Come Join The Conversation On LinkedIn

Hi all,

I invite you to join me on my blog over at LinkedIn.  I have moved the conversation over there to be able to include more voices.  My posts can be found at https://www.linkedin.com/today/author/437316.  I hope to hear your opinions over there soon.

David

WIFM – Writing Competencies Correctly

Too often companies believe that they can purchase competencies off the shelf and with a little tweaking have them fit your organization.

Creating company specific competencies right means they are developed:

-       In house

-       Information collected from incumbents who are highly successful

-       Information collected from those interacting with the role or level

-       Ensure only one behaviour for each behavioural statement

-       In house content validation

-       Consistent with the values and strategic business plan

This is what’s in it for you, if you choose to do competencies right –

The ADHD Organization (Part Two)

Does Your Organization Have ADD?

As someone who has grappled with ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) I recognize the signs when I see the behaviours in others. While there is no diagnostic tool to categorize those behaviours in organizations, I think it’s fair to say that many organizations mirror similar challenges.

Characteristics

For instance, have you ever worked hard to meet a deadline for a project that does not seem to fit with the organization’s strategic plan? Has that deadline changed a few times along the way, becoming more or less urgent for no apparent reason? And after you met the deadline did you discover that your work was not going to be used, at least not immediately?

If so, your organization is probably the type that reacts first and thinks things through later.

Have you ever been involved in the launch of a new program before a previous program has been given time to take root? Or have you noticed when a program that is supposed to cover the whole organization has a different message or content at different levels or divisions of the organization?

If so, your organization is probably the type that has trouble staying the course, and also fails to communicate with any clarity and consistency to employees.

Does your organization turn quickly to outside leaders to run the business or solve its problems during moments of crisis?

If so, it is probably the type that does not recognize the importance of culture or its own values.

There are a hundred other manifestations of organizational behaviours that mirror ADHD. Many organizations are obsessed with deadlines, busy-ness, and change at the expense of careful thought, consistency, and focus. This type of hyperactive responsiveness and quick changes in position, culture (values) and vision is pervasive today.

In humans, ADHD is caused by the persistent firing of neurons in the brain, such that the brain works in overdrive constantly in order to keep up and “feel normal.” In organizations, I would argue that a leading cause of a similar hyperactivity and overdrive comes from the persistent noise of Wall Street with its demands to achieve more and more every 90 days.

What consequences do organizations with ADHD suffer? The anxiety of urgency certainly overwhelms efforts to focus on longer-term objectives. Such organizations also tend to focus on immediate problems at the expense of noticing anything else happening around them. Ironically, as a result, when new opportunities or challenges arise, they do not show awareness or respond in helpful ways or make needed adjustments on time. Organizations with ADHD characteristics also suffer from high turnover, low productivity, and problems with safety, customer service, and quality.

Treatment

For people with ADHD there are a variety of very helpful treatments. These include a mix of approaches from behavioural training to medical prescriptions.  While there are no pills for organizations yet, there are some behavioural changes that can lead to much better results.

For example, ADHD organizations should:

·    Encourage face-to-face meetings as much as possible, so that people will need to actually pay attention to one another

·       Reward leaders who prioritize what’s important over what’s urgent

·       Recognize and reward those who live the values, especially in difficult circumstances

·    Set project goals that are clearly linked to helping the organization advance toward its strategic plan and overall vision

·       Realize that culture trumps strategy and that values are the root of the culture

·       Resist an “Us versus Them” mindset

·       Provide sufficient time to get work done and avoid crisis-making through deadlines

·       Show appreciation for employee contributions

·       Unplug when possible

·     Hold people truly accountable by stopping the blame game and excuse making and focusing on performance improvement in line with values

It Gets Better

Like any person, it can be difficult for an organization to come to terms with the idea that it has ADHD. The acceptance is even more difficult emotionally than it is intellectually. But it is only through such acceptance that serious action can result.

When I came to understand that I had ADHD 12 years ago, I learned that self-awareness was 75% of the battle. But without making effort and seeking help you can’t manage the journey alone.

Organizations that become aware of their ADHD need to make sustainable changes to their work processes and culture to create a healthy and desirable place to work. Not only will this payoff in better organizational performance, but also it may distract Wall Street in a good way for a change.

The ADHD Organization (Part One)

Just what HR needs more anachronisms that make no sense: OADHD (or Organizational ADHD).  In my next pair of blog posts I am going to discuss ADHD and organizations.

As a person who is living with ADHD, I found Daniel Goleman’s recent post on the ADHD organization most interesting.  I responded with a comment that he missed the point and the characteristics he attributed to the ADHD organization do not reflect the attributes of ADHD.  I was surprised by the number of likes and comments on my comment, almost unanimously agreeing that he missed the concept al together. But I do agree the headline grabbed you in to read the post. 

Finding Your Way Around 360 Feedback (Part Three)

For my third (and final) part of my blog postings on 360 Feedback, I am going to focus on the outcome of the feedback.  It is important to get the feedback right, but it is also vital that the feedback receiver do something with this newfound information about themselves.  Below are some thoughts on ensuring the best use of the data collected.

Finding Your Way Around 360 Feedback (Part Two)

In the first part of my post on 360 Feedback, I discussed general policies and ideas.  In today’s post, I am going to focus on some more specific ways to optimize your gains from feedback.  Let me know other ways you have found to help ensure quality feedback and outcomes.

Finding Your Way Around 360 Feedback (In Three Parts)

My first blog post of 2014 is going be in three parts.  I wanted to discuss one of my favourite topics 360 (or Multi-source) Feedback.  I felt that there is a lot to discuss and I wanted to give each post an opportunity to be discussed and dissected.

In an effort to limit the subjectivity in understanding people’s performance, the logical conclusion is to gather data from multiple perspectives.  This all makes sense. I clearly remember my days at a school in New Jersey and the head of the system cautioned me to be careful about exceeding budget year over year. I figure it was for a just cause, education, the results would prove their worth.  So after three years of my stubborn approach to the feedback he called me aside and shared with me a saying from his grandmother.  A saying I often draw on when providing feedback from 360˚ reports: “if one person tells you your drunk, you can ignore it; if two people say you are drunk you might want to pay attention and if three say you are drunk, lay down.” 

This simple saying encapsulates the essence of the thought behind 360 Feedback. 

Music to My Ears - Measuring the Behavioural Competency Beat

I was at a Bruce Hornsby concert recently and there was a line in a song that got me thinking: “20/20 vision and walking ‘round blind”.  It turns out the line is from an old Jimmy Martin song. 

You should feel sorry for me as a human resources consultant that in such a moment, struck by such a poetic line, the first thing that came to mind was a question: “How do you measure behavioural competencies?”

Perhaps it’s because performance reviews are around the corner. Many performance reviews I have had experience with use a scale akin to the traditional five point Likert Scale with the high point being “Exceeds expectations.”  That should be a red flag. After all, how can you exceed expectations when it comes to the demonstration of desired behaviours?

On LinkedIn you can find a spectrum of comments on this debate that range from: “Why bother trying to capture the behavioural performance since it is totally subjective?” to “Use a tool like 360˚ feedback as a means of getting ‘meaningful’ feedback.”  Neither of which are helpful. Everyone who thinks they have the answer has 20/20 vision, while those who say there is no answer believe it is impossible to see.

So how do you measure behaviour and can you measure it objectively? 

The ABC’s of Forced Ranking

No matter where you go employees hate forced ranking – the system by which all employees are ranked as A Players (Top 20%), B Players (Middle 70%), and C Players (Bottom 10%). This is especially so when forced ranking is combined with “rank and yank”, meaning the automatic dismissal of the C Players. Is this just a case of employees being afraid of a cutthroat form of performance appraisal, or do they have a legitimate beef?

We can credit Jack Welch with popularizing the concept when he ran GE to such a great performance record. From his perspective, Forced Ranking is a humane system of performance management (Wall Street Journal in a January 2012). Approximately 60% of Fortune 500 companies still use the system, though some have expanded to five categories over three. Many also insist they do not establish quotas for each category.

And yet, managers being human beings (most of the time), it seems unlikely that the practice of forced ranking doesn’t force them to identify their A, B, and C Players pretty sharply. This forces us to consider a conundrum. If a manager is successful in getting his or her employees to meet or exceed their team objectives, is it legitimate to assess some of those employees as poor performers? Presumably, a manager who is achieving such success is holding people accountable, removing obstacles, coaching up performance, and doing everything necessary to produce desired results. What does it say when, at the end of the year, that manager must stand up and declare some employees to be crucial while others are expendable? What does that do to the group in question?

Strategy Versus Culture

For some reason, whenever a leader wants to affect a big shift in the organization, it’s culture that gets picked on. But is culture the problem or the answer?

Some time ago, a lottery company asked for my help in changing their culture. I listened to what they had in mind. Most of the changes they described were tactical, about business strategy.  So I took a time out and asked them to tell me about their culture, and then about their values. They were able to describe that culture and list those values quickly. After they’d finished, I asked them if they still believed in respect, honesty, customer service, and execution. They said that they did. There was a pause as this sunk in. I suggested to the group that they weren’t really interested in changing their culture, they were looking to change their business plan. This insight completely rearranged how they were looking to solve their problems.

In fact, the lottery company, like any organization, would be more successful implementing change if they did so from the foundation of their unchanging culture. In the last section of my book Inside the Box, the final chapter is subtitled “Culture trumps strategy every time.”  The reason is simple. Deeply rooted behaviours define the values, which are the bedrock of the culture. These elements are the basis for success in the organization. Their taught or passed on from one generation of employees to the next.

Don't Change Your Culture, Celebrate It!

I see it time and again. Culture is what makes an organization unique. If you try and fight that culture, you’ll lose every time. If you embrace it, you give yourself a better chance to win.

Most recently, I was working with a large university hospital to define the unique attributes and behaviours that make their leaders successful. The hospital is over 200 years old and has a long and proud history.  While talking with different employees at different levels about leadership, it became clear that the leaders who made the most meaningful contributions to the organization were those that lived and celebrated the hospital’s values. Those that failed or sputtered out just “didn’t fit” or “tried to change our culture.”

What Are Employee Engagement Surveys Really Assessing?

Does an increase in employee engagement scores lead to an increase in productivity or does an increase in productivity result in an increase in employee engagement scores? 

Much has been written on employee engagement, most of which focuses on the correlation that an increase in employee engagement leads to an increase in productivity.  In the Forbes article “Why Employee Engagement? (These 28 Research Studies Prove the Benefits)” 9/04/2012 increased engagement scores are linked to improvements in everything from retention, customer service revenue, profit, and shareholder returns, to service, sales, quality, and more. You would think that a little effort on improving employee engagement would cure just about anything in the workplace.

Performance and Pay: Money Doesn't Buy Happiness (Or Results)

Recently I was having a conversation about the issues associated with putting in place a performance management process that is meaningful for both the company and employees.  During the discussion the issue of how to allocate bonuses based on the results of the performance review reared it’s ugly head. That led to a discussion on ‘forced’ distribution. The culture of the firm I was speaking with has always rewarded the top performers through the output of the performance reviews. I suggested that this sacred cow needed to be examined more closely.

Many organizations struggle with this concept: Do you link bonus and pay to the performance review or do you disjoin the two?

OD and HR: What's The Big Difference?

There is a question floating around that is being asked frequently: what are the roles and differences between human resources and organizational development? The line seems to have blurred for some.  The blurring of the line has made the issue more and more unclear as to the differences between them.

There seems to be no clear-cut answer.  Recently at a Toronto OD Network session the issue was tackled.  Similarly a few year back the topic was the focus of a learning team I facilitated at a Linkage OD Summit.   Simply put what are the differences between the role for OD and HR? It is my hope that readers of the blog will weigh in on the topic.

Keeping Afloat In The Competency Pool

Back in 2001 I wrote an article “How To Stay Afloat In The Competency Pool”. I observed that when I had started in consulting and tried to ‘sell’ the link between individual performance and their behaviour that it was a tough sell. By the time I wrote the article, the link between how you behave and how you perform had become understood.  Unfortunately, what has not changed from then until now is the proclivity of organizations that don’t consider their own uniqueness before buying pre-defined competency models.  But then I started to consider what I have learned or what has been solidified from the 11 years since that article was published.  Below is a list of some of the major points that I thought.  After reading the list, please consider my thoughts and respond to any point individually or add ideas of your own in the comments section.

Topic of the Month for September - Competencies

From the suggestions we received, I have decided to start the discussion with the topic on competencies and competency models.  The question had four main aspects:

1. Should an organization create their own or buy an off-the-shelf model?
2. How do you evaluate the efficacy of a model or vendor?
3. Comparison of competency models
4. Who are reputable vendors?

While I will be sharing my opinion and insight into the topic, I also ask the others please share theirs.  Individual experiences will help us all learn more to help our own organizations be more successful.

Topic of the Month for September - We Need Your Input

Starting in September I will be introducing a new feature on The Talent Edge Blog – the Topic of the Month. 

This will give us an opportunity to have an in-depth conversation in one area of concern to the OD/HR community. It’s my hope that we’ll debate points of view, and share ideas, resources, and experiences to advance solutions and approaches together.

I’d like to keep the selection of the topics open, and I encourage you to put suggestions forward in the comments section below. From the range of ideas presented, we’ll choose one topic to discuss. But if there are any topics you require advice on from this community, or if you would like to share a story or experience, please do so in the comments section. Let’s make this conversation lively and useful.

For those who aren’t familiar with my past articles, white papers, and books, here is a link to the archive on my website:

http://www.sagltd.com/sagltd.com/Articles.html

I’ll pull up one or two relevant articles each month. Again, if you have any reactions or suggestions, please reference the article and feel free to build on my thoughts or do your best to tear them down. Given that some of these articles were written some time ago, I’m sure we have all learned a thing or two since. 

I’m looking forward to the conversation. 

Putting Past Behaviour Into Perspective: Keys to Successful Selection

Everyone who teaches behavioural interviewing is quick to note that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour.

But are you the same person now that you were in high school or even college?

We all evolve. Hopefully, we all learn from the past. Optimistically, we may be able to avoid repeating the same old mistakes as we get older. Who knows? Maybe we can even retain lessons of past successes and carry those secrets with us into the future, so that we get better and better over time.

So does the adage about past behaviour predicting the future really hold true?

Welcome To My Blog

Welcome to my blog.  For those who don’t know me, I’m David Cohen, Founder and Principal at Strategic Action Group Ltd.

I’m a contrarian consultant with a passion for connecting the talent of people with the strategy of organizations.

I believe that people bring the most commitment, creativity, and energy to the job when personal and organizational values are aligned.

I think that leaders who live the values of the organization, and prize learning and growth, get the most out of the people who work for them.

I like to debate, and I don’t often agree with the fads of consulting in the talent management world, so please let me know when you agree or disagree with my strongly stated opinions. Let’s generate an exchange of ideas, experiences, and perspectives.

We’ll be talking about talent management, including issues related to:

Still Incompetent About Competencies

Given the proliferation of consultants selling globally research behavioural competency models it must be confusing to pick one that actually fits your organization’s culture and business strategy.  These behavioural competency models provide you with a long list of categories further broken down into supposed behavioural statements.  Given that you know they are research based and sold by an internationally reputable firm you are comfortable bringing this generic and cleansed dictionary into your organization.

Reality is you are giving people a clear roadmap of behaviours for them to follow that has not been tested by your employees, validated by your organization and built off of your corporate culture (values) and strategic business plan.  You now expect employees to demonstrate actions, which in the past they have not demonstrated, even though the actions they are currently doing are leading to the desired results. Suddenly you are comparing your people against the new model of expected behaviours, that you paid outrageous amounts for, and suddenly good people have new deficiencies.

Issues with competencies models and performance management and selection: