Talent management - issues and challenges

Toxic behaviour in organisations

2009-01-07T05:28:00.000-08:00

Single-minded focus on “shareholder value,” which measures performance on the sole basis of stock price has led to a lot of pain. However, pain is part of organisational life. Pain by itself isn’t toxic. The way pain is handled (harmful Vs healing way) over a period of time results in emotional toxicity. Toxicity in the workplace appears through leadership, culture or managers. Toxicity is the pain that strips people of their self esteem and that disconnects them from their work.

Leverage from an anatomical sense causes pain and the current financial pain is also the result of leverage. In business, lack of value alignment between individuals and organisation causes pain, which if left unattended manifests as toxic behaviours at work.

The current financial turmoil can and will cause friction amongst people. When jobs are lost by the dozen, people would resort to unhealthy and unethical practices. They would resort to anything to undermine others advantage to enhance their job security. It could manifest as bullying and intimidating behaviour towards meek colleagues. It could manifest as working the rumour mills over time with heavy weighted or strong colleagues.

The impact of toxic behaviour is huge as it can upset the effectiveness and efficiency of the workforce. If employees are bullied constantly at work, their survival instinct kicks in which could be catastrophic for the individual as well as the organisation. The increased stress levels can result in erratic behaviour involving wrong decisions, costing a fortune to the organisation and eventually resulting in reduction in head count. Power play on the other hand has similar effects but on a grander scale. Toxic behaviour of two power players can lead to loss of talent which could have been retained otherwise.

There is a legal angle that organisations need to consider when they choose to ignore toxic behaviour. In a recent judgement Abbey had to award close to £2 Million to an investment banker as he was bullied at work in the UK. When there are emotional scars that run deep that stunts their confidence and paralyses the individuals ability to perform better. Its just a matter of time before the Law firms in India start representing cases like this. In addition to a huge payout the organisation deters talented people because of the negative publicity that comes associated with it.

We as human beings routinely undergo health check-up to monitor our health. Most of us , have annual maintenance contracts for our equipments to prevent failures. In a society that believes in prevention than cure, early diagnosis over surgery, shouldn’t organisations also go through a routine health check?

Earn Respect

2008-12-04T04:21:00.000-08:00

In today’s world talent is a precious commodity where demand far exceeds supply. The economy is moving from a manufacturing to a knowledge economy. In that context companies are increasingly finding it difficult to find talent and finding it more difficult to retain them. In addition to that a new generation has entered the work force Gen Y who are extremely ambitious, demanding and connected. Managers are finding it difficult to handle this workforce. In the current context organisations have seriously think, rethink about the talent pool they have in their organisation and should also think how they should / could cultivate talent within to ensure that a steady talent pipeline. It becomes all the more important to retain talent.

For that to happen HR has to be seen as a strategic function than a supporting function. So HR has to up its game and earn respect. A study by mercer clearly states that HR managers want to move up the value chain but feel that they are not equipped to handle the responsibility because of lack of exposure / experience. For HR managers to move upstream they should objectively analyse the current situation of HR in their organisation and what needs to be done to move away from traditional processing mentality to a strategic approach

Many HR managers want to move from a process to a strategic stream. Many studies have shown that although there is some progress lot needs to be done to alter thinking. To do that HR should become a board room agenda and HR managers should demonstrate the reasons why it should be a top priority amongst leaders.

Due diligence of HR.
Managers need to objectively analyse the value their function or department adds/ creates/ protects. The objective deliverable at the end of this introspection should result in HR Managers gain an insight on what could be outsourced, centralised, and what is really strategic.

Role of recruitment
Recruitment is an important function where HR Managers can add immense value. However, it is very rarely viewed with respect or taken seriously. The inability of HR Managers to quantify the value of their recruitment initiatives creates a major setback when it comes to creating a case study for the number driven leadership.

Strategy drives Talent Management
Talent Management is an area that would help HR Managers become more strategic. By understanding the business vision, Mission and the strategies to get there, HR managers could evaluate their existing talent pool and identify Stars, Angels, Guardians and Foot soldiers. Organisations loose a lot of revenue due to business disruption caused by Manpower shortage. If HR managers can quantify the damage occurring due to talent shortage and then demonstrate how their talent management strategy has ensured no shortfall, they will naturally earn Respect.

Create relevant Benchmarks
By creating benchmarks and milestones that are relevant to the strategic objectives HR managers can transfer recruitment initiatives from Process focus to Strategic focus.. HR managers for example evaluate fit from a role or cultural perspective and how that has resulted in fuelling a positive culture resulting in effectiveness

Quantification
Last but not least many HR initiatives fail because HR managers are not able to quantify the value of the training interventions. Many HR managers are qualitative and not quantitative. If HR managers can start adding value by talking the number language their opinions would start carrying more weightage. By shifting the focus to number crunching and by focussing on using that insights to any HR interventions HR will become more strategic.

Belief directed to Value driven Leadership

2008-12-04T03:46:00.000-08:00

The world changed when Lehman brothers went bankrupt. Not only did it reveal the need to change the way our financial systems operate, but also clearly indicated the perils of shareholder focus and the bonus culture. The current scenario is just the tip of the iceberg and no one exactly knows what will happen when the real picture is revealed.

It was not that the financial institutions nor the governments weren’t aware of the dangers that could paralyse the system when banks relaxed their lending criteria, leveraged their assets, increased exposure to risky instruments. Everything seemed to work well. Banks, companies increased their risk exposure, hedge funds had a field day and managers walked away with fat bonuses based on anticipated income streams. When the music stopped playing, the parcel was with Lehman and they were out.

If one were to look at why this happened and why people didn’t avert this scenario even though they could have, it goes back to only one thing. Values! Yes that’s right values. If we examine any leader speak, they always talk about values and beliefs. They constantly substitute values for beliefs and vice versa so much so that very few can distinguish between values and beliefs. I can hear people mutter its just semantics… actually it is not…

Beliefs are the product of your conscious mind. In a belief scenario there is always room for anticipation. Any belief could and would have at-least alternate belief(s). Let me clarify: Banks believed that by relaxing their lending criteria and offering more loans, they can earn more money. When all works precisely its good but when people default, then the banks belief in the strategy is proved wrong.

Values unlike beliefs don’t have an option. If you believe in honesty that is a value. If you believe in honesty then you don’t believe in dishonesty. Whereas if you believe that honesty is the best policy, you could also believe that dishonesty is the best policy. The fine line between values and beliefs is that values are not alterable and if you believe in them, you believe in them period! Beliefs on the other hand are alterable.

Beliefs can be changed whereas values can’t be changed. If you alter the belief that stealing from old women is wrong, that doesn’t mean that person wouldn’t steal from a handicapped person. Whereas if you start working from the value perspective, you start with the premise stealing is wrong, which requires a change in beliefs.

If we look at the style of leadership in financial institutions, I can say with conviction that these leaders are more belief directed than value driven. Focus on profits and short-term perspective has contributed to the current debacle. I am not saying that companies shouldn’t be interested in profits. All I am saying is that, “greed” shouldn’t govern the profit motive. The value Greed influences beliefs and that manifests as behaviour.

Belief driven leadership always creates room for ambiguity whereas value governed leadership is more straightforward. Belief directed leadership could bring a change without changing the value. Whereas value governed leadership would definitely require a change in beliefs.

Values governed leadership would alter the culture and ensure value congruence between organisations and individuals. Having said that, if people have the wrong values then value governed leadership would be more catastrophic than belief directed leadership.

Did you know that belief driven organisations are more susceptible to toxic leadership and toxic behaviours than value governed organisations?

Values, Behavior and Strategy

2008-12-04T03:43:00.001-08:00

If an organisation is a collection of individuals then how individuals behave would influence the organisations behaviour or culture. Individual behaviour can have a profound impact on organisation behaviour when the lndivudals are in leadership positions. Behaviour is a response to a situation or scenario which is more of biology, which means a response to any situation or problem is hardwired in the brain. The response is generated by active learning and by altering perceptions. Is it therefore possible to predict how an organisation would behave by analysing the behaviour of its leaders?

In an organisation like Apple of Microsoft, Steve jobs or Bill gates influence organisations behaviour. If the organisations don’t have a iconic leader then the collective behaviours of the leadership team would influence the way the organisation behaves. Studies have revealed that any organisation absorbs some of the behaviours of the founders and imbibes it as part of its culture. The HP way, P&G’s focus are some examples. However, organisations cannot succed if the employees don’t behave the organisation wants or expects them to behave. Should companies then focus on behaviour manangement to align its work force?

Behaviour is a response to a scenario at that point in time, given the circumstances. If the response is from an individual we call it behaviour and if it’s the response from an organisation can we then call it strategy? If you have answered no to question on managing individual behaviour, would you say no to organisational behaviour too? Is strategy therefore a response to a stimulus than a well thought out process? Isnt that HR?

There is no dispute that an individuals core values influence their behaviour. Extending the same thought process, does an organisations value system reflect part or the collective value systems of the leaders? If it does, then isnt it more important to look at value more seriously than giving it a fleeting attention?

I wonder how many organisations out there would really be able to say that their organsiations values are a,b,c. I can bet that many organisations would come up with honesty, integrity, customer focus as part of their value sets.. Give me a break, if you are not honest, have no integrity, will your business sustain for long and if you decide not to focus on customers can you afford to survive?

What connects individuals and organisation is not at the behavioral level but is more fundamental and is value driven. Increasingly employees are happy to work with organisations that tend to give back to the community. Its rather unfortunate that individuals or organisations cannot identify and articulate their core values that manifests as thought and behaviour. Values could be at the individual level , social level or societal level. Individual value is about core values that govern individuals, Social value is the value that influences relationships and Societal value influences societal relationship.

Value alignment results in employee engagement. Value alignment ensures cohesive transition in an organisation. Value alignment can improve customer focus, act with integrity, honesty. Value alignment – would that be the new mantra?

Are employees your organisations asset

2008-12-04T03:29:00.000-08:00

Are employees your organisations asset?

Employees are an asset to an organisation is a phrase that has been used and abused by many organisations. Assuming that organisations believe in this and try to maintain employee friendly initiatives they still see employees migrate to greener pastures. Why does it happen? What are they doing wrong?

In this article we argue that organisations have fundamentally got it wrong and demonstrate why their initiatives fail. Now lets start with the grand statement, employees are an asset. That statement in itself is wrong. The dictionary states that an asset is, "Anything owned that can be evaluated and assessed a value, a financial value.” An asset has to be owned and can be evaluated in dollar terms. Practitioners and academicians are trying to find ways to measure the value employees generate, forget valuing employees which is proving to be difficult. If we look at the next premise an asset has to be owned and if we ask if companies really own employees, the answer is NO. Employees cannot be owned by an organisation and the value they add is difficult to quantify, which very clearly says that employees cannot and will not be an asset.

Going back to the statement employees are our asset, we see that it is fundamentally flawed. This only helps us understand the mindset of the organisations that say that. Any organisation that makes this statement is missing the point altogether. Employees cannot be owned and if you don’t own them you cannot control them to do what you want. So, knowledge and talent leakage is inevitable. If organisations get this fundamental idea clear then their approach to their employees will change.

Customers pay money to buy an organisations product or services. Employees on the other hand are paid to invest their expertise to create the products and services these customers buy. If organisations invest so much time, effort to increase customer satisfaction, retention, shouldn’t they be investing more time to retain their employees who help the organisation generate the product or service? Reality is not many organisations are looking at this relationship that way. Viewing the relationship from this perspective clearly reveals that organisations have to come to terms that their existence depends on employees more than customers.

There could be an argument that if an organisation as a seller is focussing on customers who buy their service why shouldn’t employees be doing the same thing with the organisation? Yes, the argument is valid and if it happened retention will cease to be an issue and talent management would not figure on the CEO agenda any more. In that scenario the role of HR department would be reduced even further. However, in reality the demand for talent far outstrips supply. If you have N companies selling a product or service to a customer then you do have N companies that can offer a role for your employees. The war for talent is on and so far talent is winning.

If organisations embrace this reality, their perspective will influence the way strategies are formulated to increase retention. It will help enable organisations to view the new relationship through a different lens. The bottom line is the fact that employees cannot be owned and their output can have a massive impact on organisation performance. So, are employees your organisations asset? What do you say?

Employee engagement

2008-04-25T15:41:00.000-07:00

A recent research by Towers Perrin clearly shows that engaged employees increase a companies profits by more than 15% and a disengaged employee inflicts twice as much damage to the bottom line. So, is employee engagement a new mantra or a management fad. Research has also pointed out that an engaged work force does not always lead to profits. The judgment is still out there..

So what is engagement...

Engagement basically occurs at three levels - Financial, Intellectual and Emotional. Financial engagement forms the core and the other forms of engagement vary depending on the individual and depending on their position, age, maturity etc. Many would argue that their fundamental engagement stems from the emotional and not from the financial motives. Although its good to hear that, the reality is if an organisation cuts its remuneration package or if the pay is less than industry average, very few will stick with the organisation. When we are talking about financial engagement we are not talking about money greedy personnel.

So when we talk of engagement we are looking at both intellectual and emotional involvement. When we look at aspiring managers there is generally a higher degree of intellectual engagement than emotional. As they mature, the emotional component grows but the intellectual component steps in when they are involved in decision making.

Is engagement equal to commitment

Companies like Gallup vehemently argue that there is a definite link between employee engagement to commitment and profits. They link employee/ Customer engagement and demonstrate that it does impact bottom line. They talk about Human sigma which is akin to 6 sigma but from a talent management perspective. However there are many instances to show that an engaged employee need not be committed.

Facts

Globally on an average, one in three employees are not engaged with their work. It is therefore not surprising to note that employee engagement has come under the corporate radar. Engaged employees are presumed to be more satisfied, productive and act as the companies brand ambassadors. Whilst an engaged employee can infuse enthusiasm, poorly engaged employees can cause or fuel toxic behaviour.

A lot of investment therefore goes in measuring and developing strategies to measure and monitor employee engagement. There are various organisations that offer tools to measure engagement. Managers have as a result been able to see where their workforce is in the spectrum of engagement.

Challenges

Academic research clearly confirms the link between employee engagement and productivity. Despite doing all this, it is rather difficult to fuel employee engagement let alone measure it. There are few reasons why this happens, the fundamental reason being the lack of understanding of the employees engagement needs. Traditional measurement systems measure employee engagement from an organisation perspective. They focus on the culture, support and other factors that can dampen or destruct employee engagement levels. There is nothing wrong in having a set of expectations about engagement from an organisation perspective, but it is equally important to view this problem from an employee perspective. By creating measures focusing on these issues, companies attempt to understand where their employees stand.

The problem with the current measurement system is that it is uni-dimensional as it measures only the organisations perspective. Measures that monitor an individual and an organisations engagement style are more strategic and would yield better results. Companies, which fail to do so could end up with efficient measures that are not effective in revealing the true engagement levels.