The Trends Shaping Global People Management, and One That Isn't

Recently the Boston Consulting Group published a report and research study titled 'Creating People Advantage 2012: Mastering HR Challenges in a Two-Speed World', a look at the most pressing and important trends and issues in Human Capital Management gleaned from their survey and interviews with over 4,000 HR and Business Executives from over 100 countries. You can access the full 59-page PDF report here.

Take a look at the summary chart below - you probably won't be too surprised by the three most important HCM topics as defined by 'High' Future Importance to the organizations, coupled with 'Low' Current Capability in that discipline. 

In case you can't figure out the chart, (it took me a minute), the three topics that fell in the red or 'Strong Need to Act' zone were:

Managing Talent - Ok, kind of generic, but I guess it makes sense

Improving Leadership Development - Sort of a perennial issue in most organizations, but as the report details, becoming more acute due to demographic reasons, (the aging workforce, mainly)

Strategic Workforce Planning - Most organizations reporting ongoing difficulty in adequately forecasting short and long-term talent needs

So taken together, not all that surprising I guess, we have been hearing and reading about these trends and critical areas of focus for HR and Talent professionals for some time now. We need to get smarter at understanding our people, at developing them for future leadership roles, and more precisely planning for our future talent needs.  

Basically, we need to just get better at our jobs. Sounds like a sound bite from the press conference of every losing football coach ever.

But what stood out to me from the report was not the three 'red' items, but rather the one topic out of 22 that registered on the opposite end of the scale - at the bottom of the scale in capability but also rated as least important in the long term, namely 'Actively Using Web 2.0 for HR.'

What? 

Applying the latest in social, particiapatory, collaborative, and modern technology to improve HR and Talent Management rated dead last?

Even 'Improving Employer Branding' (which hardly anyone even understands), rated more important?

I have to say even though I would not have expected a really geeky, technical sounding function or topic like 'Web 2.0' (and please, BCG can you drop that term, it fell out of fashion in 2009), to register above most of the more traditional and familiar HR and Talent focus areas, to see it rank last in future importance by so many Global HR leaders is a little concerning and sad.

As a proponent of workforce technologies and as someone who knows the impact that the application of collaborative and social technologies can have to help address almost ANY of the topics on the BCG survey, I hope that these results are not truly indicative of how HR pros see these tools and their potential.  

What are you seeing in your organization - are the new tools and technologies on your radar in HR?

You look familiar...

Quick - without thinking too hard, or lingering over any of the individual profile pictures too long, take a look at the images below and tell me what would you say you are looking at?

Here are some logical guesses, (assuming you did not actually recognize any of these gents and figure it out already), take a look and pick the one you think is most likely to be correct:

A.  The members of the local school board from the nicest neighborhood in town

B. Your teammates from the Over-40 basketball league from the local YMCA

C. The highest ranking executives at a major, huge, colossal, global corporation

What do you think? Actually, all three options are pretty likely to be accurate, but the correct answer in this case is 'C' - take a look at the original, undoctored image below.

So you've probably sorted out by now the gentlemen pictured above represent the highest ranking executives at everyone's favorite mega-corporation, Apple, in the news this week for announcing a pretty significant shake-up in their executive ranks.

Do you notice anything about the picture?  Maybe that, I don't know, everyone in it looks pretty much like everyone else?

Do you care at all about that?

Does it matter?

Does it not matter because it is Apple, and well, everyone loves their iPhones and iPads?

I wonder.

WEBINAR : Talent, Succession, and Zombie Identification

A quick plug for my colleagues over at Fistful of Talent who next week, Wednesday June 20 at 1:00PM EDT, will be running the latest installment of their fun, informative, and popular webinar series, this time with what promises to be a fresh, innovative, and probably not at all like you are used to approach to succession planning and talent reviews. You know as an HR or Talent profession you secretly love talent reviews and succession planning. You do.

Why?

Because you love judging people. I mean, don't we all? You're reading this and judging me right now. If you are still reading this, I guess I made it past the latest in what naturally is an almost constant evaluation of where I fall on continuum running from 'What an idiot' to 'Genius! I need to show this article to my CEO'.

If judging people isn't the nation's second favorite pastime, (football is still number one), then how do you explain, variously, the success of American Idol, America's Got Talent, The Voice, Dancing With the Stars, and the 73 other competition/reality shows out there? And don't get me started on the internal monologue running in your brain when you go to the mall, the airport, or that pinnacle of judgmental snarkiness, the county fair.

But back to the point, and I remember there being one. As a talent professional perhaps the single most important job you have is making sure the organization has the talent it needs, in the roles where they are most likely to succeed and have some kind of affinity for, (or at least be good at), and demonstrate a readiness in organizational capability to adapt to (among other things), new business strategies, changing external conditions, and lastly and more commonly, people just being people and doing things like resigning unexpectedly, flaking out on an overseas business trip, or getting a too-good-to-pass-up and too-rich-for-you-to-match offer from ACME Corp. down the road. 

So how as a busy with a million other things HR and Talent pro begin to get a handle on the 'sound boring but are really important' processes of Succession Planning and the mechanism that drives much of the Succession Planning process, the Talent Review?

Well, that is what the FOT webinar is all about. Check the details below:

Halogen Software is bringing in the team at Fistful of Talent for a quick, street smart webinar, Wednesday June 20 at 1:00PM EDT, on how to bootstrap a talent review and get started with Succession Planning.  Attend “Zombies, Grinders and Superstars:  The FOT Talent/Succession Review” to get the following goodies:

How what you do with performance management at your company is directly related to how you approach talent reviews and succession

• Why corporate values don’t belong anywhere near your performance management system
• How items called “potential factors” add flavor to your approach to performance/talent/succession, and how to create potential factors for your company to use in the talent review
• How to use the talent review process to calibrate performance ratings across your company, box in managers who are soft on performance and create a greater sense of pay for performance in your organization
• An outline and best practice notes on how to run a talent review meeting, with formats that differ for your company’s Leadership Team, a division/departmental group, or a high potential employee program.      

This webinar comes with the Fistful of Talent guarantee:  60% of the time it works every time.  Join the FOT crew as they tell the truth and cut through the smoke and mirrors related to Talent Reviews as a part of your succession program.

Got it?

Seriously, I always have learn something new on the FOT webinars, and even if you think you have the Succession/Talent thing down cold, it is worth your time to dial-in and help make fun of Sackett.

Succession Planning goes to College

If you are a fan of American college football you likely took notice of Saturday's unlikely victory by Purdue University over the highly ranked and heavily favored Ohio State University.

Purdue was a 19 point underdog in the game but still defeated the Ohio State team 26-18.

In reading some accounts of the game I stumbled across this story, about Purdue's fairly innovative (for major American college sports) succession planning strategy for its sports team head coaches. The Purdue Athletic Director Morgan Burke, hired and named the successors for both the Men's Head Football Coach and the Men's Head Basketball Coach, a full year before the prior holders of these positions both longtime Purdue employees, were expected to retire.

For Men's Football Danny Hope was hired in January 2008 to take over the job in the 2009 season, and in Men's Basketball Matt Painter was hired in 2004, and eventually took over the head coach position in 2005.

Both successors effectively served as understudies for a full year, learning the ins and outs of the University, receiving mentoring from the outgoing, veteran coaches, and gaining valuable experience to position themselves for success.

Morgan Burke's approach to succession of high-profile coaches while being copied by a few other large schools is still fairy unique. Some of his key lessons for an effective succession process are:

Have a hard date for the turnover - Other school's have also followed Purdue's lead and hired successors for long time coaches nearing retirement, but have not set a firm date for the hand off, (most notably Florida State).  This can lead to pressure on the incumbent if results on the field start to slip, and frustration and impatience on the part of the next coach.

Tinker not overhaul - Burke feels the 'named successor' strategy really only makes sense of the outgoing coach has a good history of achievement, and that only minor tactical changes, not a major new strategies are needed going forward. Since both programs were in solid shape with the veteran coaches, major house cleaning was not needed. Had major changes been needed, Burke would have likely done more 'traditional' searches for replacements.

Involve the incumbent - Burke made it a point to involve the outgoing coaches in the process, while still supporting them as they completed their contracts.  The key for this 'coach in waiting' arrangement to be most effective is to ensure the more experienced coach could pass on as much of the history, culture, and practical knowledge they had accrued in their careers.  Both outgoing coaches were extremely motivated to do their part to help leave the programs in sound shape and in good hands. 

Challenge the successor - It is important to make sure the coach in waiting is adequately challenged, and not just sitting quietly on the sidelines just waiting.  It makes sense to start transitioning some functions to the successor, particularly ones that they may not have had prior experience with, while the veteran coach is still there, so as to better support and 'coach' the new coach.  The successor has to really start to feel ownership of the position prior to the 'official' transition date.

One more thing, Morgan Burke does not have the typical background of a major college athletic director, which are usually former coaches or long time college administrators. Burke was a VP of Human Resources for 17 years.

Who would have guessed? HR bringing innovative new ideas to a new field.

Who do you call?

Dali or Gauguin, whichever you like
Dali
Originally uploaded by steveboese

This Wednesday, February 25 I have the great honor of presenting a Webcast for HR.com on Workforce and Succession Planning, titled 'Understand your workforce today, so you can plan for tomorrow'

In part, the presentation will cover the more or less traditional, or generally accepted steps in designing and implementing a Succession Planning process. To paraphrase Abe Lincoln, it is altogether fitting and good that I cover these  concepts in the webcast.

But as I did the research and preparations for the webcast, I came across some really interesting research that has the potential to alter the idea of 'best practices' for Succession Planning programs.

Namely, the idea that 'who you know' may be as significant as 'what you know' when making a determination of which employees
are likely to demonstrate success and high achievement in a new role.

The common sense reasoning behind this is likely very familiar to most, in the classic example say a Senior Manager position is vacant, and the 'best' performer from among the Manager's direct reports is promoted into the role.

The promotion may be 'deserved' on the basis of past performance in the former job role or based on seniority. The new Senior Manager may even have demonstrated most of the key competencies the organization has determined are necessary to perform at a high level.

But one essential element is missing from typical succession planning, namely the identification and analysis of the former managers key personal network, those colleagues, mentors, friends that he or she has relied upon for aid in decision making, determining strategy, navigating new responsibilities and gaining deep organizational knowledge.

Let's call the departing Senior Manager Jane. Jane, over the years, developed a deep personal network that she drew on to support her in the successful performance of her duties. Specifically, she relied upon different components of her network to support different aspects of her role. For example, the people and resources she relied upon for budgeting and forecasting help, were not the same people she called upon for employee relations and motivation concerns.

This distinction in personal network segregation or specialization is an important one. So often when junior employees are promoted into more senior roles, or placed in managerial roles for the first time, they bring with them very developed practical and technical skills and networks that while still important to their new managerial role, are not always the most critical in predicting success in the new, more complex role. It is quite likely the new manager's skills and perhaps more importantly their current personal networks are centered around those 'old' skills and capabilities.

Let's call the newly promoted manager Jake. Jake was the top engineer and formerly a good designer. The first time the Jake is called on to participate in a complex strategic planning exercise with his new peers, will he perform below his potential at least partly due to the lack of a mature valuable personal network in which to support him in that function? If Jake keeps trying to draw on his 'old' network of designers and engineers, most of whom are not involved in strategic planning, he is in a position to struggle.

How can the HR leader identify and address these situations?

One method is to develop a process to identify the key or top performer's personal networks and the roles those network actors perform. So for Jane, have Jane identify the three or four most important skills or competencies that she needs for success, then identify the key individuals she relies on for support, advice, and guidance. This categorized personal network can then be compared to Jakes', and it is quite probable it will reveal that Jake has not yet developed relationships with many of the KEY players that he will need to count on to be a success in the new role.

Plans can then be put in place to ensure personal introductions and/or meetings are arranged with Jake and these new individuals that he will need to start building his relationships with. This kind of intervention can be a key factor in how quickly Jake adapts to his new role, and quite possibly if he ultimately succeeds at all.

A by-product of this kind of personal network analysis is that in can reveal much about the 'hidden' stars or key cogs in an organization. If analysis of the personal networks of your staff of senior managers reveals that all or most of them call upon a key individual or two somewhere down the hierarchy for advice and counsel, the organization would be well served to to make sure those key influencers are happy, and that adequate succession plans exist for them, even if they are considered on paper to not be critical or 'high-potential'.

Who employees turn to for help and information is a incredibly valuable piece of organizational intelligence.

Who do you call?