The DNA of Human Capital

Business Case for Investment in Talent Development

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:25:00 +0000

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...

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:02:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:00:00 +0000

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:

- 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.

- 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.

- 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

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:30:00 +0000

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...

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:43:00 +0000

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.

Global CEO Studies...A Broken Record

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 00:48:00 +0000

Greetings,

At the Davos World Economic Forum, PricewaterhouseCoopers unveiled the findings from their 2012 Global CEO Study.

I really like to look through these kinds of studies to get a sense of what CEOs and other C-Suite leaders are thinking. I am always particularly interested in what they see as talent and leadership challenges or priorities they want to address.

The PwC study is no different in that respect.

When asked "Have talent constraints impacted your company’s growth and profitability over the past 12 months in the following ways?" 1,258 CEOs responded with the following:

43% - Our talent-related expenses rose more than expected
31% - We weren’t able to innovate effectively
29% - We were unable to pursue a market opportunity
24% - We cancelled or delayed a key strategic initiative
24% - We couldn’t achieve growth forecasts in overseas markets
24% - We couldn’t achieve growth forecasts in the country where we are based
21% - Our production and/or service delivery quality standards fell

CEOs planned to attack these challenges primarily by three areas...

- We plan to move experienced employees from our home market to newer markets to circumvent skills shortages
- We plan to develop and promote most of our talent from within the company
- We plan to primarily recruit local talent wherever we have market needs

Additionally, not surprisingly, CEOs are looking for better information...this section of the report gives great insight that CEOs are looking for the right information to make informed decisions about their people/talent investments.

"CEOs are seeking a better understanding of the scale and effectiveness of their investments in talent. Productivity and labour costs remain important measurements; these are the tools investors, lenders and businesses use to benchmark progress (or lack of it). They are largely standardised in many industries, and thus easy to implement.

Yet for many CEOs, those tools aren’t enough. They’re very good at telling a CEO how the business is performing today relative to its peers, but not at indicating whether the organisation is investing enough in employees to generate future growth. Such measurements cannot isolate skills gaps, and struggle to identify the pivotal jobs that drive exponential value; they do not measure employee engagement or team performance, both of which are so critical for investments to foster innovation to bear fruit. These measurements are much harder to make, which is one reason why they’ve been neglected and why today, so many CEOs are frustrated with the issue of talent."

As my last post discussed...the people and talent challenges that many organizations face are very similar. That point continues to be driven home in CEO studies like this one from PwC. Year in and year out we see the same CEO perspectives...

If we were doing our jobs...would we continue to see these challenges over and over? Is the world we are in going to always be like this where our profession makes little progress in solving the problems that our leadership continues to see?

I recently had a discussion with HR professionals in an organization and the discussion turned towards business strategy. One person shared they didn't know or understand the business strategy in their organization...so let me be frank...if you don't understand your business strategy and how strategic people and talent capabilities support its success...you shouldn't be surprised to find the same things coming up over and over again...

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.

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

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:10:00 +0000

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!

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:09:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 22:15:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:10:00 +0000

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...

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 13:50:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 15:09:00 +0000

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...

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 17:56:00 +0000

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...

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 12:30:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 00:35:00 +0000

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...

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Tue, 31 May 2011 12:35:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 08 May 2011 14:48:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:00:00 +0000

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...

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 21:00:00 +0000

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!

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:30:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:00:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:35:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:00:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:00:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (J. Keith Dunbar) — Sun, 30 Jan 2011 22:00:00 +0000

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.