'Corporate Vitality' Management Musings

Does Training Really Pay?

2015-12-16T06:48:00.000+00:00

How much does it cost to maintain Training & Development in your company, especially when you consider how much product must be sold in order to create the amount of profits needed to pay for it all?

What do we really gain from training? How good are we at assessing the real returns on this investment?
Those connected with training will argue that training is a fundamental necessity that helps determine the morale, productivity and performance of employees at all levels, including managers.
Although the underlying premise is true, the question is whether it is actually happening. The mere fact that training is undertaken does not automatically result in added value to the trainees or to the company. The only people who are guaranteed to gain are the trainers.

There are two factors to consider:
- The lack of effective assessment of value added, if any.
- The barriers preventing us from obtaining value from training

To really make a difference, we need to go back to fundamentals.

Why train?
From a business perspective, it is the application of learning to bring higher performance. For the individual, it brings job satisfaction and potential advancement in terms of rewards.
This is where our training focus should be and where our measurements should be.

Currently, in many organisations, there is little, if any, feedback on such issues. There are (what I term) the “Happy Sheets” at the end of the course. These tell us what participants think about the content and delivery: relevance to their work, clarity of what was taught, etc. Hopefully, there will be some useful critiques to help us further improve the training experience into the future.
What does all this tell us about the efficacy of the training?
Nothing — it gives no assessment of subsequent performance improvements.
One can correctly argue that the participants have not had time to put the learning into action yet. This therefore demands that we get more measurements later. But do we collect them?

Let’s get real. I am sent on a training course. Great stuff, enjoyable and informative. I get back to my desk and the pending work has grown and I have to get re-settled. I put the training notes in a drawer to refer to later and get on with tackling the pending items and the daily things that need to be done. The next time I see the training notes is when I move to a new role and have to clear my stuff from the desk.
The performance input has been a big, fat, nothing.

What about performance appraisals, one might ask. By the end of the appraisal period, who can remember what difference, if any, has occurred in my abilities and performance?

What has been the cost of the training? What impact has it had on my performance? How have the organisation and myself benefited?

If the forgoing is not enough, there are other contributory factors that create barriers to effective training outcomes.

Are we sending them to the right course?
Is training the right solution? If a person isn't performing effectively, then train them. One of the most pertinent examples is leadership training. Having worked with psychometrics, I've seen so many cases of non-leaders (by nature) being made to attend training on how to lead, when the behaviours required for this are almost completely uncomfortable for the individual — and most likely always will be, and therefore not actioned.

Are we cramming too much into the course — nice to know vs need to know? I want to resolve a specific situation, so how do I deal with that? Why spend your time and mine by going into other topics that I may possibly need one day (but will have forgotten what you've taught me by then)?

Do I really need to attend a formal training session or could the input I need be given by my manager or someone else close by? Bite-sized learning, on demand, as needed, and put into action immediately.

Especially for behavioural inputs (e.g. leadership, motivation) and areas such as problem solving and creativity, to what extent are the new behaviours supported by the culture of the organisation?
Unless the behaviours expected are enacted and encouraged by the CEO downwards, we cannot expect any differences from training people in them — except for a higher level of cynicism, of course.
Similarly, do the processes support these ideas and concepts?
And this includes performance measurement and appraisals?

An example is in the training function itself. What are the key aims? What are the targets set? What are we measured on?
If our trainers only have goals such as numbers of courses run, number of participants put through, the feedback (scores) given by participants at the end of the course, and keeping within a certain budget, then the plot has already been lost.

It is easy to criticise but how do we do things differently and more productively?

I would start by asking a question. Can you tell me about a time in your working life when you had a great learning experience that really made a difference to you and your ability to perform?

Our greatest learning points, by and large, have most probably been with our manager having one-to-one discussions with us based on our current, pressing, needs, where there has also been follow up support and encouragement.
Especially too when our manager also recognises the kinds of challenges we enjoy and which will stretch our abilities — and makes a point of throwing us into them.
These gave us a step up in our performance as well as a great feeling of achievement, together with respect for our manager. S/he showed an interest in helping us better ourselves.
The subject matter of the discussion was an immediate issue, enabling us to put it into practice straight away and see the benefits — making it a real lesson learnt.
The cost was basically the two of us having taken time out for the discussion.

Question
Isn’t the best and most effective training really undertaken by a person's direct manager?

If this raises the response that there aren't many managers in our organisation who are capable of doing this, we get even closer to some real issues on performance. Three main points:

Are we recruiting/promoting the right people into management or, to be more precise, are we using the right criteria for selecting them?
AND are we, as senior managers, ensuring we create a culture of coaching and mentoring our direct reports in this positive manner?
AND are we ensuring the processes in use support a positive way forward rather than undermining people's ability and willingness to be great performers who get a great deal of satisfaction from producing great results?

I have witnessed, first hand, a person being coached and supported by a direct boss in the manner suggested here. The employee's confidence and abilities grew, so did his performance, his dedication to results, and his comfort in working with that boss, whom he greatly respected.

I have also witnessed a manager insisting he attend the training he wanted undertaken to help his team move forward. His reason was practical — to enable him to better support his team in applying what they are learning. This commitment paid dividends in morale and performance.

So this is no fancy pipe dream. It's hard reality, but how many of us are prepared to accept it and, most of all, work at it?
.

Easily Dispense with Lack of Engagement and Poor Performance.

2015-05-04T19:43:00.000+01:00

Why do apparently excellent people sometimes underperform? I have found the answer can be found in a psychometric approach to performance appraisal.

I worked with a financial institution to achieve just this. Between us, a radical new approach to the appraisal process was created, with dramatic results.

The company had been using The McQuaig System™ to support the substantial recruitment that the company's meteoric growth demanded.

The organisation realised that the annual appraisals were not being used effectively, and this was confirmed by an in-house survey. A typical comment was: 'Managers aren't interested in the appraisals - it's just a chore for them.'

Appraisals should be constructive, and proactive. The system needed to be re-designed and, in discussion with my clients, it was quickly apparent that, to make appraisals more effective, managers need a better understanding of the way their people approach their work, and how they relate to management style.

By introducing the behavioural factor of both managers and staff, an element of self-realisation was brought into play to establish just how important effective management is in its effect on staff performance.

The approach
To tackle this, middle managers and their direct reports undertook a McQuaig assessment. However, before doing so, it was essential for those managers to understand exactly what they were hoping to achieve through the improved appraisals process. For this, I tailored and delivered a seminar on “Making Appraisals Motivational”.

The next stage was for all staff to complete the McQuaig. Being on an unrestricted license for the entire organisation, this did not cost them anything extra.

The McQuaig Word Survey® gives an extremely accurate indication of how a person will tackle a job and interact with other people. The skill lies in accurate interpretation of the results, for which training is required.

I sat with each manager in turn and discussed the profiles of each and every direct report, including, of course, the profile of the manager him/herself. The evaluations caused a revelation every time.
Why? Because they revealed that the roots of performance problems did not necessarily lie with the staff member, but sometimes with the manager.

Armed with an objective understanding of the personalities involved, managers are in a position to relate this to each person's performance and discuss the results at the appraisal. As one senior manager commented, ‘The beauty of the McQuaig approach is that it not only identifies the presence of performance problems, but actually indicates their source.’

What happened?
Following this strong intervention, management changes were implemented in two ways to solve problems that had been identified.

- Certain job specifications and responsibilities were altered, to move people into areas to which they are more naturally suited.

- Managers have deliberately refined their leadership styles as appropriate to their staff.

For example, a typical management problem revealed by the assessment, and then tackled in the appraisal, was of a person in a supervisory role.

'Whilst excellent at the job's technicalities, there were problems with the team he was leading,' the client observed. 'A record of bad absenteeism and coordination had developed amongst these volatile characters in his team, damaging productivity.'

Personal evaluation, followed by an open and frank appraisal session, indicated that he was not naturally suited to the middle management role. Further, the somewhat abrupt criticism from his senior manager was causing him additional stress.

The solution was simple but effective: the responsibility for people was removed and the technical workload increased in the new role to which he was willingly transferred.

The company added that 'his senior manager, following assessment and, in turn, appraisal, has recognised the need to smooth the edges in his own management style in order to get the best from the middle managers.'

The lessons?
Situations of this kind are far from unique, but rarely identified under standard appraisal practices. People are mismanaged or left to underperform in jobs for which they have no natural affinity. It is much better to isolate problems, identify the source, and agree a course of action.

The clients’ redesign of the Appraisal system proved to be a great success. As they stated: ‘All the managers who attended the one-day appraisal seminar have been unanimous in their praise for the training they received. Appraisals have now become a positive management tool and all managers believe that they are better at their job in respect to the man-management skills.’

We Can’t Get Qualified Talent!

2015-05-01T14:16:00.002+01:00

Especially in India, industries bemoan the fact that there are insufficient graduates and, to make matters worse, those they do find expect enormous rewards. Yes, there is also the stark issue that the graduates are not really properly prepared for industry. They’ve learnt what they had to in order to pass exams but not learnt how to apply concepts in real life. They cannot walk into a company and start working on important projects without being “trained in” sufficiently — which takes time.

My question in all this is simply … are we looking for the right people?

Particularly in the Indian context, there are a lot of people who have had minimal education. Are these individuals incapable of being great in engineering if given the opportunity to learn it? Just because their families’ financial circumstances were such that schooling and especially college education remained well out of their reach, does this mean they cannot achieve?

The two cornerstones of high performance are Willingness and Ability. If a person is willing to put in time, effort and focus into growing their ability, they are likely to be eminently trainable and become high performers. It takes time — but with these individuals, it is an investment.

Am I a dreamer?

No.

A few years back, I was working with an Indian manufacturing client who was based way out of a city. They too complained about getting qualified people. I asked them ‘Do you want someone who is determined to learn and grow and willing to put in the effort to succeed, or do you want a highly qualified graduate?’ I then added ‘You are far from a city but, surely, there are local people who would be willing to put effort into learning and working in order to keep their family and educate their children. Could you consider taking them in and giving them a chance to meet their aspirations?’

The CEO answered. ‘We've recently tried this. We took on a local, unqualified man and taught him to do a fairly straightforward job on a simple machine. He learnt that and became very efficient and turned out good work. We then decided to give him something more difficult and taught him the ropes. Again he applied himself and became an expert.

‘During this time, he mentioned he would like to get an engineering qualification, so we paid for him to take a course and he obtained that qualification.

‘His work continued to be excellent and he happily took on more complex duties, but felt he should learn English to be better able to read the instructions and settings on the machines.’

The last I heard was that the company was funding this for him also.

So the question is: instead of fishing for those who are money-minded, “me”-minded, showing no willingness to learn, and expecting the world to be given to them on a platter, why not consider a less well-educated, determined person with a strong work ethic and give them the opportunity to achieve their potential as well as making them better able to support their family and educate their children?

Do you want someone who is dedicated to the company because it is giving them a chance to build something so very positive in their life?

I see this as a strong “win-win” situation that requires recruiters to stop blindly following the academic approach they learnt in order to get their qualifications — this almost total reliance upon skills, knowledge, training, qualifications and experience — and extend it strongly into the much more productive behavioural traits and strengths: temperament, maturity, stability, attitudes and values, and self-motivation, together with speed of thought.

These are the ingredients that help you recruit winners, which has been proven hundreds, if not thousands, of times.

What is stopping you from experimenting in this way?

(And, if you need help in making the change, get in touch — I will be happy to help, train and coach you towards your objective.)
.

Believe it or not, This IS How Companies Are Run!

2015-03-05T10:23:00.001+00:00

Most companies are losing out heavily on performance. Not just “losing out” but losing out heavily.

How can I say this? Quite simply, from experience. I have seen the inside of companies across many industries, in a variety of sizes, in a number of countries, and never cease to be amazed at how wilfully they waste potential. Few seem to understand this and, when they have been advised of it — even had it proved — they do not consider changing things for the better.

Then they wonder why there is a high level of both disengagement and staff attrition eating away at customer service, competitiveness and profits.

So, what is happening?

Take a look at the diagram below and imagine yourself working through this apparently simple filing process using the assets as labelled.

Thus, in the first step of the process for example, we have the “job” of being a desk (as labelled) being undertaken by an asset (as pictured — the filing cabinet.

Now, I am sure you will say:

1. This is ridiculous.
2. No-one would use these assets in this manner. It would be totally inefficient.
3. People would get stressed trying to cope.

The truth about each of these statements in turn is:

1. Correct. It is ridiculous.
2. Wrong! This kind of thing is done every day in the workplace in most companies.
3. Correct. This is happening as a result.

Using items to do things they are not built to do will ruin performance. Trying to change their properties, like turning the “desk” (filing cabinet) on its side to use it like a desk, remains far from ideal and it is still difficult to operate this way.

But is item 2 really happening? Are assets being used for purposes other than those for which they are designed? Yes. Absolutely. Definitely. Most certainly. Let me illustrate further.

Come back to reality – the reality of people as assets.

Take a look at the illustration below, where the people are “labelled” as being in certain roles but behaviourally “built” for something different.

I have used the same labels and pictures but added behavioural assessments:

The behaviour “pattern” demanded by the “job” (the Label).
The natural behaviour “pattern” of the “person” (the Picture) placed in the job.

Thus, in the first step of our process, we have the “job” of being a desk (as labelled) being undertaken by an asset — the filing cabinet (as pictured). There is clearly a strong mismatch.

You will notice there is one exception where behavioural assessment shows a person suits the behavioural demands of the job: the hole punch. We have an asset with the right behaviours for the job to be undertaken comfortably and well.

Ask yourself the question: how would a person feel about:

Being forced to take on a role for which they are not behaviourally “built”?
Being pushed to produce results in spite of such limitations?

When you consider that around 70% of people are disengaged at work, does this not begin to explain one of the major reasons for it? Does it not also begin to say a great deal about morale, performance and attrition?

Yet this can be so easily prevented to a great extent

... By careful and objective behavioural assessment of both job demands and of a person’s natural strengths. Organisations who have taken this step report higher levels of performance, morale, engagement and retention. (I can supply live cases that illustrate this fact.)

Isn’t it time to re-think how selection is undertaken in your organisation?

Is Your Company As Sick As I Was?

2014-11-17T19:01:00.002+00:00

My very recent experience with a serious back problem and its resolution reminds me, strangely, of my experiences as a management consultant. Let me explain this eerie connection. I'll start with the illness.

Back pain had been part of my life for many years. On occasion, it would decide to fester up and make things difficult, including slowing down my ability to do anything due to either the pain or the bed rest - or both.

Visits to doctors led to x-rays that revealed no clues as to the cause. Trips to chiropractors provided some relief, as did the bed rest.

The recent attack started off the same way but not only remained but also intensified. After two weeks, I was suddenly struck by a sharp and excruciating pain that shot from my lumbar region and through my left leg. I could not move.

After some agonising minutes, the agony eased. However, trying to stand or move triggered more punishment. It took 30 minutes for me to get to my bedroom and longer to get into the bed.

I was rushed to the emergency ward of the local hospital and, after heavy pain killers were administered, an x-ray was taken. This showed nothing of consequence, so after more than two weeks, I was diagnosed with "chronic back pain" and duly discharged with prescriptions for pain control. My wife demanded they undertake an MRI scan but the specialists deemed it unnecessary because they had made their diagnosis.

Being under regular morphine doses, I was mentally out of the picture. That stuff dulls the brain.

My future looked grim, to say the least.

However, within three days I was back in the emergency ward in severe pain that the medication was unable to control.

My wife very vehemently demanded an MRI scan yet again. They finally capitulated. Within 24 hours, the scan was undertaken and soon revealed the root cause of the problem: Cauda equina syndrome.

This syndrome is basically the blockage of the nerve channel in the spine, thereby crushing the nerves, causing pain and can lead to paralysis of the legs. If the blockage is between 50%-60%, immediate surgery is mandatory.

In my case, it was 80% blocked.

An immediate and major surgery finally provided the cure to my back problems. Although the recovery period takes many weeks, this operation has avoided total lower back paralysis. I can now look forward to a pain-free back and live a normal life without the fear of yet another attack.

So, how does all this relate to my work as a consultant?

So many organisations suffer from issues such as ineffective leaders, under-performing employees, high staff attrition, low engagement and more.

Over and over again, the specialists apply the same cures: predominantly training of some sort or special events. These have limited results and are more like temporary 'fixes', just like bed rest and a chiropractor’s manipulations.

The underlying causes are not properly identified and given the appropriate remedy. The problems continue, draining the potential of both individuals and the organisation itself.

Like my wife, I request organisations to undergo the equivalent of an MRI scan to obtain the root causes with a view to a major operation to fix them for good. Unfortunately, as happened in my wife’s case, the specialists ignore this because they have made their own diagnoses and go their own way — maybe creating a short period of relief before the pain returns and grows. Is this leading to the eventual paralysis of your business?

… It is time to question --- is your company as sick as I was?

?????????????????????????????

Do We Really Want Our Organisation To Excel?

2014-08-05T11:09:00.000+01:00

During the last few weeks, I’ve been speaking to a number of people. One was in HR and facing some difficult workplace situations. It seemed that a lot of improvement was needed in order to take “identified top talent” forward in terms of ability to lead, motivate and engage people.

He had worked on identifying training needs but, on offering relevant interventions, the take-up was miserably low. He had difficulty in 'selling' the training to this group. Less than 30% showed any interest.

What didn't help was the fact that HR was seen as more of a nuisance than anything and were just trying to add more unnecessary processes to the daily work.

'What can I do to increase the uptake of these courses?' he asked.

This kind of situation is not unusual.

The HR person was keen to help make a real difference to abilities and performance and had, for several months, worked hard at trying to generate an increased response. He was now at his wit's end. 'It's driving me mad,' the poor fellow admitted.

I asked him what his boss had done to guide or support him.

The answer was to the effect that he was told not to keep bashing his head against a brick wall. 'That's the way things are and you can't expect to change it. Your job is to set up the courses, so just stick to doing that and don't worry about it.'

So, we have a person keen to make a strong contribution to the organisation being, in effect, advised not to bother.

I was immediately reminded of an important part of the Preface and of the Introduction to the book “Lead To Win - Pioneering Powerful Performance”:

“For many years I have had a passion. I firmly believe, and this has been confirmed during my decades of experience and observations as a manager and as a consultant, that people love producing fantastic results.

I also firmly believe companies (read: “managers at all levels”) actively prevent people from doing so — unwittingly in most cases. This can so easily lead to lower performance and expensive staff turnover.”

And:

"So many organisations are like Formula 1 racing cars being used solely to toddle around to the local supermarket to get the family groceries. A definite quantum leap in performance is under the bonnet but is rarely, if ever, unleashed.

I do not use this simile lightly. People can and do achieve great things, amazing things, just because they want to."

This incident was a fine example of this in action.

Yet things could be so very different. The situation could be to a large extent turned around if senior management actually wanted to create a more dynamic and results-oriented organisation.

How?

Simply by taking it seriously and acting on it.

Let me explain.

First, to make things simpler, let's assume the identified top talent are 100 people.

One of my first questions is: why are 100 people considered "top" if they can't be bothered to learn more about how to be more effective in their work? To my mind, only the 30 have shown an interest in improvement. These are the ones to be nurtured.

By really focusing support in helping these individuals be successful, if we are doing our job effectively, they should start bringing in better results through their teams. These achievements must be quantified/qualified as they happen and form a significant part of their appraisals. Appropriate recognition/reward should follow.

The 70 who aren't interested are far less likely to achieve in this way and, therefore, will not be in line for anywhere near the same recognition.

What are the potential outcomes of this?

The 70 will be unhappy with their lot. Some will resign — which is not necessarily a bad thing because we can replace them with real top talent.

Many are likely to state that they've not been given the support the 30 were given and they want to avail of it now. Great. We can now assist them to become star performers.

Yes, this is simplified. Yes, there is more to it than this.

First, it demands commitment to results from senior management. In this, we must remember that commitment is different - very different - to a verbal agreement that it should be done and getting HR to act on it. Commitment means living it. If senior management follow similar practices to those they want adopted, it sends a very powerful message to everyone in the organisation.

Second, it needs a different approach to appraisals that brings not just a non-threatening way of measuring performance but instead a very positive one.

Third, the support must be practical and results-oriented. The 'usual' leadership and motivational theories must be replaced by simple, logical and straightforward approaches in dealing with people and processes — and ones that work.

As the many illustrative live cases in "Lead To Win" show, it can be done. Yes, it takes effort to change long-ingrained habits. The step-changes in morale and performance make the effort rewarding: to everyone in the organisation, to customer satisfaction, to quality of delivery, to costs and to profits.

Thanks, Homestead. It was good to be with you and thanks for the pics and write-up!

2014-04-28T08:08:00.001+01:00

Spent time with some nice management-level folks in Homestead, presenting a short overview of Part 1 of "Lead To Win". They raised great questions and also gave a very positive feedback.

Thanks, Homestead. It was good to be with you and thanks for the pics and write-up here: https://www.facebook.com/HomesteadIndia/posts/568142556618221

Progressive company gets Recruiting Managers and HR working together to revolutionise the way they recruit.

2014-01-22T10:36:00.001+00:00

Managers and HR at Tata Projects Limited joined forces to align to the same goal - effective recruitment.

The first set of participants

Part of the process for enhancing organisational performance is to ensure you recruit/select people most likely to be “winners” in their specific role. Unfortunately, in many companies, even experienced interviewers do not understand the determinants of high performance, so end up recruiting on the basis of skills, knowledge, qualifications, and experience. As has been proved, time and again, these elements are far from adequate.

Getting it right more often requires an almost totally new way of defining the needs of the job and also understanding how to interview in a way that obtains valuable information about the candidate’s strengths against these needs.

Success in this venture also demands a team approach between managers and HR to ensure they are both looking for, and assessing, the same vital attributes.

This what the two-day Recruiting Winners Workshop was planned to help the two sets of participants groups achieve. Although the workshops were in early November, the participants have already started implementing the new ideas with enthusiasm. Now we are all watching and waiting to see what their efforts will achieve.

The second set of participants

Tata Projects Limited (TPL) was established in 1979 as an Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) Company in the Engineering Sector of the Tata Group. It is one of the earliest and very few Indian EPC companies which have acquired the triple certifications of ISO 9001, 14001 & OHSAS 18001. Today, TPL is one of the leading EPC Companies in India.
As a part of its corporate sustainability TPL serves the community in the areas of employability skill development, primary education, safe drinking water and health. In line with the Tata Group philosophy, it also takes up Affirmative Action initiatives.

The Workplace Festive Season Has Arrived! (A new take on Appraisals)

2013-11-22T14:34:00.002+00:00

It's another festive season and people are getting more and more excited as the time draws near. The workplace is buzzing with delighted anticipation ...

It's appraisal time again!

You can almost feel the glow of excitement of everyone around you on the morning commute to the office. You can almost hear their unspoken wish: 'I do hope I get told my appraisal date today. I can't wait to hear!'

You can pinpoint those whose day has come. They are the ones with the palpable inner glow and the radiant smile that almost lights up the bus or the railway carriage.

Ah! If only every day was appraisal day!

But what is this I hear? You are telling me to return to the real world, where over half the employees — both managers and their direct reports — dislike appraisals? The world where most people are disengaged and a large percentage resign because of their bosses.

If this is so, why do companies have this annual event? Is it just to determine what kind of increment they will get?

You say that there is no connection between the appraisal and salary awards? So this means all the effort I have put in to streamline what I do to achieve greater throughput does not reflect in the value I receive and therefore, if I hadn't bothered, I would get exactly the same increment or recognition?

Oh? It is also to help you plan my developmental needs? So if we find my performance is lacking in February, it will be pinpointed in December so I can receive the appropriate training in the following June? Very helpful.

Besides this, how can an effective and objective assessment of my performance take place when so much of what I have done (or not done) over the past year will have been forgotten anyway? The fact that my current manager took over his position two months after I had done that streamlining and was therefore unaware of my real value-add wasn't helpful either.

It all seems rather arbitrary to me.

Why don't many more companies stop doing what has always been done and instead focus on the things that create a culture in which people enjoy producing great results and in which appraisals are a positive experience for all?

So let's get people smiling in anticipation of not only their appraisals but also their everyday work. It can be done. It has been done.

My next trip to India - pioneering powerful performance!

2013-10-07T10:47:00.000+01:00

I'm spending a few short weeks in India from late October helping some forward-thinking companies to 'kick start' the Lead To Win concepts with these one-day workshops.

They want to create a climate that boosts morale and performance.

On top of this, I shall be running more two-day intensive "Recruiting Winners" interview workshops, helping interviewers use behavioural issues to identify high performers.

So, my trip is all about hiring and leading for performance and retention.

If you are in India, please take this opportunity to arrange in-house workshops for yourselves if you want to start 'Pioneering Powerful Performance' in your company.

Just get in touch as soon as possible. I shall be happy to work with you.

I'm really looking forward to the challenges this visit is presenting!

FREE extract from 'Lead To Win - Pioneering Powerful Performance'

2013-09-24T10:49:00.002+01:00

'Lead To Win' is NOT about theories.
It is NOT about leading from the front.

The book 'Lead To Win' IS about practical and logical ways of working with people and systems.
It IS about helping people get great satisfaction from producing great results.

Download and browse this extract to see how the contents of the book can, and have, helped change morale and performance in a powerful and positive way.

https://app.box.com/s/qm59shgxr9147tuz7p6i

(Please 'Like' this to spread the word!)

.

Leadership:… Always do what you've always done?

2013-08-12T16:02:00.003+01:00

"Always do what you've always done ... and you'll always get what you've always got."

To be an effective leader, we must be prepared to step outside the mould. We must dare to be different.

However, this does not mean throwing all caution to the wind. What we do should make some sense and provide good chances of success in achieving the desired goal.

It should also result in positive outcomes for others.

I am sure most people in leadership positions want to do a great job, so what prevents them from doing so?

In a nutshell: they either don't dare to be different or they don't know how they need to be different.

This is what has prompted me to write “Lead To Win - Pioneering Powerful Performance” to provide the how.

“Lead To Win” distils decades of experience, experiment, study and observation into an easy to read guide. There are live examples that illustrate how the proffered concepts have worked and brought success.

What also helps is the fact that the book contains very little theory. Instead it gives down-to-earth, practical steps, processes and approaches to both people and the work.

The only question that remains is: Do you dare to be different by helping individuals get great satisfaction from producing great results?

If so, check out the book. Start by reading a sample by taking a "look inside" the slim volume in print or download the sample on your Kindle/Kindle app on Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/-/e/B00DT7F13M

If you like what you see, get a copy and read it. Then comes the most important step that many book readers tend to forget: carefully adopt the concepts and make them work for you and your team.

Finally, see the different level of results! (Please note: I will appreciate learning of the successes you and your team achieve.)

If you would like support in implementing the concepts in your organisation, do get in touch.

.

What Price Customer Experience?

2013-05-30T14:39:00.000+01:00

Today I dropped into our neighbourhood supermarket to get a few urgent grocery items. A few friends are coming to join us for tea this afternoon.

I queued at the checkout and, as the lady on the till finished with the customers in front of me, a colleague of hers asked how she was.

"I was fine until I got here," was the reply. A grimace underlined her unhappiness.

This intrigued me so, once she had completed dealing with my items and I saw nobody else was waiting for service, I opened a conversation.

"Sorry, but I couldn't help overhearing your brief discussion with your colleague. I hope you have a good day and feel better soon."

"Oh, that," she said. "It was what I was confronted with when I walked in. We have to speed up to shorten the checkout time."

I looked at her questioningly.

"I think it is wrong. Customers come here to buy their food and won't be happy seeing their food roughly handled." She emphasised the point with sweeps of her hand that demonstrated how things would be almost flung down the slope in the process.

Her point was well made because I recalled such a situation not long ago in their shop and found it difficult to keep my packing fast enough to prevent the accumulation of an unwieldy pile of stuff. Added to this is the fact that once the cashier has finished the processing, she and the queue are all waiting for me to finish my packing and pay my bill so the next customer can be served. All eyes are on me because I am apparently holding up the traffic.

Yes there is a need to process customers swiftly to prevent excessive queueing without the expense of additional staff costs. However, there is also the need to ensure the customers don't feel pressured or feel their food is being badly handled.

This apparent attempt to speed things up can easily lead to more customers accepting the "automatic" offer of help with their packing. It could even tempt them to go somewhere more comfortable to do their grocery shopping.

On the surface, it would seem that an order has been conveyed rather than a problem-solving discussion held. Had it been the latter, this checkout lady would have had the opportunity to raise her concerns, which were based on her value system which, in itself, was customer-centric.

It would have helped rephrase the objectives: how can we speed up customer processing without increasing costs and without making the customers feel rushed?

With my experience with problem solving in a team environment, I would expect some interesting and helpful ideas might well come of such a session. Sharing the issue with those who implement a solution helps focus attention on the satisfying of all stakeholders as well as create workable solutions.

An afterthought struck me as I left the premises. There has been quite a heavy turnover of staff over the past months — old faces disappear and new ones arrive. If my assumptions about leadership style are correct, then a high staff churn is only to be expected — with all its attendant costs.

My Recent Visit to India

2013-04-06T18:50:00.000+01:00

Those who know me well will not be surprised to learn that I found an excuse to visit India again recently!

It was good to be back, even if for but a short few short weeks.

During the stay, I worked with companies in Kolkata, Mumbai and Noida, running the two-day workshops "Recruiting Winners".

These were intensive and therefore also hard work. However, all the participants were really enthusiastic, putting in a great deal of effort to learn how to interview for high performing people.

Their dedication to becoming far more effective for the benefit of both their company and the people in it made it great to be working with them.

In Kolkata, I had the pleasure of working with the friendly team in IntraSoft Technologies. In Mumbai, the team at USV kept me on my toes and in Noida, OSSCube Solutions made me work hard and have continued to call for further support!

I am pleased to see they have made changes in order to fully utilise what they have learned.

What did the Workshops cover?

The Basics:

Why it is so important to get selection right.

Why normal interviews can easily go expensively wrong.

Why the “usual suspects” of Skills, Knowledge, Training, Qualifications and Experience are woefully inadequate measures on their own.

The vitally important aspects:

Identifying the crucial factors that determine high performance in a role.

Understand these core factors in some depth.

How to frame interview questions that will elicit valuable information about these items rather than the “stock” answers one normally gets.

How to dig deeper when probing.

Review of a few past recruitments that went wrong so we can validate to what extent understanding these important aspects might have saved an error.

The feedback received.

"I am happy to share that everybody has got inspired by your training and are using the 'Recruiting Winners' Technique while interviewing.
They have really put the learning into practice. Thank you for such an effective training.

"The workshop was amazing ..."

"I thank you for supporting me in my quest to create a Team of HR Professionals who can make a difference to the business and industry not by just having a certification in HR but actually implementing the ideas of thought leaders in HR profession."

Those SME Challenges: How we can start meeting them. (Part 2.)

2012-06-04T12:22:00.001+01:00

The second aspect of the Owner/Manager’s challenges is, in effect …

Empowering Managers’ Decision Making.

If we have selected the right kind of manager, then we must let them manage. After all, isn’t that why they were hired in the first place? They are there to make sure things are working (and improving) so the Owner can focus on the big picture — the direction of the company itself.

However, it is also true that managers cannot function in a vacuum, so it is important to ensure we clarify what the Key Results Areas (KRAs) are for their domain. These will most likely fall under a number of the following important elements: Budget, Controls, Quality, Revenues, Timeliness and Staff Satisfaction.

Temptations Must be Avoided!

What temptations?

First: telling them what their targets are.

This must be avoided. Far better if we ask them to assess where their area stands in each of the KRAs then highlight what they think needs attention.

Second: telling them how to go about achieving their targets.

Instead, we ask them to prioritise the list and build an action plan for each of the one or two most important ones.

Third: forcing them to undertake too many plans in an unreasonably short time.

This will likely lead to a “scattergun” approach where they are trying to keep too many plates spinning. Having to rush things all too often leads to mistakes and under-performance that in turn create frustration.

Of course targets and timeliness are important, so we cannot afford to be too lax. On the other hand, trying to work under unreasonable pressure — especially when combined with an uncaring and demanding Owner — will quickly turn the manager’s thinking to “do I really have to put up with this any more?”

… And attrition. (And they will take your best workers with them.)

Fourth: closely following their every step.

Yes, we do need to know how things are going. We must be made aware if things are not going well but there are ways of doing this is a positive and constructive manner that creates teamwork and commitment.

For example, we should encourage them to consider a way of monitoring how things are going so they get an early warning if it is not progressing the way they expected. This will enable a re-think of the strategy before it is too late.

You will notice the wording of that last paragraph. It is for their satisfaction that they are on-target.

Now if we add to this the question: “is there any support needed from me to help you succeed?” we will be indicating our willingness to be supportive as needed and that we are as committed to their results as they are.

Similarly, we can request a very brief monthly update on progress but on the understanding that, if things are not going as well as they want and they are lost for ideas, they can immediately seek a discussion with us to see if a solution can be found.

I am pleased to announce this article has also been published by EmployWise on their Blog: http://www.employwise.com/hr-best-practices/299-sme-challenges-how-we-can-start-meeting-them-part-2.html

Those SME Challenges: How we can start meeting them. (Part 1.)

2012-03-10T07:12:00.001+00:00

Let’s start at the beginning.

If we seek high performance, low maintenance leaders, the first stage is really getting the right person in place whether we are promoting or recruiting for such positions.

... And, in a large percentage of cases, this is all too frequently where things begin to go wrong.

In the nascent stage of their businesses, many entrepreneurs bring in people they know and whose performance they trust. The only problem with this is the fact that the stock of such people is limited and insufficient to continue fuelling growth. But how many entrepreneurs learnt how to recruit/select effectively? In terms of promotion, they make the same mistake as many other companies, both large and small — giving the baton to the best performer, or the person with the greatest knowledge, or the one who has been with the organisation the longest. When it comes to recruitment, they rely on the same old “favourites” of skills, knowledge, qualifications and experience, added which is whether they seem O.K. and presented themselves well at interview. Based on this, they get handed the baton.

Now the crucial question. What percentage of the new incumbents drop that baton? It is certainly far higher than is helpful to staff morale, customer service, productivity, and attrition, let alone the sanity of the Owner/Manager.

I regularly find what companies look for, and what they actually need for high performance in the role, are poles apart.

Understandably, effective leaders are difficult to find but it does help if we know what we should really be seeking in candidates, whether they be internal or external. This strong focus is vital to enable more right choices.

What should HR and Business Leader be looking for?

Unfortunately, the CV is not likely to tell us much, even if there are statements about being a manager and responsible for so many people and whatever processes. I am not saying this is fabricated. It can be quite true but it does not in any way confirm they lead people forward and whose direct reports enjoy working with them towards great results. They merely had the title but not necessarily behaved as a leader.

The word “behaved” was purposely used and emphasised to illustrate a fact: a significant amount of a leader’s success relies upon behavioural strengths, contributing, in most cases, more than skills, knowledge, qualifications and experience.

What are the behaviours leadership demands?

Different kinds of role will require different mixes of strengths and, although the tools can assist us in setting these and measuring them in candidates, the very simplified and broad brush strokes of what we train interviewers to focus upon for leaders are as follows:

A strong need to take charge, set direction, and face (non-technical) challenges. Sees the “big picture”, goal oriented and makes things happen.
If a strategic approach is needed, then an analytical, thinker and planner.
Who does not rush into things too quickly, taking a little time to reflect before acting. Can take a degree of pressure and deadlines.
Decisive and independent, leaving detail to others and requires little supervision.

Then the “learnt” behaviours:

Maturity and judgement.
Stability and persistence.
Attitudes and beliefs. (We are not judging a person’s beliefs, merely ensuring they will be comfortable adopting the values the company upholds.)
Self-motivation.

Finally: Aptitude and speed of thought.

The interview.

The interviews need to be pleasant, not a “grilling” of the candidates. Questioning must be in-depth — it is too tempting to accept the first answer given and also to assume what the interviewee means, as opposed to ensuring we establish what they do mean.

I am pleased to announce this article has also been published by EmployWise on their Blog:

http://www.employwise.com/hr-best-practices/287-sme-challenges-how-we-can-start-meeting-them-part-i.html

Indian HR needs to learn to be professional?

2012-02-22T03:34:00.000+00:00

I have been disappointed by HR in general and given to believe I am in the minority. I was both relieved and saddened to find I am far from alone.

This TOI article underlines some important aspects to consider...

"No one is free from sin, right? So, what are the cardinal sins prevailing in the HR domain? We unveil the seven lethal ones."

http://www.itsmyascent.com/web/itsmyascent/career-advice/-/asset_publisher/W3x7/content/the-7-deadly-hr-sins-your-say

Some Challenges SME Owners Face.

2012-01-26T11:25:00.000+00:00

SME owners generally face a host of operating problems and the few I will touch upon here, I am sure, will fall far short of a complete list. However, they are some of the major challenges I have come across whilst working with or talking to owner-managers.

One major issue is really due to the results of several others: there always seem to be 1,001 things to sort out as far as operations are concerned. As a result, it becomes very difficult to find the time to focus on the “big picture” and to lead the organisation forward.

Why is this? What are some of the underlying situations that create it?

They find it difficult, if not impossible, to rely on managers to deal with things on their own. Too many of them resort to procrastination rather than dealing with situations head-on. Alternatively, decisions are made that just do not make sense and can actually make things worse rather than better. Failing either of these, some managers will refer every single thing for decision, however minor, instead of making the decision themselves within their authority level.

Problems, sometimes significant ones, are “kept under the carpet”, hidden from the owner, either in the vain hope that he will not notice or that the issue will somehow sort itself out if we wait long enough. Of course, neither of these wishes is generally granted and the owner is now forced to wade in, take personal command, and spend time to get things sorted out at “shop floor” level.

From these kinds of situation, the owner learns to keep a constant watchful eye on everyone and on everything that is happening — or not happening — so they can catch the problems early and solve them before it is too late. The larger the organisation, the greater the time needed to monitor and manage it properly to ensure quality and delivery schedules are met and there are no cost overruns. Customers have to be satisfied and profits need to be made.

Finally, add to this the owners’ own statements that they “cannot get good people” and we can understand their feeling of being trapped in a never-ending circle of fire-fighting just to keep the business on its feet, let alone trying to build it into something bigger and better.

In effect, the owner is managing almost everything because the managers aren’t managing. Due to the constant pressures, owners are unable to find the time to think more deeply and broadly about solutions that can, and will, make significant changes for the better.

I am pleased to announce this article has also been published by EmployWise on their Blog: http://www.employwise.com/hr-best-practices/278-challenges-sme-owners-face.html

Why do I work?

2011-12-06T05:41:00.000+00:00

I work for enjoyment. I relish the challenge of making a big difference to morale, productivity and performance. My job satisfaction comes from achieving results with/for my clients, so you can understand the pleasure I get from this recent comment from a company I have been working with.

“I recall my decision to go with you even though at that time you operated out of the UK, was the fact that you were particularly concerned about me not spending money unnecessarily and you were accessible at my convenience.

The McQuaig has been a big help in terms of helping me in understanding the nature of an individual and if she/he would fit our job requirement and in addition appreciate the fact that you have maintained a non-judgmental stance that helped me make my own decision on the individual. The McQuaig Word Survey has now become a standard operating document for any individual we hire or promote.

In addition was the KRA Workshop that you carried out to help me personally in managing the operations, when all hell was breaking loose and fires burning everywhere. The Workshop was a great help as it helped me focus on my KRA's in the organization ...

I am happy to inform you that the company has started to perform better and heading down the path of recovery. I wish you all the very best and hope you carry on the good work with other companies as well.”

Vital ‘HR’ Questions CEOs Don't Ask But Should!

2011-10-19T12:26:00.000+01:00

Most companies could be significantly more productive, more effective and more competitive in the marketplace but appear to be blind to their significant lost potential.

Maybe the huge internal market in India ensures sales and profits are easy to obtain so the rapid growth takes corporate leaders' eyes off the ball. This generally builds problems for tomorrow. And tomorrow promises to be more difficult as other developing countries, where labour is less expensive than India's, are learning the same outsourcing game.

India Inc. has problems in terms of getting sufficient ‘qualified’ people to work in certain roles. This has led to fast escalation in salaries and salary expectations as experienced people are ‘poached’ from competitors at a premium. This too is taking large bites out of the productivity apple.

As a result, we have leaders who are not leading, high levels of disengagement (our research shows around 70 percent are less than happy at work) and severely high attrition. The costs are horrendous.

There is much that can be done to assuage this but there appears to be a dearth of sufficient experience and practical understanding of not only people and performance in the workplace but also of the kinds of strategies that can make a real difference.

Important questions need to be asked and solutions found – before it is too late.

1. How much product do we need to produce & sell, just to pay for our attrition?

Many HR departments will be able to give a fairly accurate picture of what the cost of replacing a person might be. This should cover tangibles and maybe a fair guess at what intangibles might also be involved. We may even get an estimated total cost of our attrition for the past one year.

Attrition is a direct hit on the bottom line – our Profit Before Tax – but how many CEOs put this into true perspective by asking the question "How much product do we need to produce & sell, just to pay for our attrition?"

The answer clarifies the tremendous amount of time and effort that needs to be expended before any profit can start being made by the organisation and focuses the mind more clearly. It also leads to the other questions that now follow.

2. For recruitment/selection, our managers only mention skill sets required for a role. High performance demands important behavioural strengths. How do we determine these?

Too much emphasis is placed by recruiters on experience and skills when these can in fact mean relatively little. In so many cases, it merely means they have been working in that kind of role but it does not necessarily mean they have done a great job – which is what we need done.

Even if a person has had great success in a similar role in another company, it does not guarantee they can or will repeat their success with ourselves – in our culture, with our team, in our market ...

Consider this: How many people fail due to lack of skills, knowledge, experience, qualifications or training compared with the large numbers that fail for behavioural reasons: not being a real leader, negative attitude, immaturity, lack of persistence, and so forth?

A very high percentage of – even experienced – recruiters do not really understand what they should be looking for. Not knowing what we need is the first major step to non-performance.

It is time to rethink our benchmark criteria to ensure more high performers are selected.

3. How do we ensure we select a candidate who is more likely to be a high performer by objectively assessing their behavioural strengths against the role?

What percentage of our managers are real leaders and inspire people to enjoy producing great results? What percentage of our salespeople are real stars? Does this person naturally focus on detail as much as the job demands? Will this individual be able to take the pressure of a fast-paced job? Can this applicant face the tough situations we will throw him into?

It has been statistically proven that the normal interview is only about 14 percent accurate in determining future performance. That means an 86 percent chance of getting it expensively wrong. Is this a strong foundation for building a successful business?

What tools are we using to objectively measure candidates' behavioural strengths against the benchmarks for high performance? How robust and accurate are these tools? Are they working for us?

Selecting the wrong person for the job is the second major step towards non-performance. It is crucial to get it right most of the time – not just some of the time.

4. The strength of our leadership is extremely important. Why are we hiring or promoting such a large percentage of non-leaders into management positions?

Part of the reason is our desperate attempt to retain experienced people. They are promoted into Team Leader and beyond in order to try to keep them. The usual result: "we have lost a good contributor and gained an ineffectual manager."

Another part is not using any objective and robust assessment of the person's natural predisposition to lead and whether their leadership style is likely to be positive for the situation they will be in.

We are swayed by the fact they have been managing in their current role and we do not probe effectively to find out whether they really enjoyed such challenges or whether they really had to lead or instead just follow directions -- in other words, they did not actually manage, it was just a title.

Apart from these factors, do we check the person is mature enough to take real responsibility and persistent enough to face difficult situations?

Things must change because lack of leadership is strangling our potential and is yet another barrier against retention.

5. Why don't all the expensive Leadership Development initiatives make much of a difference to leadership performance and effectiveness?

Large sums of money are expended in an attempt to "turn people into leaders." The real cost is, again, how much product we must create and sell just to create the profit to pay for this? So why aren't these costly exercises producing the significant ROI we would expect?

Unfortunately, what is not normally understood is, if a person is not naturally a leader, "development" will be unlikely to be successful. What is expected of them is too uncomfortable for them to enact, so it doesn't get done.

This presents two issues. First, why are we selecting non-leaders into leadership positions? Second, why aren't we using training budget to train people in what they can excel at rather than what they dislike having to do?

Why aren't we training people in a way that capitalises on their (behavioural) strengths so that both they and the organisation benefit?

6. How do we objectively support a manager in the practical understanding of what to do (and what to not do) to create a ‘tailored’ climate for each individual to be motivated, productive and successful?

Motivational theory is all very well but how should it be applied in my workplace with this person? How long does it take for a manager to understand a person well enough to know what kind of leadership the person needs?

Without this practical understanding, we are greatly increasing the potential for mistakes – leading to disengagement, low productivity and attrition.

The old saying is true: "people join a company but leave their boss" and with positive leadership sorely lacking in Indian companies, we have a potent recipe for attrition.

To increase retention, we need a simple, straightforward way of helping our managers be more successful in dealing with people: a simple but effective guide for understanding, coaching and developing a person as a unique individual.

7. How do we provide quick and objective feedback to a manager about who is getting disengaged, with possible reasons why, enabling the situation to be remedied fast?

How often do we know in advance that a person is beginning to feel disgruntled at work? Unhappiness tends to build slowly over a period of time, which makes it difficult to notice – until it is too late.

‘Too late’ unfortunately translates into lower morale which in turn leads to a decline in productivity, customer service, retention and profits.

How large is the potential for disengagement? Gallup research in 2002 found over 70 percent of employees disengaged. Our study of hundreds of McQuaig Profiles taken in India has revealed a similar disengagement level. This illustrates the reality – the crippling loss of potential.

Why haven't we got an ‘early warning system’ or regular form of ‘health check’ to enable us to provide an effective remedy while it is easier to deal with? Why should we wait until it is incurable? How can we ensure we apply remedies that hit the causes rather than just the symptoms?

8. Although we may be gathering data on why people leave us but are we also analysing what makes the longer-term employees stay as long as they have?

Although exit interviews and other methods of gathering reasons for people leaving may well prove of benefit, does this tell us enough?

No doubt there will be certain pockets where attrition levels are higher than elsewhere in the organisation and conditions specific to those areas will lead us to possible causes. The management style of the person heading such an area might well be an example.

But should we not focus on the other side of the fence as well? If we have longer-serving employees who are also good performers, what is it that makes them different? Such a study could reveal important factors that need to be addressed at recruitment stage or in terms of what behavioural strengths their managers possess that make a real difference for their direct reports. Such information will provide a solid foundation for a strategy to "get it right more often".

9. Why is HR so expensive to run? Their budget costs the company dearly.

In the majority of companies, accountability is where it shouldn't be instead of where it must be.

Why do we give HR department a budget? They are not a cost centre. They are a service provider. In reality, various departments incur the costs, not HR.

Consider this: I am an awful manager, pushing my staff unduly hard to meet my targets. My area has low morale, attrition is very high and HR is running around counselling my distraught staff, undertaking exit interviews and recruiting replacements for me.

What happens? My appraisal focuses on the achievements against targets and I get a great increment - maybe a promotion. The fact that I am costing the company dearly is neither seen nor considered.

If HR calculates the cost of their services and charge them back via MIS, what will be the impact on my departmental P&L? My cost to the company will be evident – I am failing in my responsibility for keeping costs at a competitive level. My true value to the company (or lack of it) will be clear.

Using this as part of the measure of management/leadership effectiveness will make a significant contribution to ensuring those who add real value are identified and considered for greater responsibilities – the leaders who will take the company forward. Those who are ineffective will realise the true nature of management and resolve to improve ... or leave to make way for someone who does.

(This article was also featured in People & Management magazine in May 2011.)

HR: “Knights in Shining Armour” or “The Enemy Within”?

2011-10-01T06:42:00.006+01:00

Back in the old days, if a new recruit was needed, the manager would have to interview, in spite of there being no guidance on how this should be done. He would put together a list of obvious things to check out in a candidate: skills, knowledge, training, qualifications and experience then cobble together some questions.

Based on the responses to these and whether the individual seemed to be a 'nice enough sort', a decision would be made.

There are two major problems with this.

The average interview is about 14% accurate in predicting future performance and, the interviews being generally poor quality, the door was wide open to a potential misfit.

The most critical determinants of performance are not even considered and these are very much behaviourally-based.

Something needs to change as competition hots up and so does attrition.

Solution: bring in HR.

HR freshers have been drilled into all the latest buzz words and phrases that make ordinary people like you and I feel ignorant and uneducated. This means they can litter their sentences with 'competency frameworks', 'L&D', ‘interventions’ and other mystifying stuff with unparalleled ease.

They also learn to say 'your human resources are your greatest asset so it is extremely important to ensure they are properly looked after by a qualified human resources manager, isn't it?'

Being ignorant about what difference there may or may not be between the line managers looking after their direct reports as against HR doing it while not actually taking responsibility for the work the staff produce, we blindly nod in agreement.

The newly-appointed HR takes over the awful job of recruiting, which is nice. However, there are two main problems:

Although the interview may possibly be better quality, it remains about 14% accurate, thus keeping that door wide open for potential misfits.

Assessment of candidates is still based on skills, knowledge, training, qualifications and experience and whether the individual seemed to be a 'nice enough sort'. Again, the most critical behaviourally-based determinants of performance are not considered.

We are therefore left with a situation where it is now costing us more to obtain the same results.

Solution: increase HR headcount.

When someone realises attrition levels remain unchanged, HR stirs into action! They hire a specialist to undertake exit interviews. This requires spending weeks researching and framing questions before undertaking months of exit interviewing to gather data which must then be carefully analysed.

And do the results show recruitment needs to be dramatically changed? No. It will speak of “hygiene factors” and “motivation factors” and managers not being particularly adept at motivating their people.

Does it highlight the fact that the managers have been selected based on similar, almost useless, criteria as everyone else and this is a major factor to be tackled in the remedy? No.

Solution: increase HR headcount.

An “L&D Manager” is hired to sort out the managers. This addition to staff costs spends weeks on a “Training Needs Analysis” to establish exactly what training inputs the managers need to enable them to become great leaders.

Afterwards, there are two possible ways forward. Either the L&D Manager will spend months piecing together a highly motivational Leadership Development Course or will start research into outside training providers. In the latter case, the decision will potentially be based on the “safety net” of number of people trained and the number of large companies in their client list.

The first batch of managers is processed. Their feedback sheets will come back with “I learned a great deal”, “the presenter knew his subject”, “very relevant to our work” and HR is delighted that their job has been successful.

Does anyone check whether these managers change their habits and do things any better? No. In fact, the vast majority just continue in the same old way. Has anyone realised the majority of the managers are not really leaders by nature and that trying to teach them to be someone else does not usually work? No.

Instead, they take the next batch of managers off for this acclaimed course ... and the next...

Solution: increase HR headcount.

Later, with large numbers of people still leaving, HR is pressed for a solution, which they decide is hiring an “Engagement Expert” whose role is to create all sorts of expensive “Engagement Interventions” that will bring the staff around to feeling happy.

Treating the symptoms rather than the disease does not take away the boredom of the job or having to work for a poor manager, so more and more engagement activities are sought in the search for the “quick fix” that is the “silver bullet” -- to no avail.

What next? Increase HR headcount....?

I am pleased to announce this article has also been published by EmployWise on their Blog: http://www.employwise.com/hr-best-practices/258-hr-knights-in-shining-armour-or-the-enemy-within.html