Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink" advocates where rapid cognition enables quick decisions (There are examples where it didn't work well). That theory is that people are able to make decisions in critical situations based upon sometimes very limited information. Talent decisions are both complex and critical...so how can we do it better?

One place where "Talent Blinking" is happening came from my experience in the United States Navy. I participated and saw the Navy's version of talent management and how these decisions were made in seconds, but not more than minutes...

My experience came at the Navy Intelligence Commander Sea Screening board. At that time, there were a number of talented Commanders in Naval Intelligence, but only a few sea duty opportunities for them that would make them eligible for Captain. Hence a sea screening board to review the available talent and make selection decisions based upon each individuals cumulative performance. This board was determining who could be successful in Naval Intelligence in the future.

The week prior to the board a team of board reporters (including myself) would review the performance records and look for gaps in information. Any gaps found were passed to the individuals to get the necessary information (In the Navy, the individual is responsible for ensuring their performance and award documents are sent in for these boards...so individuals own a part of the process and that is a good thing).

The following week a group of senior Naval Intelligence officers would start reviewing these performance records of individuals. These seniors participated in the process because of several things.

1. They had a personal sense of duty to make sure the best talent was being developed.
2. They had a responsibility to the customer, in this case the operational Navy, to make sure the best talent was available to support mission execution.

Prior to the board commencing, the board chairman (in this case it was the senior Naval Intelligence officer...the Director of Naval Intelligence a two-star Admiral) gave guidance on what he thought the future looked like and what type of performance areas carried the greatest weight for people to be successful.

Once the guidance was provided, board members divided the records up and reviewed each in detail. They would make notes on records such as smiley faces, up and down arrows, etc. Once completed the board moved into "The Tank"...a decision support center to make talent decisions...

In The Tank are chairs with five buttons hidden from sight (Allowed for anonymity and no influence from other participants) that signify values of 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100. At the front of the room were three large screens where the cumulative information of an individuals performance record was flashed on the screen...for seconds. That's right seconds...talent decisions within this environment were made in "Blink" speed.

While this selection process was Naval Intelligence leadership selecting Naval Intelligence talent, the larger selection process for promotions through the U.S. Navy is the same system with Air, Surface and Submarine officers making these decisions at the same speed. This group makes decisions in many cases without knowing the individual being discussed or their background. They are able to make critical talent decisions because there is a simple, common process and analytics to back it up.

What makes this work are instantiated processes and sound analytics that allow decisions to be made quickly. For organizations to be successful and overcome the things that George Anders references as continued problems in talent management, the processes should be as simple as possible and the analytics have to be robust and understood so quick talent decisions can be made and executed.

The moral of this story are few but important...

1. Keep the talent processes simple - the process in this case was long standing. Everyone understood it and their role in executing it.
2. Definition of Talent is in each Person's Mind - the definition of talent and an individual's ability to recognize it is based upon their current and future environment, own experiences, and organization view. These things shape what we want to see in talent that is positioned for future success of organizations.
3. Create a Talent Management Culture - Easier said than done I admit, but a number of organizations are successful at this. Marc Effron's 2010 State of Talent Management study indicates that it is possible. We have to leverage where organizations have been successful and apply it to the environment at your organization.
3. Talent Blink - identifying talent and what it should do next for continued development and. Organizational success can be a relatively stable and quick process. Yes...there may need to be some lengthier discussions about some talent, but leadership can make these important decisions if properly prepared.

So food for thought...

Cheers,
Keith

Real-time Brand Management...Implications to Real-time Talent Acquisition

2010-03-21T09:17:00.003-04:00

In John Sviokla's Harvard Business Review blog about the horrible Virgin America's flight on March 13, he discusses the power of real-time brand management. This was driven by one passenger, David Martin, the CEO of Kontain.com creating a perfect storm around the incident.

During the four hours the plane was on the tarmac in Newburgh, NY, he documented and shared it with the world. This led to Martin negotiating on behalf of the other passengers a full refund and $100 voucher (Virgin America's CEO C. David Cush originally only offered the $100 voucher).

So that is the sordid story of the flight and passengers...The interesting part is Sviokla's statement below...

"Firms may "own" their brands, but brands really live in the heads of their consumers. Companies must constantly nurture and actively manage their brands at the speed customers form opinions about them."

In a world so globally connected at mind numbing speeds, implications of these type of incidents is "real-time" and can have a major impact on the bottomline for a company if it does not act quickly to address it...just ask Toyota.

While there are no studies, I suspect that these type of incidents also have an impact on "Real-time Talent Acquisition." How many people with the right knowledge and skills to help execute Virgin America's business strategy may have been thinking about joining the company and now are not? We will never know, but managing brand for talent acquisition can have similar short-term and long-term impact on an organization's growth, market share, etc.

Companies must manage their brands at the speed that talent, both inside and outside the organization, form opinions about them. CHCOs, CHROs, and CTOs must prepare to make adjustments in talent acquisition strategies at the same speed that these type of incidents occur for an organization. In the new talent war that is approaching...the ability for Human Capital Management leaders to be agile and adaptable in dealing with these types of incidents will be critical.

CFO = Value Integrator...CHCO = ?

2010-03-14T17:02:00.001-04:00

IBM released their 2010 Global CFO Study last week. Another quality product that points to some interesting things that CHCOs, CHROs, CTOs, and CLOs should know and understand in working across organizations specific to Financial Capital and Human Capital. My perspective is this...we need to understand explicitly what is happening in the broader organizational enterprise to continue to support it and enable decision advantage in respect to human capital investment decisions.

The first thing that jumped out at me is this statement in the CFO study:

"Our research, however, also points to a bright spot – one group of Finance organizations with a particular combination of capabilities stands out from its peers. These organizations – which we call Value Integrators – are more effective in every area assessed, with significant advantages in managing enterprise risk, measuring and monitoring business performance and driving insight from information integrated across their companies and governments."

As HCM leaders, we should play a role in understanding enterprise risk in respect to human capital decisions across the global enterprise. The human capital investments required to identify, acquire, build and retain human capital pertaining to business decisions to enter new growth markets or expand mission capabilities involve human capital management (HCM) risks. For example, can we develop the human capital capabilities required to move into that area (global or functional)? We also play a role in measuring and monitoring business performance based upon the human capital investments we ask the organization to make...we should be able to make those value-add linkages. Finally driving insight from information integration is a domain for us. How do we take the myriad of human capital information and data available to provide decision advantage to our organizations in making HCM decisions?

So with CFOs as "Value Integrators," I see a similar role and opportunity for HCM leaders. To continue to learn as a profession, we need to read these type of studies and understand them and their implications to our profession. How can we learn from this to position our HCM leaders in these same organizations as a similar "Value Integrator?"

Larger Role for CFOs

The study also indicates that CFOs are playing a larger role as an advisor and decision-maker in the organization not only in their traditional areas, but also influencing other enterprise-wide decisions. If you look at the embedded graph in more detail...it lays out a number of areas where the CFO is playing this role to include:

- Enterprise Cost Reduction Management
- Selection of Key Performance Indicators
- Capital Asset Manager
- Risk Management
- Prioritization of Resource Management
- Strategic Revenue Planning
- Business Model Innovation
- Information Management Strategy

I think our profession can be the trusted advisor on HCM aspects of these areas in enabling decision advantage. While we play a direct role in some of these areas, we likely have our own HCM areas to influence enterprise-wide decisions. Some of these areas might include the following;

- Human Capital Reduction Strategy - Provide decision advantage so the right talent is maintained at the organization in high risk environments.
- Merger & Acquisition HCM Assessment - What Human Capital capability and capacity does the M&A bring?

CFO as Decision-making Hub

"Value Integrators – more than any other group – are equipped to advise at an enterprise level. They are positioned to evaluate business opportunities and risks in an end-to-end context and recommend difficult trade-offs among units, markets and business functions. A U.K. CFO explained the opportunity this way: “With the data we have and our deep understanding of the business, Finance can become the decision-making hub of the company.”

As this U.K. CFO states...the CFO should be the decision-making hub for finance decisions. Can we imply then that the CHCO should be the decision-making hub for HCM decisions? My position is YES! But to get there we have to develop sound strategic human capital business models and performance measures that allow us to tie our activities to the business.

CHCO = ?

If the CFO is the Value Integrator...what will the CHCO be to the organization? Talent Integrator? Business Enabler? I don't know...plenty of indications that a seat at the table is unlikely unless we change our HCM business model to reflect how we enable business strategy directly. This would support making the case for CHCOs to be the hub for human capital decision-making.

IBM's 2010 Global Human Capital Survey will hopefully answer that question this year. Whatever the answer though, we have to be ready to act as a profession and drive ourselves to get there.

Developing Organizational Capabilities - The McKinsey Global Survey...Same Old Song...

2010-03-07T19:35:00.001-05:00

McKinsey is a quality company that does some great research in the way of human capital and talent management. You may remember they were the first to point to a War for Talent in 2001.

Their most recent global survey focuses on Developing Organizational Capabilities and the role that training plays in this. There are a number of key points it makes and implications to strategic human capital capabilities needed to execute business or mission strategy.

“Building organizational capabilities, such as leadership development or lean operations, is a top priority for most companies. However, many of them have not yet figured out how to do so effectively…”

This opening statement in McKinsey’s Global Survey: Building Organizational Capabilities speaks volumes and is absolutely horrible news if you are an HR professional or Human Capital Developer. On one hand the study says building organizational capabilities to enhance competitive advantage is a top priority to leadership. That is great news that people realize it is a priority. However, the second part of the opening statement says to me we don’t know what we are doing. What kind of confidence building and message does that say about our profession to a CEO, C-Suite, business unit or potential customer? And let’s be clear…the people you and I work for will read the report because they trust McKinsey.

In the report there are a number of other statements that drive me to one single conclusion…we have lost our way. While the report is explicit in a number of areas, what it implies is that we don’t know what organizational human capital capabilities need development and even if we knew…we are not good at developing the organizational human capital capabilities required to create a competitive advantage or how to measure we have developed the right organizational human capital capabilities.

As I have discussed in earlier blog posts, there are a lot of great organizations with great CHROs, Chief Talent Officers and Chief Learning Officers that get it. They are successful and extremely effective in developing organizational human capital capabilities that support their organization’s continued agility and adaptability leading to competitive advantage. These are the same people that graciously give their time and talk to us at conferences and symposiums about what they did and how they did it. This hasn’t been happening recently…these have been happening assuredly for the last 10 years, but longer. And yet here we are with another study that paints us as inept at doing our job. We can’t lament that we have no “seat at the table” or we want to become a “strategic business partner.” That time is past because in the eyes of the customer, we don’t hold up our end of the bargain. If that is not the case and just our customer’s perception…then all the worse because perceptions drive decision making in a vacuum when there is no data or metrics. So ultimately we are responsible or our own plight and have no one to blame but ourselves.

This blog post from Kevin Wheeler has a lot of valuable points that are still quite valid today...Chief Talent Officer 2020...We would do good to heed his advice...

My perspective is a simple one…we hold, and have held for some time, the power to change ourselves, how our profession conducts business and the perception that is held about it. The only thing stopping us is…well…us. To be successful, we ourselves need to understand how to think strategically, be as agile and adaptable as our customers, execute flawlessly, and measure.

Making the Globally Integrated Enterprise and the Human Network a Reality

2010-02-27T19:29:00.001-05:00

So let me be upfront…I am a big fan of the companies I am about to write about this week. I think IBM and Cisco are world leaders in their respective industry sectors and we have much to learn from them, and if applied correctly within the context of your operational environment and culture can allow your human capital organization to “leapfrog” to a new level of partnership.

I think IBM and Cisco continue to do a fantastic job of looking at the external environment, understanding what is happening and looking into the future to see what the world will look like. Without this ability they cannot position themselves for future success and transition their business as necessary to meet changing market conditions. So the real question is what makes them so successful at it? Once they define a strategy…what makes it happen? Cash is always a good thing…can do a lot with that. Technology is super…it allows the connections to happen. But at the end of the day it takes human capital to execute, human capital that has the right knowledge, skills and attributes to execute the business strategy. Without it… doesn't matter how good your strategy is…you will not get from where the business is now to where it needs to be in the future.

So if this hypothesis is true…what makes IBM and Cisco better positioned to execute their business strategy? For starters, the Human Capital elements within IBM and Cisco are world-class organization themselves. I have seen Ted Hoff, VP for Learning at IBM, several times and the things they do are a testament to the position he has as a trusted advisor supporting IBM global operations. Both human capital organizations have an ability to understand what things are important in human capital development in enabling execution of business strategy and jettisoning transactional activities that while necessary, provide limited strategic value. By focusing on the business strategy and what human capital is necessary to execute, they are able to play a more proactive role as a partner to recommend various human capital courses of action, vice being ordered to create a five-day course (We have all been there…right?).

They are able to execute their role as strategic human capital developers because they have a process that identifies what organizational capabilities are needed to execute the business strategy, identify top performers overcoming these challenges daily in executing the business strategy and develop the necessary human capital development requirements down to the performance behaviors and knowledge, skill, attributes necessary for individuals. With human capital capabilities defined, IBM and Cisco are able to determine the current capacity of the workforce in these areas and make recommendations on where valuable and scare resources should be applied to develop the human capital capability. These recommendations can take the form of buying new talent, developing existing talent or outsourcing where talent is located.

The power this provides is amazing…As we have executed the same human capital development model within the context of my organizational environment; we have seen a compelling difference in our ability to engage our customers at a strategic level on what human capital capabilities they require to execute their mission strategies. Doing so has allowed the Defense Intelligence Agency Directorate for Human Capital to “leapfrog” 10 years of applied process in the private sector. While still early in our journey, it has started to pay dividends in having meaningful discussions with customers on their most important strategic human capital needs.

As Human Capital Leaders, we have spoken many times in the past about being strategic mission or business partners and showing the value of our efforts to the organization. Organizations like IBM and Cisco have achieved their success with a determined approach to human capital and talent development and its alignment to organizational strategy. My experience has shown that it can alter the customer relationship in a positive and meaningful way. As Human Capital Leaders...let's stop talking and start doing...it can make a difference.

Signs of Economic Heating...A New Talent War Looming?

2010-02-17T19:55:00.001-05:00

This week there were new signs that the economy is moving in the right direction. Great news for individuals, companies and the nation.

Those signs included a rise in the short-term interest rate by the Fed, durable good orders showed an increase over the last reporting period and consumer prices continue to be flat. These signs together and statements from the Fed that growth is currently more important that inflationary issues continues to bode well for the U.S. economy.

While these events transpired this week in economic news, this blog post from the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) shows what may be looming for companies not just in the U.S., but globally. In the blog is reference to a Halifax Chamber of Commerce brief by the Nova Scotia Labour Minister Marilyn More. During her discussion she states the labour force will shrink by 18,500 jobs in 2014 and over 40,000 Baby Boomers are expected to retire leading to a significant labour shortage in Nova Scotia.

While this is not news to the Human Capital realm, we have been expecting this for sometime now, it has just been postponed by the current economic conditions, Ms. More states:

"...38% of the current workforce is undereducated and lacks the skills to move forward in a knowledge-based economy."

What is occurring in Nova Scotia is a microcosm of the larger human capital condition across the globe and the important understanding that as the economy does turn around in the U.S. and globally that a new talent war is looming. As the economy heats up and organizations move to develop new human capital capabilities to execute the business strategy...they will need talented and skilled knowledge workers to enable their business strategy. What this report indicates is that the available labor force may not be prepared with the right knowledge, skills and experiences to support the organization's business strategy.

Understanding these dynamics now will lead to organizations being either successful Talent Keepers and Talent Acquirers or net Talent Losers. It may be too soon to say how this will pan out as job creation is slowly increasing. There is potentially pent-up frustration in the workforce in many companies. Those that would have left found fewer jobs available to move to and those that would have stayed may not be happy with how downsizing affected them directly. If those factors are in your workforce (Annual workforce engagement and climate surveys will shed light here), preparing for the implications of a new talent war now is critical.

Human Capital leaders are in a unique position. As discussed in my last blog post, there is immense cash liquidity in organizations because that allowed flexibility. Companies are poised to make key decisions on whether to buy new talent (hiring or M&A), develop talent, or rent talent. Human Capital leaders can make recommendations to support these critical decisions, but not without:

1. The requisite human capital analytics

2. Understanding of the business environment

3. Knowing the required human capital capabilities to execute the business strategy

Understanding these three critical components of the organization will allow for decision advantage when it comes to human capital. Human capital decision advantage will make you and your organization a Talent Keeper/Acquirer and not a Talent Loser as the economy continues to get on track.

Cheers,

Keith

Layoffs, Cash and Strategic Human Capital...The Connection

2010-02-12T18:39:00.000-05:00

There are a number of things happening that seem disconnected, but when you dig a little deeper have impact on our profession and the role and responsibility we should play in any economic upswing.

The first is the article from Newsweek titled "Lay Off the Layoffs." Written by Jeffrey Pfeffer, he contends that the normal approach when an economic downturn occurs is corporate leadership reduces headcount. He uses the example of the airline industry after September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, which laid off tens of thousands. One who didn't was Southwest Airlines. An airline with a larger market capitalization than the other domestic airlines combined according to Pfeffer. The former head of Human Resources at Southwest makes the statement:

"If people are your most important asset, why would you get rid of them?"

Pfeffer's thesis, backed by research, is that layoffs hurt the company and the economy. There are the obvious costs to employees who are laid off, but the research also indicates that there are impacts to the company in higher costs because of severance pay, unemployment taxes, and reduced productivity to name a few. And if the bottomline is the end goal by protecting it with layoffs...the research indicates it doesn't work.

Combine this information with a blog post and more detailed column in CLO Magazine by Dr. Michael E. Echols of the Human Capital Lab at Bellevue University. In both he references a Wall Street Journal report that companies have more cash assets on hand than in the previous 40 years. At a CLO Magazine Breakfast Club event I attended that Dr. Echols presented at in late 2009, he put a number to that cash reserve comment...$14 trillion. That's right...companies are sitting on trillions in cash assets. Dr. Echols view is that companies since 2008 have reduced infrastructure, headcount and services to develop these large cash reserves because it provided flexibility to deal with the current economic situation...it provided liquidity.

Dr. Echols makes the case that talent and learning leaders need to play a more proactive role in advocating for the investment of these cash assets in the one thing that can create competitive advantage...human capital. That we need to champion for the right investments in leadership, business-critical skills and develop new strategic human capital capabilities and capacity.

Now...to make this kind of engagement with the CHRO, CFO and CEO successful, it will take planning and data. My perspective is that you have to understand the business strategy, what the environmentals are looking like related to globalization and change and determine what strategic human capital capabilities the business needs to execute its strategy. Defining these capabilities and then determining the current workforce capacity to execute those capabilities will provide you the information to influence key decisions on resource allocations like increasing headcount by buying critical talent from the talent pool, developing new capabilities in the current workforce or renting talent through outsourcing.

While I work in the public sector at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the concept is the same. At DIA, we have a mission that is about providing the right intelligence that enables decision advantage for our customer...the men and women that serve our country in the Armed Forces. Within that mission are a number of challenges that we have to overcome by identifying the key strategic human capital capabilities related to collection of information, analysis of information and planning based upon the intelligence process. We have executed in the last year a Human Capital Development (HCD) model that enables making informed resource recommendations.

If you are interested in hearing how DIA has executed this HCD model, I encourage you to take advantage of a American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) Benchmarking Forum webinar on Tuesday 16 February where we will share our story in more detail.

The Future of Analytics in Defining Capabilities

2010-02-07T12:30:00.001-05:00

This past week, SuccessFactors, a business execution software company, acquired Inform, a leader in HR, Talent Analytics, and Workforce Planning. In the same week, Accenture released a report (http://bit.ly/cfZmWZ) based upon a survey of senior managers at blue chip organizations that stated:

"Weak analytics capabilities - ranging from siloed data, outdated technology and lack of analytic talent - are preventing organizations from gaining valuable insight that could lead to better business results..."

The importance of analytics, especially to human capital and talent decision making, is increasing. Successful organizations that are able to react with agility and adaptability in the future work environment will be those that know the strategic human capital capabilities to execute business strategy and know the capacity of the workforce to execute that business strategy. Organizations that can do this require a model to help identify capabilities and capacity and a workforce analytics capability that can analyze and create decision advantage from workforce data. When these two are combined, they form a powerful means to provide competitive advantage in a complex and changing global environment.

While many organizations utilize analytics capabilities to improve decision making in finance, sales, marketing, supply chain and operations, utilization of analytics in human capital and talent continues to lag. The same Accenture survey indicated that HR analytics investment would increase by 16%...putting it dead last in the survey.

IBM's 2009 report titled "Getting Smart About Your Workforce: Why Analytics Matter" indicated three overarching themes:

1. In today's difficult economic environment, workforce analytics play an increasingly important role in addressing strategic human capital challenges.

2. Workforce analytics enable HR organizations to take a more proactive role in driving business strategy.

3. The implementation of workforce analytics continues to be hindered by both technical and skill related issues.

In a global environment where the one true competitive advantage is an engaged workforce that drives knowledge creation and innovation, a workforce analytics capability to enable strategic human capital capabilities and capacity identification. This enables making informed decisions on what capabilities to buy, build or rent and the necessary resources to enable organizational success.

Chief Learning Officer and the Chief Talent Officer - Natural Evolution or the End

2010-01-24T08:06:00.000-05:00

I got to participate in a virtual meeting this week with two people from a leading executive recruiting firm. They shared their perspective on what firms were looking for in relation to Chief Learning Officer positions. While there were a number of interesting insights and perspectives about CLOs based upon their recruiting experience. The one that caught my attention was this one statement.

"In the last year and half, I have conducted one CLO search, but 15 Chief Talent Officer (CTO) searches."

For me, that leads to a number of questions about the profession I have chosen...

- Is the CLO still relevant?

- Is the CTO replacing the CLO?

- Is there something that CLOs are not doing that is needed?

First, I think there is still a significant role for the CLO in enabling execution of business and mission strategy. As key strategic human capital capabilities, the CLO will support those by providing business-aligned and high-impact learning solutions that enable such key capabilities as collaboration, speed, and innovation in organizations. The CLO will have to determine their role in developing these capabilities...how they leverage social networks and informal learning as other learning tools in the toolkit.

There is evidence that the CLO may need to do a better job in aligning learning to business. The current economic situation drove this home as cost-cutting became critical. But the need to do detailed planning of how to align learning resources and initiatives to business strategy has been a constant and consistent message to learning professionals. While a number of companies come to mind that are leaders in their ability to do this, like Cisco, IBM, and Bank of America, there are indications that significant room exists for improvement.

A survey report by the Masie Learning CONSORTIUM on learning governance stated:

"86% of organizations do not have an enterprise-wide plan for learning that spans the organization."

While our profession has a number of articles and conference proceedings on this topic, something prevents it from pushing forward and obtaining that position as a trusted business partner.

With this perspective in place, I don't think the CTO will replace the CLO. The CLO has their role to play supporting learning and development and the leadership development efforts at organizations. What the CTO does bring is a focus on the integrated talent management process. Developing an employee value proposition, communicating employer brand, recruiting, performance management, leadership development, succession planning, etc.

As I have discussed in my first blog post, CEOs recognize the importance of people skills in moving their organizations forward and enabling them to be successful. That requires talent. Talent that is either bought, developed or rented to execute the strategy. CEOs will continue to look for CTOs as the mechanism to position their organizations for future success. The difference between the CLO and CTO is that the CTO will focus on the integrated solution approach to developing strategic human capital capabilities. The CLO will be a part of the overall integrated solution.

Business Success - Structure or Capability?

2010-01-15T21:58:00.000-05:00

In the book "Organization of the Future 2" (Edited by well known leadership developers Frances Hesselbein and Marshall Goldsmith), a chapter authored by Dave Ulrich and Norm Smallwood discusses whether organizations are about structure or capabilities. The authors claim that companies like GE, Disney, Google, and Apple are known for their capabilities and not their structures for conducting business. The authors state...

"Capabilities represent what the organization is known for, what it is good at doing, and how it patterns its activities to deliver value."

This has great application to fostering new thinking on human capital development. The business challenges that organizations face now and in the future, such as speed/context/scope of change, globalization, talent shifts in the workplace, and others, will drive development of key strategic human capital capabilities to overcome these challenges. While the normal inclination in challenging economic environments, like the recession faced in 2008-2009, has been to restructure and cut costs, forward thinking companies made a commitment to establish their organizations for future success coming out of the recession. They did this by focusing on what the environment would look like, opportunities that environment would present and how it would deliver value to its customers.

Organizations like GE, Google and Disney are driving strategies to develop and enhance their competitive positions within their markets. The capabilities required for their competitive advantage are varied, but should focus in a specific area...overcoming human capital challenges to enhancing their competitive positions.

Agility and Adaptablility...

2010-01-09T12:53:00.000-05:00

Organizations are under constant pressure to succeed in a global business environment that is fraught with uncertainty, complexity and dynamic change. Companies that are successful in this environment are able to do so because of developing strategic human capital capabilities that create agility and adaptability in the workforce.

In IBM's 2008 survey of senior HR executives, captured in the study "The DNA of the Adaptable Workforce," asked to rate their workforce's ability to adapt to change in the business environment. IBM found the following:

"While 53 percent of companies state their workforces are generally capable of adapting to change, only 14 percent say they are very capable."

Of those 14% that stated they were "very capable," these companies were top financial performers based upon available public information. So the correlation is extremely relevant in today's business environment. The capabilities to move quickly to existing or new markets with the right products or services (agility) and adjust to the speed of change in the business environment (adaptability) are key differentiators and can provide a significant competitive advantage. Instead of reacting to the business environment, organizations that are able to develop these two strategic human capital capabilities lead the business environment.

Key to enabling development of these capabilities in the workforce is a clear linkage to the business strategy, understanding of the current and future business environment, and being able to define the knowledge and skills necessary for the workforce to develop and refine the agility and adaptability capabilities.

Great Leaders First...

2009-12-30T17:38:00.000-05:00

With 2010 now here and a new decade of opportunity ahead of us... wanted to reflect on an event in 2009 and lessons we can learn to prepare us for the new decade...

While at Elliott Masie's Learning 2009, I sat in an early Sunday session led by Nigel Paine (Former British Broadcasting Corporation CLO) to discuss the attributes of a "Learning Leader." The session had good participation with 30+, as well as guest CLOs, Larry Israelite of Liberty Mutual and Patricia Crull of Time Warner.

We were asked by Nigel to identify what made a great learning leader. A sample of those included the following:

People Skills - Collaboration, Communication, Influence, Questioning

Change Management

Business Knowledge

Executive and Political Savvy

Business Acumen

Technology Friendly - Embracer

Risk Manager

Strategic Visionary

Relationship Manager

Consultant

Curiosity

What things didn't make it to the list? No one said a learning leader needed Instructional Systems Design (ISD), learning management system (LMS), or human resource background. In fact the point was clearly made by participants that learning leaders have to be leaders first and experts in learning & development second to be successful.

The impact to developing strategic human capital capabilities is significant. If a learning leader doesn't focus on those leadership attributes that enable them to engage customers, partners and stakeholders at a strategic level to understand the business and more importantly to motivate and guide the learning organization with a vision of learning & development's role in business success...then the learning leader is likely to struggle.

So the key take away? If we are going to enable our customer's and partner's success in the future by developing strategic human capital capabilities...we have to be great leaders first...

2010 - Year of Opportunity for Strategic Human Capital Development Consultants

2009-12-27T11:21:00.000-05:00

2010 is here! A new year with new opportunities for the development of strategic human capital capabilities that enable business success. For Human Capital Development (HCD) consultants to be successful in 2010, it will require a different approach than what presented itself during the current economic crisis that started in 2008.

During the economic crisis, most human capital consultants were reacting to environmental requirements to cut costs. Only companies like IBM, Cisco and HP were positioned to look strategically at human capital capabilities necessary for competitive advantage in the knowledge economy. In a world where change is constant, only the speed varies, taking a strategic approach to executing business strategy is the real opportunity in 2010.

The leadership of organizations understands the importance of people in their success. The IBM 2008 Global CEO study - The Enterprise of the Future - surveyed CEOs on external forces with the greatest impact on their organizations. People Skills tied for first with 48% of respondents and is the only factor to increase between the 2004, 2006 and 2008 surveys. However, our ability as HCD consultants to define the knowledge, skills and capabilities to execute business strategy is lacking. A 2009 survey by IBM of senior HR executives showed a 48% gap in the importance of defining knowledge, skills and capabilities versus the effectiveness of their teams to do it.

So a key opportunity in 2010 will be strategic HCD consulting. A focus on becoming strategic partners leading to trusted advisor roles that allow us to proactively recommend integrated human capital solutions.

So here's to a great 2010 for our profession.