Leadership Paradigm Shift Approaching...Rise of Collective Development

Greetings,

In last week's blog post...Leadership Development...What is New is Really Old...I discussed where much of leadership development best practices we are familiar with today really started between World War I and II. While in many respects these leadership development practices are are still highly relevant...we may need to shift the paradigm on what kind of leadership capability we are developing in our organizations and why we need it.

Much of my perspective is driven by the nature of the environment we all find ourselves operating in every day. I have written about it often...the VUCA environment is the new normal. VUCA, coined by the U.S. Army in 2004 as it looked at what junior officers were dealing with on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and how it might shift leadership development to account for this, is defined as the following:

Volatile: change happens rapidly and on a large scale
Uncertain: the future cannot be predicted with any precision
Complex: challenges are complicated by many factors and there are few single causes or solutions
Ambiguous: there is little clarity on what events mean and what effect they may have

That new normal places immense pressures on leaders to make sense of the environment and make decisions that will maintain or advance competitive advantage. The Center for Creative Leadership recently issued a report titled "Future Trends in Leadership Development" where it addresses the VUCA environment and what this looks like to managers. The CCL report states research indicates that...

- They contain a large number of interacting elements.
- Information in the system is highly ambiguous, incomplete, or indecipherable. Interactions among system elements are non-linear and tightly-coupled such that small changes can produce disproportionately large effects.
- Solutions emerge from the dynamics within the system and cannot be imposed from outside with predictable results.
- Hindsight does not lead to foresight since the elements and conditions of the system can be in continual flux.

The report also indicates that the skills that leaders will need most in the future are the following:

- Adaptability
- Self-awareness
- Boundary spanning
- Collaboration
- Network thinking

The report also recognizes what may be critical to working in the VUCA environment...

"It appears that the new V.U.C.A. environment is seeing the demand move away from isolated behavioral competencies toward complex “thinking” abilities. These manifest as adaptive competencies such as learning agility, self-awareness, comfort with ambiguity, and strategic thinking. With such changes in the mental demands on future leaders, the question will be, how will we produce these capacities of thinking?"

Where does all of this take us? For starters it will need to shift the way we view and conduct "leader" development. Why do I say leader development? Because we are typically focused on individuals in leadership development. Helping them understand their individual leadership needs and addressing them through the best practices discussed in the last blog post.

The CCL report makes the case, and one that I agree with, is that in order for our organizations to prosper in the VUCA environment, we will need to focus on "collective leadership" development.

"The complexity of the new environment increasingly presents what Ronald Heifetz calls “adaptive challenges” in which it is not possible for any one individual to know the solution or even define the problem (the recent U.S. debt crisis, for example). Instead, adaptive challenges call for collaboration between various stakeholders who each hold a different aspect of the reality and many of whom must themselves adapt and grow if the problem is to be solved. These collectives, who often cross geographies, reporting lines, and organizations, need to collaboratively share information, create plans, influence each other, and make decisions."

Focusing on collective leadership, vice leader development is something we can and should embrace. It will take a different perspective from leadership development practitioners...one to raise up from the "dance floor" and look at it from the "balcony" and how we orchestrate collective leadership development , while supporting individualized leader development. I discussed looking at leadership capability through portfolio management perspectives to identify investments and risk (You Need a Leadership Capability Portfolio Manager)

This will be a new world for some of us, but a necessary paradigm shift. The success of our organizations depend 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 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.

Leadership Development - What's New is Really Old...

Greetings,

Leadership development is important...in fact...vital to our organizations ability to be successful. For those reasons we spend a lot of resources in money (Upwards of $10B annually), people and time in developing the current and future generations of leaders to fuel business strategies. If you have been involved in leadership development either as the leader and/or provider you have had the occasion to participate in what are considered some of the cutting edge leadership development techniques available to organizations to include:

Job Rotations
High Potential Programs
Management Training Programs
Management and Functional Leadership Tracks
Peer Assessments
Executive Candidate Assessment
Action Learning
Execution Education Programs
Coaching
Mentoring
Running Line Organization

There's only one problem...these aren't cutting edge. Sure maybe they are for you and your organization, but truth be told, all of these leadership development techniques have been around since the start of World War I.

In a piece from Wharton School Professor Peter Cappelli titled "What's Old is New Again: Managerial Talent in a Historical Context," Cappelli looked at the leadership development methods in context of evolving business needs and how our approach was much more complex pre-"lifetime employment" to today's approached. Specifically Cappelli states the following at the outset of the paper:

"We often think of the ‘‘traditional’’ process of management development in the United States as one that produced organization specific competencies, lifetime employment, and what has been described as a psychological/ social contract exchanging security (by the employer) for loyalty (from the employee). In fact this traditional model is a relatively recent, post-World War II development. By the end of the 20th century, most aspects of that model have been scaled back and some have been abandoned. What remains of the planning and development functions pales in comparison to the much more sophisticated models in place in the 1950s."

Some examples of where leadership development methods have evolved from include the following:

- Peer assessments started in the U.S. Navy during World War II
- Forced ranking systems started in the U.S. Army during World War II
- Executive Education like Harvard's Advanced Management program started in the 1940's.

This paragraph indicated that similar leadership development activities had been occurring for the last 50 years...

"The advice the authors of the Harvard Business Review study offered companies for developing their executives draws on the programs at companies like GE and seems remarkably similar to what is offered now 50 years later: rotational assignments, a mix of staff and line experiences, an opportunity to run an operation, attendance in advanced management programs, and psychological counseling or coaching (Janney, 1952)."

Now...there is no reason to throw all of this great work out and start over, but there is a realization that in the VUCA (volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous) world that leader's development may need to shift from focusing on the individual leader...

That folks is the topic for my next blog...

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.

Leadership Development in a Funk...

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.

Looking for Great Fossils and Great Leaders...

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.

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

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.

Are CEOs and CHROs Aligned on Leadership?

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/

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

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.