Leadership, Dark Matter and the White Space...

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.

Why You Want Your Organization On This List

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.

IPOs and Organizational Leadership Capability

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/