Boards Giving Talent Management an F...Who Would of Thunk It

I came across a very interesting blog written by Boris Groysberg and Deborah Bell on HBR. It was titled "Talent Management: Boards Give Their Companies an 'F'"...The basis of the piece by Groysberg and Bell was a study conducted in partnership with WomenCorporateDirectors and Heidrick & Struggles to survey over a 1000 board members across eight industry sectors on how well their companies performed in 9 dimensions of talent management (attracting top talent; hiring top talent; assessing talent; developing talent; rewarding talent; retaining talent; firing; aligning talent strategy with business strategy; and leveraging diversity in company's workforce). Groysberg and Bell wanted to see how many board members strongly agreed with how their companies were handling these 9 areas of talent management.

As you might imagine some talent management areas got passing grades (All relative of course) like attracting top talent and rewarding talent and some got pretty poor grades like firing and leveraging diversity. Scores across industry sectors also varied.

Groysberg and Bell hypothesize that boards are becoming more interested because they recognize the importance of talent to successful competitive advantage. That hypothesis could be true it needs to be tested. I have no personal experience with Board of Director members, but I do know anecdotally what some boards members are interested in at any given time. For example, it could be retaining talent and leveraging diversity or another small set of things, but what I suspect is that with the exception of some companies and their boards who are having conversations across the nine functions within talent management...most are not having broad conversations about talent management and implications to competitive advantage. As Groysberg and Bell do state they are hopeful this indicates new interest in talent management.

What does this data mean? Another hypothesis maybe as simple as the board members don't know anything about talent management. If they don't know it...how would you expect them to answer this question? Most likely not going to strongly agree with it...So I have some questions about it...

Is it important for the BoD members to understand talent management and how it can impact competitive advantage? Absolutely! But to accomplish that requires a very strong CHRO to enable and influence BoD members to pay attention to talent metrics as much as they do financial metrics.



Cheers,
Keith

Dr. 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.

The Long Journey to be a Doctor

I wanted to say thanks to everyone that has continued to come here and read this blog based on my interest in expanding knowledge of human capital and talent management by giving people different perspectives to look at regarding these topics. It is the proverbial labor of love as they say.

Over the last nearly three years, I started a journey to expand my own knowledge by pursuing an Ed.D in the Penn Chief Learning Officer (PennCLO) program. For me the journey in this program has been life changing. Of course the instruction by Wharton, Graduate School of Education, and Penn faculty cannot be understated in the slightest...but where the program separated itself from any other doctorate programs I looked at was the quality of fellow colleagues in the program including CEOs, talent professionals, CHROs, learning & development professionals was the most valuable part to me.

The journey is almost complete. I successfully defended my dissertation on May 2 (The topic is on the Role of Organizational Leadership Capability in Mergers & Acquisitions...plenty to share from that at a later point!) and was hooded at graduation ceremonies at Penn on May 11. I still have some revisions to make, but will have my diploma conferred by August as planned (So technically...I am not a Doctor of Education...yet! So I am not jinxing myself by using that terminology yet)

Why I tell you this, is that I have missed the opportunity to contribute to our collective knowledge while I attempted to finish the program and that this is my commitment to everyone that I will be back in the next month or two to start sharing what I have been honored to gain in my doctorate journey with all of you!

All the best...

Cheers,
Keith

People processes fail to keep pace with changing business environment...

That's the word from The Conference Board after sharing insights from their "The State of Human Capital 2012" report. A joint effort between The Conference Board and McKinsey & Company, Human Capital (HC) professionals continue to be stymied by the environment and that is leading to frustration in the ranks. After a multitude of studies since McKinsey & Company's groundbreaking article "The War for Talent" that have shared the same insights as previous studies...we appear to find ourselves no closer than we were 10, 5 or even 1 year ago.

While the report does provide context on this state of our profession, it still takes the "glass half full" approach when looking at the opportunities available to the profession to continue to make impacts on the business first and the profession second. Those opportunities are:

1. Anticipate and plan for the HC of tomorrow: Workplace demographics changes and the "virtual" workplace are reshaping work today and will continue in to the future.

2. Secure a steady, reliable pipeline for skilled workers - and tomorrow's leaders: The acknowledgement that the war for talent continues and will only increase in the future.

3 Develop strategies to re-energize employees' attitudes toward what they do and what the organization stands for: Research continues to point to engaged employees being more productive. While it is considered "soft data" in many respects by senior executives and leaders, it is still an area to focus attention on in the future.

4. Ensure that HC becomes more agile: The business environment speed of change requires HC to be increasingly agile and adaptable. That does not mean faster at transactional activities, but those things that drive business impact.

All is not bleak and apocalyptic, though December 21st is right around the corner. It does require HC leaders to be more forward leaning. If you don't have those skills...find someone on your team who is...your survival may depend on it.

Cheers,
Keith

J. Keith Dunbar is a Global Talent Management Leader and Doctoral candidate at the University of Pennsylvania's Chief Learning Officer (CLO) program...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.

Business Case for Investment in Talent Development

Greetings,

If you are in learning & talent development, you may still be dealing with reduced budgets and a perspective in your organization that "just-in-time" hiring will be the answer to what needs to happen to support the business strategy. However, there is a body of academic research that would call that approach into question...So lets look at how you can leverage this research to build your business case for a fresh look at creating a balanced investment portfolio in talent acquisition & talent development.

So first thing you need to do is read Dr. Peter Cappelli's Harvard Business Review blog titled "Bring Back the Organizational Man." In this piece, Dr. Cappelli starts to build your argument for you that "just-in-time" hiring is not going to work in the future. Specifically he states the following:

"There certainly are complaints here as well about the difficulty finding the right candidates, but the narrative is quite different. Here the story is about getting a "just-in-time" workforce, finding the precise workers we need just at the time we need them but letting them go when our needs change and then replacing them with new ones. It's a "plug 'n play" approach to the workforce, and it's not working that well. (In full disclosure, I wrote about this phenomenon in a book called Talent on Demand, describing how companies in the US have adopted this approach to talent management in order to deal with highly uncertain and volatile environments)."

You might recognize your organization as one of those "plug 'n play" organizations that Dr. Cappelli references. You do the work to identify people capabilities need...you know what current workforce capacity is, so you know where you have talent gaps needed to enable and execute the business strategy. But as Dr. Cappelli states...the organization makes investments in talent acquisition and many respects going after the same talent that every other organization is after. Dr. Cappelli takes note of that as well by pointing out the following:

"All that would be ok except that employers are finding it difficult to hire the skills they need. The supply of skills in specific areas is uncertain, so the quality and price jumps around a lot. Some jobs require skills or at least sets of skills that are unusual, and finding a good fit outside is very difficult. Skills that one learns through training become scarce because few employers train."

So understanding these perspectives allows us to reframe the conversation based upon what is happening in our organizations. Part of that reframing is specifically focused upon communicating what the costs of turnover are and the performance gap between internal promotions and external hires.

If you are like most organizations, your turnover could be any where across the spectrum of low, medium or high. In some organizations, the pressure to acquire talent is high because you are hemorrhaging talent. But because we treat this as a one-for-one trade-off, organizational leadership doesn't necessarily account for the costs involved in turnover of internal talent. Enter Boris Groysberg and his book "Chasing Stars." In it Dr. Groysberg looks at turnover and aggregates academic research from various academic studies that looked at the issue. In looking at these studies (All referenced in the book for your review), Dr. Groysberg states that:

"Turnover is expensive. Researchers have estimated the cost of losing a seasoned professional as 75-150 percent of that person's annual salary."

So what does that look like? If you have a talented individual in your organization that leaves and that person has a salary of $200K...it will cost you $150K-$300K to replace them. That estimate includes a number of factors that for many organizations are difficult to calculate. For example, it includes the time to source, pre-screen, interview, onboard, loss of performance as the individual gets up-to-speed (To be discussed next), increased salary, and lost opportunity. Again...very difficult for organizations to quantify. That is why this research from Dr. Groysberg is so valuable for the business case.

But you might be wondering about the loss of performance...Research by Dr. Matthew Bidwell paints a different picture. In his article, "Paying More to Get Less : The Effects of External Hiring versus Internal Mobility" he looked at the performance of new hires versus internal promotes in a financial services firm. In his research he found the following highlights...

- External hires get paid 18% to 20% more than internal employees do for the same job.
- External hires get lower marks in performance reviews during their first two years on the job.
- External hires were 61% more likely to be laid off or fired from that position and 21% more likely than internal hires in similar positions to leave a job on their own accord.
- External hires tended to have more education and experience than internal workers, but those credentials didn't always result in strong performance—especially in a new company culture.

As Dr. Bidwell points out and supporting Dr. Cappelli's perspective..."External hiring has become more prevalent in the past three decades, especially in large organizations and for high-level positions. But he said that companies should spend more time figuring out how to promote from within."

These critical pieces to the business case justifying investment in a balance approach to talent acquisition & talent development are important when viewed in light of research by the Corporate Leadership Council in 2008. In that research addressing Employee Value Propositions and key factors that attract talent and influence talent to commit to the organization, it identifies seven key components:

Attraction - Compensation, Organizational Stability
Commitment - Manager Quality, Collegial Work Environment
Attraction and Commitment - Development Opportunities, Future Career Opportunities, Respect

Knowing that these drive attraction and commitment of talent to an organization...particularly Development Opportunities and Future Career Opportunities...allows the business case to develop more fully. By reframing the argument for balanced investment, we are able to communicate the importance of internal talent development, a focus on creating internal future career opportunities, the cost of turnover because of a lack of balanced investment in talent development, and that external hiring contributes to the cost of turnover. Making these critical connections paints a different picture and enables a much broader discussion to take place about the costs and benefits of renewed investment in talent development activities.

The ability of organizations to attract and gain the commitment of the most important talent will be important going forward as Dr. Cappelli points out. This is one of the reasons Deloitte made a $300M commitment in developing its new Deloitte University facility in Dallas, Texas.

All of this research taken separately doesn't allow for making the business case and initiating a conversation with leadership. But when combined in a powerful story and contextualized for your organization, it can allow you to build the business case for an informed approach. An approach that could be a key differentiation for your organization in executing your business strategy.

Cheers,
Keith

J. Keith Dunbar is a Global Talent Management Leader and Doctoral candidate at the University of Pennsylvania's Chief Learning Officer (CLO) program...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.

Same Old Song and Dance...

Greetings,

I continue to be amazed at some of the conversations that learning & talent professionals have about outcomes related to the solutions they put in place. It apparently was a topic of interest again at the Spring CLO Symposium held by CLO Magazine based upon this blog post from David Vance. Vance, the former award-winning CLO at Caterpillar was discussing engagement with stakeholders and senior organizational leaders on the intended outcomes of learning & talent solutions in his blog "The Outcome Discussion with Senior Leaders." This quote is really what struck me...

"Two weeks ago we talked about the importance of discussing outcomes with senior leaders and stakeholders before a learning initiative is undertaken. The topic resonated with many of you. The outcome discussion really needs to occur on two levels. Unfortunately, many learning professionals are not having this discussion at either level."

I have been doing this for a while and I have read about these kinds of thoughts and sat in many discussions at conferences with my peers discussing these things. These were the same discussions like getting a "seat at the table" that so many have opined for so long. To be honest with you...I am tired of having them.

Instead of continuing to have these discussions in my new organization...I decided to do something about it. By focusing on the business strategy and challenges that the senior leaders and top performers were having...I started to reframe discussions about what types of integrated talent solutions needed to be in place to execute the business strategy. It started with asking questions and listening to what people had to say and changing perspectives about what integrated talent solutions could do supporting the business outcomes outlined in the business strategy.

I perceive that people either can't (potential skills & development issue) or won't (you pick the reasons there!) do what we all know needs to be done. So my recommendation is stop talking and start doing it. If you can't or won't do it...find another profession.

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.

Maximizing Returns on Leadership...Competencies That Drive Growth

Greetings,

Many of us are looking for the magic answer to propelling our organization's business strategy. While we all recognize the importance of leadership and talent to that endeavor, we sometimes struggle to identify what we need to do to execute business strategy.

Research by the Corporate Leadership Council titled "Improving Returns on Leadership Investments" identified three places to focus on improving returns. This included:

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

At a high level...these are excellent approaches to improving returns on investment in leadership development activities. I have leveraged these approaches and still believe in their benefits in my new organization. These also align well with the Center for Creative Leadership's think piece on "Developing a Leadership Strategy."

Yet...while these high level pieces help align our thoughts...we have been missing something. What depth and breadth of leadership we need to drive growth?

Enter an interesting study from McKinsey&Company and Egon Zehnder, an executive search and consulting firm, titled "Return on Leadership - Competencies That Drive Growth." In the think piece, McKinsey and Egon Zehnder attempt to answer the following questions...

"There is little doubt that leadership quality is a key determinant of a company’s growth, but the specifics are frustratingly elusive. What matters more – analytics or people leadership? Is growth driven by a small group of stars or a broad leadership cadre? Should executives conform to one corporate leadership profile, or does diversity deliver faster growth?"

Leveraging McKinsey’s Granularity of Growth data from an extensive analysis of more than 750 leading companies worldwide and Egon Zehnder's leadership competency data in it's management appraisals, the report is able to identify areas of leadership development focus.

When companies in the bottom 25% and top 25% are compared against each other, those leaders in the top 25% are more highly rated in leadership competencies.

Specific areas from the think piece draw conclusions that are extremely relevant...

What this means is that companies can build leadership excellence in only a few selected competencies – and even then, this requires considerable time and investment. The companies with executives that excel at the competencies most relevant for growth therefore enjoy a significant competitive advantage that is difficult for others to replicate.

To generate growth, all companies need to build a critical mass of excellent leaders. Setting the bar high does not suffice but must be complemented with adaptations of business systems, talent management processes and high-impact capability building. Hence, companies should:

- ƒƒ Sharpen leadership development, by defining required competencies and skill levels for each job family and hierarchy level; anchoring critical competencies in all talent management processes, including recruiting, deployment, and assessment; and providing targeted support for the transition between senior management and top team roles given their differing skill sets.

-ƒƒ Innovate competency building, by building a “competency factory” to focus existing business processes and talent management practices on critical competencies; using “field and forum” approaches and “action learning” for sustainable change; and embedding leadership development in the company’s talent culture.

ƒ-ƒ Develop and promote “spiky” leaders by assessing the competency spikes of the current leadership team and talent bench; review the company’s existing leadership model and talent management practices for tolerance of spikes; and adapt the leadership model, talent practices, and internal communication to recognize the value added by the more unusual profiles. In addition, the utmost importance should be given to the composition of top and senior management teams. Our findings call for diverse teams with individuals of complementary leadership spikes.



These kinds of think pieces continue to point to the overall importance of leadership to organizational performance and success...but this starts to quantify in ways that can be explained to leaders in companies to drive investment decisions.

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 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.