DDI’s Talent Management Intelligence

Slouching Towards New Normal

By Barry Stern

Lately I’ve been obsessing about the power of culture to determine individual action. This has been less of an intellectual exploration than a personal one resulting from experiencing various cultures marking my personal journeys nowadays. In fact, I write once again from Dubai, the Middle Eastern summer desert heat forcing a consciousness about how to get the few blocks from hotel to office tower in a halfway presentable state.

My belief is that despite crafted marketing and employee communications to the contrary, many organizations treat culture as we did air quality in the carefree pre-global warming days. We’re alive because it’s there, we measure it just to be sure, but we don’t really understand it that pervasively or believe we need to do too much to change its make-up. In fact, our dirty secret is its better if it doesn’t change too much.

Yes, I’m well aware that many of us have engagement, cultural and pulse surveys galore. And I have yet to find the CEO that considers a revisiting and revamping of culture undiscussible. But the power of information or intent is only released through action and it is in action I fear we fall way short.

We do take halting, expensive steps. One executive recently confided to me his company’s new found success in attracting a bevy of individuals selected for “new normal.” However, since the current culture and systems went under examined and little thought given to how new normal behaviors would be supported, just a few months later only a small percentage remained. In fact, this is fairly typical. Based on data from a recent Recruiting Roundtable study, there’s a 50/50 shot that, mere months after a hiring decision, either a hiring manager or the new employee will experience “recruiting remorse.” Surely a significant percentage of this can be explained by the desperate motivations of an underemployed workforce amplified by an organizational failure to take into consideration the impact of current realities upon employees selected with a critical eye only towards the future.

So have the courage to ask:

• Do your senior executives, despite the data they have, fail to recognize the cultural air deep in your organizational lungs and likely to remain?
• What degree of alignment with the aspirational culture do recruiting practices have?
• How robustly has your organization defined the success profile of individuals needed to bridge the gap between the aspirational culture and the spirit-crushing realities of the current one? Does that profile include the personal characteristics, motivations, and resiliency necessary to survive in both?
• What are the purposeful reinforcements you provide for those more aligned with culture you are trying to create than with your current one? How are you insulating them from “oldthink”?

But most importantly, look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are willing to deal with the implications of your answers. Those of us who will be most effective are the ones who have the courage, skills, and yes the risk tolerance to deal with the answers.

Barry Stern is vice president, Consulting Services and Delivery for Development Dimensions International (DDI). Follow him on Twitter.

Free Lunch!

By Barry Stern

The Wikipedia-worthy notion of TANSTAAFL or “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch” is widely embedded in our current psyche. TANSTAAFL has a surprisingly long history, but the core notion is that if something feels too good to be true, then quite simply, it is. And generally, this isn’t a bad rule to live by in business, as capitalized upon in the catchy title of Andy Grove’s 1996 book “Only the Paranoid Survive.” In HR, the TANSTAAFL lifestyle seems a very prudent approach. Our employee base is litigious and connected. We need to “craft” our policies carefully to anticipate policy lunch payments, “design” our training programs, gain front end “buy-in” from steering committees and user communities. We are Grandmasters of the HR Chess Game and must anticipate and minimize negative consequences.

Or do we have it at least partially wrong? At two recent Talent Management Conferences in New York and San Diego, I was fortunate to meet Julie Clow, from Google’s Learning and Development area. Obviously enjoying pushing the envelope in extremely provocative ways, Julie ostensibly talked about social networking, however the implications were far broader. Social networking tools and learning designs could be “scrappy,” living organisms composed of disparate pieces and parts. Interventions might decidedly be not final, pretty, or “crafted”.  Unleash the wisdom of the crowd early and often and just perhaps a free lunch might result! And frankly, even if there are occasional negative reactions to less finely honed communications along the way, they are likely to be informative and of minimal cost. But perhaps people might simply get energized, teach each other, and develop their own passionate communities of expertise. Perhaps they might even exceed our wildest expectations if only we had the courage to get our big fat controlling egos (my words not Julie’s) out of the way.

Julie referred me to the first book of Wired magazine’s editor-in-chief Chris Anderson, The Long Tail, which challenged archaic assumptions about the marketplace in our digital age. The essence of the “Long Tail” notion is that historically we have focused on the “head” of a curve for marketing and distribution purposes (i.e., the highly engineered or researched hit or the best seller) – in our field that highly “crafted” rollout or “designed and finished” training program. But of at least equal importance today is the “tail” of the curve (i.e., that boundless reach into much lower quantities of sales or users with eclectic needs which, when taken in aggregate, represent a huge opportunity for product, messaging, or involvement). So how do we start tapping into our “long tail” employee base? What if we:

• Adopted an “open-source” software model of training and development? Much like anyone might write an application for an iPhone, what if we created better tools for associates to build programs and knowledge bases reflective of their interests?
• Viewed ourselves less as sources of information but, like Google, informative filters of information, going beyond mere key word searches to dynamic results based the eclectic interests of our diverse constituency?

If you’re at all like me, you have more than a little hesitancy to delve into these waters for all kinds of conventional and obvious reasons. Yet, as Anderson points out, in a world where inventory is digital and the ability to tap into passion is boundless, there is a very real possibility of enjoying many free lunches. What risks are we taking to enjoy them?

Barry Stern is vice president, Consulting Services and Delivery for Development Dimensions International (DDI). Follow him on Twitter.

The Drive to Normalcy

By Ian Till

Many of us are probably familiar with a McKinsey report released late last year showing that a “new normal” is indeed settling in—for many companies, an environment less comfortable than the one they knew in the pre-crisis world. Most are still cutting costs, some still feel that they are in a crisis, while others have started hiring and making plans for growth. How well-prepared is your organization to leverage the opportunities while addressing the continued challenges? I share four talent risks and opportunities as we ’drive’ to normalcy:

• Flat Tires: Unengaged employees who feel their jobs are monotonous and flat won’t keep your organization running—it’s exactly what organizations are facing when you consider that 51% of employees felt stagnant in their careers and are simply waiting for the economy to improve to jump ship. What’s needed? A focus on engagement and retention, especially on developing leaders who can link individual goals to organizational vision, reward success (and celebrate failure), promote continuous growth and learning, and value unique differences of today’s Generation “I”–where I stands for the Individual.

• Road Rage: The recession may have brought about a ceasefire in the War for Talent, but the war is still raging. Demographic trends have not changed significantly in the last year, and organizations with the deep talent benches and robust processes to develop talent will win both the War for Talent as well as outperform their competitors. Prepare yourself by protecting/strengthening the leadership pipeline and developing a structured approach to develop and accelerate talent.

• Speeding: A McKinsey article recently reported that the quality of workers hired during a recession rises. As we prepare for better times, and move back into cyclical patterns of resignations, organizations must not fall back on making poor and hasty selection decisions simply to fill seats.

• Blind Spots: Leaders cannot solely rely on past skills and approaches to navigate the future. The Global Financial Crisis has focused managers on behaviors primarily related to costs, risk management, and control. While these skills are important, the future will demand innovation and a clearly articulated direction. Are the leaders who led through the crisis the right leaders to drive towards the future?

The drive to normalcy will not be smooth, but understanding the talent risks and opportunities we face will help us get there faster, and avoid unpleasant incidents along the way.

Ian Till is the General Manager of DDI in Singapore. This is an excerpt of an article that first appeared in The Business Times, 13 February 2010.

Is Your Organization Better Than The NFL at Assessing Potential? (You might be surprised…)

By Mike Hoban

What if your company’s rigorous, high profile and well funded talent management system had only a 50% success rate in predicting whether your top five managers—the VERY best in the company—would perform well at the next level up? Well, whoever was in charge of such a system, where predictability is no better than the flip of a coin, would probably be looking for another line of work. Yet, that’s the success rate for one of the most followed and most vaunted talent management systems in the public eye: the NFL draft.

Last June, in this very blogspace, I wrote a piece about the high failure rate of highly drafted college basketball players and the difficulty the professional scouts have in accurately assessing potential for success at the next level up (the pros). Because of some new academic research, we now know that the performance vs. potential conundrum in athletics is not limited to the world of basketball.

Last week, the National Football League held its annual draft drama, where college football players are selected by teams according to their talents. It would seem to be the pinnacle of meritocracy and like in basketball, literally millions of dollars are spent by the professional teams in analyzing and scrutinizing the talent at the collegiate level. Some of the top players have been under the talent scouts’ microscopes since they were in high school.

Yet, all of that due diligence apparently doesn’t pay off for teams. An article in the Wall Street Journal last week described a study conducted by a Yale University School of Management professor which concluded that in the period 1991 – 2004, fully half of the top five drafts (70 players) were either disappointments or actual flops in the professional league. And we’re talking about big money and big stakes here - last year’s top five players in the draft got $168 million in guaranteed money. The shape of the balls might be different in the NBA and the NFL, but the success patterns for star players are nearly the same.

Interesting statistics, but what’s the learning point for those of us not in the world of professional athletics? That replacement planning or succession management doesn’t work and is therefore not worth doing, since the professional talent scouts with their data bases, game films and personal observations don’t get it right any more than random chance?

No, good readers, that is definitely not the leaning point about this news story. While there are several reasons why the “can’t miss” college players often do “miss” at the next level up, I think there are some important differences in the organizational world which explain why corporate efforts at succession management have a higher success rate.

Let’s say “Mary” is a senior executive who is considered a potential successor to the CEO position. Mary’s development plan to make her more “ready” likely includes activities and assignments which give her exposure and experience in CEO-like situations. An important board presentation. A key role in leading the strategic planning session for all of the senior leaders. Leading a high profile turnaround situation. An interview with a national business magazine, perhaps.

Experiences and exposure like that provide the current CEO and the board with information and insights about whether Mary does indeed have the right stuff to become CEO at some point. But there is no equivalent of those “CEO work samples” which can be applied to professional athletics. A hotshot college quarterback can’t play a few sets of downs in the NFL to prove he’s got the goods. And there’s no flight simulator equivalent to indicate how he would perform at the professional level.

All the collegiate all-stars can do for the scouts and the owners is to demonstrate their skills at the same (collegiate) level, again and again. That provides information but it’s not the same as playing in professional game conditions against professional competition, something that aspiring CEO Mary can better approximate in her performance trials. And that means athletes will continue to be judged more on performance (same level) rather than on potential (next level up), because that’s all the data that can be obtained. That makes it more difficult to gauge talent trajectory.

So that’s why the NFL and NBA will continue to rely as much on serendipity as on data-driven judgment: They make draft decisions based more on performance than on potential. And as a result they’ll continue to drop the ball often with regards to talent.

Make sure your organization works the performance/potential issue effectively in order to minimize your talent fumbles.

Mike Hoban is a senior consultant for Development Dimensions International (DDI).

It’s a VUCA World: Better Glocalize!

By Mark Dembo

It seems there’s a new buzzword for our recessionary aftermath, as we return from the miasma, and step back from the precipice: VUCA.  I came across this term just the other day, and literally stopped what I was doing to research this exotic sounding, yet surely important new word to enter the lexicon.  

As Wikipdia tells it, VUCA is an acronym used to describe or reflect on the volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity of general conditions and situations. The underlying idea is more than just the words that make up the acronym; it’s about the process, thinking and strategy that go into assessing and dealing with each of the VUCA elements – think of it as a post-modern SWOT analysis.

Which brings me to the other term I keep hearing bandied about these days: “glocalization.” Where global meets local: the “portmanteau” of global and local. It’s more than just “think global, act local” – it’s about organizations striking the right balance between tight central management, and decentralized local autonomy.

While we can get fatigued on the fad words of the day, there is some real truth behind needing to glocalize in our current VUCA world! With the great recession showing signs of defeat, we cannot be complacent to the destruction and changes left in its wake. As the Economist newspaper points out, in the US: “…the economy emerging from recession on not the same as the one that went in.” They further point out – and here’s the real kicker - “With consumers forced to live within their means, American firms will have to sell more to the rest of the world."

This last point is profound; ignore its implications at your own peril! For US multi-nationals, looking for growth in emerging markets is certainly not new. But now, it’s more than just a growth strategy, it’s a do-or-die strategy. We cannot rely on domestic spending to shore up the coffers.

For true growth to come from the “rest of the world,” organizations must truly be a part of that world. Simply exporting talent will not provide the in-depth cultural and local knowledge that is needed. To innovate in India or China or Brazil or Thailand – organizations must be seen as a part of the fabric of local life.

To succeed in the new VUCA world, organizations must be able to define their culture, create the “leadership brand” they stand for on a global basis, while providing the latitude for local interpretation and adaptation. It’s a fine line, and not necessarily an easy one to draw – those who achieve long-term “glocal”success will be the ones that can achieve this balance.

How prepared are your leaders to take on these new challenges VUCA challenges in a glocal world?

Mark Dembo is a manager for Development Dimensions International (DDI).

How Tying Your Shoes is the Key to Your Long Term Talent Strategy

By Ryan Heinl 

The other day around lunch time I was getting ready to go for quick run on the treadmill and I started to really tune into how I was tying my shoes. It sounds odd, but when was the last time you really focused on tying your shoes (Now that I’ve mentioned it, you will)?  As I watched my fingers dance around the snake-like laces I became keenly aware of how fast and automatically I was doing it.  This made me think of a recent blog post from Mike Hoban on the buildup of research on of the idea of deliberate practice. Books like Outliers, Talent is Overrated, and Talent Code hold up some pretty compelling research pointing to the importance of lots of practice over innate abilities as the critical ingredient for truly talented people. Another key insight from this research seems to be that practice on its own is not enough—you need feedback on your performance which you should improve the next time you practice. I think all of this surfaces some interesting opportunities to consider for talent management strategy.

We need to start finding people very early in their careers that have the ambition, learning agility and discipline to commit to a long-term leadership development program. This program would span over potentially 10 years (or more), which seems to be the length of time that gets you to the magic 10,000 hours of practice, putting you significantly ahead of most other leaders in skill level.  They would also have to submit to constant self-examination and feedback from others in the pursuit of improving interpersonal, leadership, and business skills. As these elite leaders become more and more expert, they would need to be continually confronted with new and more difficult leadership scenarios to overcome—requiring moving geographically and organizationally. As a participant you’d have to be committed…We are talking Chinese gymnastics team committed!

A company that wanted to seriously consider something like this would have to be willing to commit certain resources to each participant over a long period of time and the participants would have to essentially sign over their freedom to the company for a period of time. Sound a bit extreme? Maybe, but it’s really not that extreme or new for that matter. Consider the apprenticeship structure in Florence during the Renaissance where apprentices were committed to master craftsman for many years spawning one of the most creative and productive periods in history. 

With a generation of people entering the workforce and constantly crying out for structured career development and the opportunity for constantly increasing challenges combined with varied experiences, you could quickly use a program like this to make your company THE employer of choice.  I can see it now:  Come work for ABC company can get a chance to be a part of our acclaimed Elite Leadership Development 10 Year Program!

Ryan Heinl is a senior consultant for Development Dimensions International (DDI).

2.0 or not 2.0 – That is the Question.

By Verity Bissett-Powell

A voicemail from my Dad earlier today: “OK, I have finally succumbed and signed up for Facebook. It seems that it is the only way I can keep in touch and find out what you’re doing”. I have lived in America for two years and while I try my best to send my parents photos and call regularly with updates, my Dad still recognized that to truly understand what I was experiencing, he needed to get a Facebook account.

But what does this mean to the world of Talent Management? Just as Facebook has become a natural way of social life, similarly such modern media is going to become part of professional learning and development (note I say “is” and not “might”). The Kirkpatrick level 3 behavior change goal is going to get a V8 boost as various technological options propel development initiatives from concept into practice.

For example, if an organization wants to drive acceptance of change then they can blend instructor-led learning with a vodcast from the CEO on the benefits of continuous improvement, maybe a senior leader could write a one-week blog on the topic, and post-classroom the learners can share ideas through discussion boards, maybe even skill practice through Skype sessions organized via a LinkedIn group. Now, I’m not a betting person, but even I’d put money on such a varied learning model delivering the desired culture of change.

Of course, this 2.0 inclusion isn’t going to happen overnight. And what’s really interesting about using 2.0 capabilities in learning and development, is that for once the “top down” approach might not be the best bet. With the comfortable acceptance of social media by X and Y generations, this evolution is likely to move up the Leadership Pipeline, from the Tweeters to the Boomers.

Like Hamlet, I sought the perspective of my father on the question - 2.0 or not 2.0? Dad said he’s “sold” on it, but couldn’t talk long because he was having an IM conversation with an ex-colleague he’d found on Facebook.

Verity Bissett-Powell is a Consultant with Development Dimensions International (DDI).

Thomas Keller - Talent Champion

By Mike Hoban

Shout-out worthy talent management is found in many places as we’ve highlighted in this blog over the last few months. Business situations; athletic teams; the military – those are the usual suspects. I recently read an engaging article about talent management in a different and perhaps unexpected milieu, a story that provided much, um, food for thought: the kitchen in a world class restaurant. This is the story of Thomas Keller, entrepreneur, culinary wizard and Talent Manager extraordinaire. 

The article, in the current issue of Wine Spectator (Quick - What’s the difference between a wino and a connoisseur? About 8 bucks a bottle…) highlighted Keller’s success in creating the world renowned French Laundry restaurant in Napa Valley and then launching several other eateries across the country that generate rhapsody in foodies and critics alike. 

World class chefs are high achieving performers, and Julia Child notwithstanding, are sometimes thought of as being temperamental artistes, oozing with ego, exactitude and intolerance. That doesn’t seem to be part of Keller’s recipe for success according to the Wine Spectator piece. “Keller has achieved what he has in part because he is a brilliant cook but even more importantly because he realized he had to sublimate his ego to succeed.”  He’s quoted in the article as saying, “I am not the star, the team is the star.”   

“The team.” Might that just be cliché de jour for the master chef?  The story suggests otherwise, that there is steak as well as sizzle in Mr. Keller’s ruminations. Says a colleague and admirer: “He has created a culture in his restaurants that that not only values teamwork but finds and nurtures talent.  That, as much as anything, has made it possible for Keller to step aside from his various kitchens and pass the torch to others.”  A notable quotable about finding and nurturing talent is commonplace in a biz magazine.  But it’s hardly commonplace to read those words in a magazine for food buffs and cork dorks (Full disclosure – I subscribe…).   

So just how does he create this so-called talent management culture?  For one, by treating his underlings as culinary collaborators. When he ran the French Laundry, he involved members of his staff in creating new dishes and new menus. One chef who left to become a star in his own right calls him “inspirational,” someone who led by example and who was never abusive even when the kitchen was in a “crisis situation.”  And he demonstrated an interest in people personally. “People loved him. He has a lot of loyal followers” is how one ex-French Laundry chef describes him.   

Of course, there’s a price to pay for finding and nurturing talent and many of his cooks,  chefs and sommeliers have gone on to great food careers and ownership opportunities elsewhere.  A side article in the magazine lists 48 “protégés” (their word) who have become stars elsewhere. This was not a point being made about his seemingly high turnover, it was a point that one of his signature dishes seems to be talent management - finding and developing people. 

Keller made it a point to promote from within, to provide wing-stretching opportunities for young up-and-comers. And his philosophy about succession management? “Part of every chef and department head’s job is to identify a replacement and train him or her.”  And that POV has allowed him to expand his gastronomic empire to 9 restaurants across the U.S., all of which have enviable reputations.

He doesn’t run the eateries on a day-to-day basis anymore. As a good talent manager, he looks at his job as one of “giving people opportunities.”  He says that “If my presence is needed in the kitchen, I haven’t done my job.”

So good talent management can allow you to have your cake and eat it too. Especially in a restaurant.

Mike Hoban is a senior consultant for Development Dimensions International (DDI).

Got Gen Y?

By Ryan Heinl

I have to say, I’m tired of hearing about it. Every morning after I’ve overcome the hurdles of getting dressed in the dark (if you’re a dad, you know), the train, and grabbing my vice of choice from Starbucks, I pull up my trusty Google Reader and there are a string of articles and blog posts about Gen Y painted as this lazy, disrespectful, distracted and unrealistic generation.

Here’s something to consider, at 70 million plus, Gen Y is the first generation in a while to rival the baby boomers in size. They also bring tremendous opportunity in terms of new ideas, and ways of using information and technology that previous generations have never conceived. The companies who can engage and take advantage of these superhero-like technology skills and penchant for innovation will surely outpace their competitors. Here are just two opportunities think about:

Hive Mind: Imagine that you have a problem and within seconds you can toss it out like a chicken breast to a piranha-like swarm which chews it up and spits your problem back in the form of a variety of ideas. This generation is the first to really approach the full potential of what collaborative technology like Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Wikis can offer. A recent study from Accenture reveals just how entwined with technology this cohort really is. The value of this ability to channel thoughts and opinions from a diverse group of people both inside and outside of the organization is something that should not be underestimated. Leaders who are charged with facilitating change and solving big problems should be tapping into this generation.

Innovationistas: These days the commoditization of products, services, and people (think engineers in India) is happening faster and faster. We need to design new things that are unique and simple in function, meet an untapped market need, and look cool for any sort of sustainable market advantage. Add to that the fact that Gen Y is fast becoming the largest consumer demographic, and you had better be asking them for their ideas! Building an environment that cultivates innovative thinking requires leaders who are able to provide their teams with autonomy but at the same time offer clear direction and guidelines for achieving success.

I'm just dipping a pinky toe into how organizations can take advantage of Gen Y Talent. The bottom line is this: If you aren’t developing leaders who can engage your workforce through teamwork, autonomy, and clear sense of purpose, then you’ll not only experience turnover in your future, but you’ll also miss the many opportunities to leverage your company's future talent.

Ryan Heinl is a senior consultant for Development Dimensions International (DDI).

Focusing on a Fuzzy Future

By Mark Dembo

Depending on which news reports you read, or which way the wind is blowing, or which side of the street you’re walking on – either the economy is recovering, or we’re in for a double-dip, triple-dip, or who knows what else.  

The reality is nobody really knows for sure, or in the words of Paul Krugman; “I guess there might be a W and it will be fuzzy…”

But one thing is for sure: corporate CEOs don’t have any better clue either!  There’s a yin and yang, to and fro, up and down dynamic happening in the corner offices throughout the world.

What really caught my eye on this was the recently released report from The Conference Board, highlighting the Top CEO Challenges for 2010, a very telling barometer of the changes occurring in the economic climate. While there is a still a high degree of uncertainty in the marketplace, we're starting to see growth-oriented priorities come back to life in the minds of CEOs.

So what made the top 10?

1. Excellence in execution
2. Consistent execution of strategy by top management
3. Sustained and steady top-line growth
4. Customer loyalty/retention
5. Speed, flexibility, adaptability to change
6. Corporate reputation for quality products/services
7. Stimulating innovation
8. Profit growth
9. Improving productivity
10. Government regulation

This is very interesting and complex list. For example, a need to focus on execution, while also being flexible and nimble seems to be at odds with each other.  

On a regional level, some key differences emerge. In Asia, for example, “Finding qualified managerial talent” ranked #7, while in the U.S., “cash management” is a key concern (#10). 

For leaders, it seems a tough part to play: a need to be able to both shift gears quickly, and to lead in a world of sometimes opposing objectives. This is indeed the new reality.

For the talent managers in the organization, you’re probably asking yourself “given the quick changing nature of the global economy right now, where should I focus my limited time and resources?

Some thoughts:

• Start by identifying and articulating the business drivers for the organization.  (Those top critical things that leaders need to do to move the organization’s strategy forward.)
• Draw a wide net at all levels in the organization to take an "audit" to understand if you have the critical skills at all levels to succeed with those business drivers.
• Prioritize the most critical talent gaps and begin to address how you’ll fill them.  

And ask yourself some tough questions – are we as an organization prepared to meet these sometimes conflicting challenges?   How do we ensure that we can have the talent we need to lead in the ever-changing tides that are likely to continue for some time to come?

Mark Dembo is a manager for Development Dimensions International (DDI).