PeopleTree

Chemistry, Competencies and Cooking (Part 3)

2011-02-14T06:28:00.000-08:00

Selecting components for the data sets or Deciding on the “ingredients”

The concept to keep in mind during this stage is: frugal

\Fru"gal\, a. 1. Economical in the use or appropriation of resources; not wasteful or lavish; wise in the expenditure or application of force, materials, time, etc.; characterized by frugality; sparing; economical; saving; as, a frugal housekeeper; frugal of time.

The foundation of any talent management programme is information. How to collect it, store it, distribute it and leverage it. The two guiding principles for constructing the data sets are consistency and relevance.

Consistency means creating a common language, a set of building blocks that can be used to define any talent requirement in the organization. Been “frugal” with the number of categories of building blocks, we have identified three differentiated components. Behavioral competencies that differentiate superior performance, areas of knowledge that are required to perform the work and relevant experience that indicates contextual application of knowledge.

Success requires a combination of all three elements. It is not a question of isolating individual items, e.g. “I need someone who knows X”. This is often the request for talent that is heard from line managers. If HR finds someone who “knows X” but that person cannot build the relationships they need to get information (a behavioral competency) or they have never applied that knowledge in a similar context (a relevant experience), chances are they will fail.

Relevance means not collecting more information than needed to produce the end goal, the Talent Pool Map. Other than the three components already mentioned, a further three are needed to complete the data set.

There will need to be an option to determine the interest the person has in specific positions as a result of function and location. This information plays an important role not only in determining the individual’s motivation or willingness to move, but also in assessing the “attraction potential” of various positions and locations.

Each person has a “trading zone” or levels in the organization that they will be allowed to move in or between as a result of structural constraints. These levels are usually linked to a grading system and people can seldom skip a level when promoted. When people start matching their profile to the talent requirements of the organization, they will only look at the positions at the same level and one level above. Because talent requirements change faster than most people are promoted, it is pointless for someone to match themselves to a position two or three levels above when the requirement would have changed by the time they are eligible for it. When the organization looks for people, they will only look for people at the same level and one level below.

The last data point is availability. This is critical to support deployment of talent and to regulate the speed with which people are moved across the organization.

These six components represent the minimum requirements for producing a talent planner that can inform better people decision making.

Selecting a behavioral competency framework is a critical step and the following questions could be used to guide a decision.

Is it based on credible research and is a translation available between other research models? A credible research base means global, not local, unless you specifically do not want to consider competitiveness as a global issue. How the competencies are combined will vary by country (possibly), but the competencies themselves should not. If a translation doesn’t exist between the model you select and any other research models you may have used, then a lot of previous effort may have to be duplicated, e.g. the questions that have been compiled for interviewing.
Does it have enough elements to be useful for development? There is always the temptation to pick seven to ten competencies that summarize the CEO’s view of what leaders should look like. This is useful for communication purposes, but completely useless for assessment and development. Most competency models are created for selection purposes, so they tend to have fewer elements. Talent management is primarily a development strategy, so it can be problematic to base the competency framework on a selection model.
Can you license the content? There are very few researched competency frameworks that can be licensed for use, i.e. used in some system other than the one it is sold in. This can be very limiting and often makes an enterprise-wide deployment very difficult. The argument is often that this option is expensive, and the organization already has people who can build their own. Building a valid and robust, custom competency model is an expensive and time-consuming exercise. The thing to keep in mind is that as an organization your focus, and therefore allocation of resources, should not be building competency models, but applying them as part of the process of creating People Intelligence.
Does it have construct validity? In any research-based model this information should be available. But if an internal model which would seldom have these data available needs to be evaluated, it can be useful to look for the following common errors.

Globular clusters: The competencies are expressed as a combination of too many different components of behaviour e.g. Is an effective manager, communicator and leader. These are three enormously differentiated areas of competency and any evaluation of them as a single element would be meaningless.
Compound competencies: Without research, competencies are often created that contain unrelated behaviors, e.g. Is innovative and creative; respects the ideas of others and listens. Research has proven that there is a negative correlation between creativity (coming up with the new) and innovation (making it useable).. Just because it looks like it makes sense, doesn’t mean that it does.

Are there other tools that support the competency framework? A competency model shouldn’t exist in isolation. Just having the competencies is only part of what you will need for application. Is there a development framework to support it, e.g. coaching tips and development remedies; are there questions for interviewing? Are there organizational and/or team views of the competency set?

Other than the competency framework, it is also necessary to build a “Master List” or dictionary of knowledge and experience. This establishes a common language that can be used across the organization to build and define talent. Some of the common mistakes in building these lists are:

Not differentiating knowledge from experience. It may be possible for someone to know something e.g. financial accounting principles, without them ever having applied them in a particular context e.g. compiling annual financial reports. Often the definition of the knowledge elements include the words “ability to ..” this implies application and requires experience.
Using qualifications to define knowledge requirements. Any qualification is too broad to serve as a useful differentiator. At one client the area of “Electrical Engineering” required a breakdown of 37 different areas of knowledge to make the list useful. A qualification can serve as proof of knowledge, but it doesn’t help to differentiate an individual’s talent profile.
Over or Under Granularity. The most challenging aspect of building a knowledge dictionary is to decide on levels of granularity. Talent management is a strategy for the top 10% - 15% of the organization. A skills development strategy can be adopted for lower levels, so there is no reason to get to the “particle” level of knowledge.
Duplication of knowledge items. Categories of knowledge are often created in functional silos. This leads to the problem of replicating the same knowledge item in different categories, e.g. Budgeting appears in both the Finance and Operations areas of knowledge.
Compound items. The challenge is to create a language of “words” rather than “phrases”. If a knowledge item, e.g. “Financial Accounting” is defined as “knowledge of cost accounting, management accounting and budgeting”, then you can’t create another item called “Cost Accounting” and go on to define that as it is already included in the first definition.

The Process of Engagement or Convincing Line Managers to give you the time

Positioning a talent management programme requires a three pronged communications approach to shape the perceptions of Executives, Line Managers and Staff so that they lend their support to the process.

1. Executive Perception: Communication needs to be focused on “Return on Investment”. A business case needs to be made to justify the cost of implementation. The simplest form of this is to ask the question, “How much do wrong decisions cost us?” One incorrect hiring decision, development decision or promotion decision or retention decision. If the company doesn’t have the right information, the probability of the right decision being made is significantly lower.

2. Management Perception: Communication needs to focus on “taking away the pain”. The pain of conflict, lost time, frustration and missed goals. Any sports coach knows that he lives or dies by the players on the team. The better the talent, the more likely you are to win. And the reverse is true as well. The aim of communication to this group is to gain commitment to the process and to demonstrate value. The talent pool map is the key to this.

3. Key staff: Communication for this group needs to focus on the importance of visibility. If the organization doesn’t know who you are, what you can do and where you want to go, it is unlikely that you will be a part of their people decision making process.

In part 4 we'll take a look at how to use the information to create a talent analytics capability that can be used to drive talent investment decisions.

Chemistry, Competencies and Cooking (Part 2)

2010-07-26T09:01:00.000-07:00

Keeping the end goal in mind

There is a direct correlation between the quality of a decision and the quality of the information that the decision is based on. This fact seems to be acknowledged in every area of business decision making, hence the need for business intelligence, e.g. defect rates, financial ratios, safety figures etc. or market intelligence e.g. customer segmentation, potential market size, customer satisfaction etc. However this fact does not seem to apply to people decisions. Most managers are happy to go with a perception, a gut feel, a recommendation. This may be because in the absence of “People Intelligence” there is no other choice.

Most organizations are not short of people data, but talent management decisions related to selection, development, deployment and retention are not assisted by knowing an individual’s bank details, number of dependents or available days leave. Before addressing the issue of what data is necessary to support these decisions, it may be useful to start with the end in mind and create a “talent planner” format. Most people, particularly line managers, respond best to a format that immediately attracts their attention to high priority items. Go to the PeopleTree Group website (www.peopletreegroup.com) and click on the "Overview of Talent Management" option at the bottom left of the screen. Click through the presentation until you see the dashboard, this is what we refer to as a “Talent Pool Dashboard”.

The detail for each area will be dealt with throughout the rest of the article, the purpose is to keep in mind how the talent management process will help to inform line management decision making. It is therefore useful to consider the type of decisions line managers will need to make and therefore the information they will need.

Do I need to focus on development within this person’s current job? (Current Position Fit)
Have I approved the development that has been identified and what is the current status? Overdue, due this month, due more than one month from now (Development required)
Is what we know about this person’s talent still valid? i.e. is it up to date and verified? (Talent Profile)
Can anyone else do what this person does? i.e. will I be at risk if I lose this person tomorrow? (Alternative Talent)
Do I have any possible successors who are ready to move up into this person’s position? (Possible Successors)
Does this person see a future in the organization – i.e. have they indicated that they are interested in other positions? (Interest)
How should I invest in this person’s development? It is important to differentiate between leading (accelerated development), leveraging (performance enhancement) or lagging (performance improvement) development. (Investment)
Is this person ready to move to the next level? i.e. promotability (Mobility)
How important is it that we retain this person’s talent? i.e. are they a high potential, a high performer or do they have scarce skills? (Retention)

This end goal will determine what information needs to be collected and how it should be formatted to make it understandable and actionable. However, before moving on, we should deal with the inevitable conflict that will arise between the roles of “Talent User” and “Talent Custodian”.

Line managers are Talent Users. It is in their interest to have the “best players” on the field. Their results depend on having competent people in their team. There are usually significant risks associated with a lack of competence and there is undoubtedly an impact on the manager’s time if development is needed to get a person up to speed. Talent Users are not interested in long-term development of a talent bench. They are driven by short-term utilization.

Someone in HR, but preferably the Senior Executive or CEO, needs to play the role of Talent Custodian. The ultimate aim of any talent management programme is to build a talent bench for an organization that ensures an adequate supply of talent for the organization’s needs. If it was simply a question of going to market and buying it as required, this would be a simple process and there would be no need for a talent management programme. The reality is that talent is a scarce commodity. Organization’s have no choice but to build it and that is a long-term strategy. Even with a concerted effort and the right level of commitment it is a five to ten year exercise. Experience suggests that there are very few organizations that can sustain a single HR programme for this length of time. The other challenge is ensuring that the Talent Users to accept a certain “cost” associated with development. Maintaining this balance between “best fit” and “best development” is challenging and without a People Intelligence process in place. Best fit will win every time.

Part 3 will deal with the issue of choosing the initial data sets, i.e. what information do you need to collect to start managing talent.

Chemistry, Competencies and Cooking (Part 1)

2010-04-22T06:34:00.000-07:00

“We have decided that the periodic table of elements, the basic building blocks of the universe, are not applicable to our world. We need to create our own list of elements because we are so different from everyone else that it doesn’t apply. We are going to classify this new periodic table based on color, so instead of atomic numbers, we will have them listed from red to indigo. We think it is better to base our model on what we can see, rather than an analysis of structure.

By doing this, we will exclude ourselves from the entire body of knowledge that has been built on the actual periodic table, and will therefore need to establish an entirely new set of rules that govern our version of chemistry. We will completely isolate ourselves from any research that is done within the field of chemistry, even though there is a significant amount of learning we could extract from it. We won’t be able to use any of the current tools that have been developed, because they are all based on a different system of classification, so we will also have to custom-build anything needed to actually make this new periodic table useful.”

The argument above is so absurd that it is unlikely that anyone would dare to use it, especially not as the basis for requesting funding for a project. Yet substitute “Competency Model” for “periodic table” and “competencies” for elements, and these projects have been approved time and time again within organizations looking to implement a competency approach. Maybe it is the exclusion of the second paragraph in the project proposal that leads to the decision to re-invent what already exists. Maybe it is because the area of Human Resources is seen as an art (for “art” read “fluffy intangible soft issues”) rather than a science, that we don’t apply the same principles of proof, rigor and research. Either view, art or science, on its own, will lead to an erroneous view of how people work, what makes them successful and how we can build effectiveness. This is why the concept of cooking has been added to the title of the article.

Cooking is not only about the individual ingredients. If you consumed flour, sugar, cocoa and butter, then washed it down with a glass of milk, you would not feel that you had eaten a chocolate cake. The ingredients need to be blended in the right proportions and baked using a variety of possible processes, each one leading to a result. But some will produce a better output than others. The properties of taste, aroma and texture are “emergent properties” of the individual ingredients, i.e. they are produced only when the individual ingredients, with their own properties, are combined in a certain proportion. So what is the similarity between chocolate cake and project managers?

When a line manager specifies what type of person they need, they are referring to the “emergent properties” level, e.g. a project manager who can deliver on time, on budget and within specifications. (They specify “chocolate cake”, not the ingredients). The role of an HR practitioner is to “decode” the ingredients, and then find them (inside or outside the organization), build them or retain them. This is the practice of talent management and it cannot be done without first establishing a “periodic table of elements” or competency framework.

In future posts we'll discuss the components of a competency framework, criteria for selection of a model, considerations for collecting and managing this information and how to integrate the information into the business decision making processes of an organization and create “People Intelligence” (the equivalent of market or business intelligence).