Talent Management

Another MBTI Activity - what do you value?

2010-07-07T11:24:00.001-04:00

Values Clarification Exercise

In this exercise the team is challenged to chose the final survivors of the human race based on a very brief description of 16 candidates. They must prioritize the following people from Most Important To Survive to Not As Important To Survive. After the exercise, and after the participants have received the results of their Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the final page can be revealed showing the type that is related to each person that was a candidate for survival. After the initial activity ask, "How and why did the team chose those particular survivors?" After they receive their MBTI results ask, "Did people end up championing their own type?"

The 16 Candidates:
· "Pedagogue". Outstanding leader of groups. Can be aggressive at helping others to be the best that they can be.
· "Author". Strong drive and enjoyment to help others. Complex personality.
· "Journalist". Uncanny sense of the motivations of others. Life is an exciting drama.
· "Questor". High capacity for caring. Calm and pleasant face to the world. High sense of honor derived from internal values.
· "Field Marshall". The basic driving force and need is to lead. Tend to seek a position of responsibility and enjoys being an executive.
· "Scientist". Most self-confident and pragmatic of all the candidates. Decisions come very easily. A builder of systems and the applier of theoretical models.
· "Inventor". Enthusiastic interest in everything and always sensitive to possibilities. Nonconformist and innovative.
· "Architect". Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood.
· "Administrator". Much in touch with the external environment. Very responsible. Pillar of strength.
· "Trustee". Decisiveness in practical affairs. Guardian of time-honored institutions. Dependable.
· "Seller". Most sociable of all candidates. Nurturer of harmony. Outstanding host or hostesses.
· "Conservator". Desires to be of service and to minister to individual needs - very loyal.
· "Promoter". Action! When present, things begin to happen. Fiercely competitive. Entrepreneur. Often uses shock effect to get attention. Negotiator par excellence.
· "Entertainer". Radiates attractive warmth and optimism. Smooth, witty, harming, clever. Fun to be with. Very generous.
· "Artisan". Impulsive action. Life should be of impulse rather than of purpose. Action is an end to itself. Fearless, craves excitement, master of tools.
· "Artist". Interested in the fine arts. Expression primarily through action or art form. The senses are keener than in the other candidates.

Overhead to display after the MBTI results are shared:

ENFJ: "Pedagogue". Outstanding leader of groups. Can be aggressive at helping others to be the best that they can be. 5% of the total population.

INFJ: "Author". Strong drive and enjoyment to help others. Complex personality. 1% of the total population.

ENFP: "Journalist". Uncanny sense of the motivations of others. Life is an exciting drama. 5% of the total population.

INFP: "Questor". High capacity for caring. Calm and pleasant face to the world. High sense of honor derived from internal values. 1% of the total population.

ENTJ: "Field Marshall". The basic driving force and need is to lead. Tend to seek a position of responsibility and enjoys being an executive. 5% of the total population.

INTJ: "Scientist". Most self-confident and pragmatic of all the types. Decisions come very easily. A builder of systems and the applier of theoretical models. 1% of the total population.

ENTP: "Inventor". Enthusiastic interest in everything and always sensitive to possibilities. Nonconformist and innovative. 5% of the total population.

INTP: "Architect". Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood. 1% of the total population.

ESTJ: "Administrator". Much in touch with the external environment. Very responsible. Pillar of strength. 13% of the total population.

ISTJ: "Trustee". Decisiveness in practical affairs. Guardian of time-honored institutions. Dependable. 6% of the total population.

ESFJ: "Seller". Most sociable of all types. Nurturer of harmony. Outstanding host or hostesses. 13% of the total population.

ISFJ: "Conservator". Desires to be of service and to minister to individual needs - very loyal. 6% of the total population.

ESTP: "Promoter". Action! When present, things begin to happen. Fiercely competitive. Entrepreneur. Often uses shock effect to get attention. Negotiator par excellence. 13% of the total population.

ESFP: "Entertainer". Radiates attractive warmth and optimism. Smooth, witty, harming, clever. Fun to be with. Very generous. 13% of the total population.

ISTP: "Artisan". Impulsive action. Life should be of impulse rather than of purpose. Action is an end to itself. Fearless, craves excitement, master of tools. 5% of the total population.

ISFP: "Artist". Interested in the fine arts. Expression primarily through action or art form. The senses are keener than in other types. 5% of the total population.

Nature vs. Nurture: The Source of Personality

2010-06-30T23:13:00.002-04:00

I am wrapping up some research on influence and persuasion and the papers that keep pulling my attention are from the fields of developmental psychology and neurobiology. There is pervasive evidence that the development of synapses that ultimately exhibit personality-defining tendencies and behaviors are dramatically affected by external factors. Unfortunately, the group that is studied to identify the causal factors is comprised of children that are abused, neglected, or raised in an emotionless environment. Regardless of genetic inheritance, these children develop stress behaviors that are hard-coded in the synapses of the right hemisphere. Children who receive predictable and congruent reactions from their caregivers do not develop the same synaptic connections and, therefore, only exhibit episodic stress behaviors (as opposed to the pervasive over-reactions of the abused, neglected, and unstimulated children).

So there are some genes that predispose us to certain physical and mental characteristics, but other traits, such as elements of our personality, are determined by our experiences. Some experiences build one set of right hemisphere synaptic connections and the opposite emotional experiences build another set of right hemisphere synaptic connections.

YOU: Being More Effective in Your MBTI® Type - the book review

2010-01-19T18:53:00.000-05:00

© 2005 by Roger R. Pearman and Lominger International: A Korn/Ferry Company
Written by Roger R. Pearman, Michael M. Lombardo, and Robert W. Eichinger

Who should buy this book:
1. Consultants, HR professionals, and others that use Lominger's Leadership Architect® and who want additional tips because this book is an extension of the FYI series
2. Consultants, HR professionals, and people that use the MBTI to help others understand themselves because this book is the most robust resource available as far as tips and developmental ideas go
3. Individuals who are extremely interested in self-development because this massive tome contains tons of thought-provoking ideas and tips that will help you overcome some of your weaknesses and actively manage some of your strengths (you do know that you can overuse your strengths, don't you?)

As soon as you open the cover of this 734-page paperback book it clearly states, "YOU is a book of tips to help you be more effective in your personality type." You are told that the book "contains the only research that relates MBTI types to effectiveness data at work". The authors "link how and why people differ to how those differences play out in behavior at work". They claim that "being type wise can lead to better performance at work and better relationships". This book is clearly for "HR professionals" and "experienced MBTI users". And the four main reasons to read this book (according to the authors) are:
1. You will become more type wise
2. You will better understand yourself, others, and what happens when two different types interact
3. You will get tips on how to be more effective, given your MBTI type
4. You will learn how to solve typical interaction problems

Given this strong introduction, I expected to find a Lominger FYI book for users of the MBTI. That is exactly what I found. However, unlike FYI For Your Improvement™ from Lominger, this book is sorely lacking in a couple of key areas. You cannot quickly find all tips associated with a common term because there is no index. It uses very passive language (e.g. instead of saying you have a weakness, limitation, or barrier, YOU calls it "not-so-strongs"). The book is almost a marketing piece for the authors and select vendors (i.e. I was reminded of product placement in movies). It also has several opportunities for improvement that are also challenges facing the other FYI books from Lominger. Even though I am well-read enough to recognize the sources, there is no evidence of the underlying research (no researchers are credited via bibliography or footnotes). Instead, YOU relies on self-reports and opinions that come across as pure trivia. For visual learners the book is very light on educational graphics (e.g. CPP's MBTI materials offer matrixes to quickly see how types mesh and clash, but this book does not).

The strengths of this book are the same as those of the other FYI books. Page 721 should have been the introduction to the entire book because it lays down the fundamental challenge: you have personal preferences that are difficult to overcome, but if you have the desire and the skill you can alter your behaviors in situations that warrant a different approach. YOU is a compendium of developmental tips and ideas for anyone who wants to be more effective at work. There are sixteen chapters that correspond to the sixteen MBTI types. 536 pages of this book directly address the 16 types, which equates to approximately 33.5 pages per type. (Unfortunately, 2.5 pages of each chapter are wasted on nonsensical case studies that put you in the role of a consultant or HR professional, but the other 31 pages are very helpful.) Many of the Leadership Architect competencies are highlighted, but in YOU they are associated with MBTI types under the heading "Being a More Effective…" The associated tips are often unique (i.e. not direct quotes from FYI For Your Improvement), which makes this book a valuable resource for professionals that leverage the Leadership Architect competencies in coaching or as a personal professional development tool (although it would be much easier with an index). Michael Lombardo's fabulous Center for Creative Leadership study on overused strengths is greatly expanded and lends itself to the MBTI types very effectively. Half of each chapter on the types focuses on "Overusing… Tendencies".

The first two pages of each type chapter provides a useful overview. You get a brief synopsis of how each type plays out at the office, their typical communication style, associated learning preferences (this section does not follow the same flow, but it is interesting), motivators, blind spots (I suspect this is for MBTI 360 assessments), stress behaviors (is MBTI trying to copy The Birkman Method®?), and barriers that this type may face. Unfortunately, the blind spots, stress behaviors, and barriers don't tie directly to the "Being a More Effective…" and "Overusing… Tendencies" sections that make up the bulk of each chapter. People are far too complex to have a clean 1:1 cause and effect relationship, but what makes a resource like this extremely valuable is when you can say X is broken so let's try Y to fix it.

The first nine pages of the book provide a brief introduction to the MBTI and the second section is 162 pages on the MBTI facet pairs. Clearly, the authors assume that you have some fundamental understanding of the MBTI because the first nine pages are not nearly as robust as what you can find with a simple Google search. However, the section that covers the facet pairs is very thorough. It fails to follow the same format as the chapters on the sixteen types, but the second section does use the two most robust sections from the previous chapters: how to express more of this preference and how to compensate when overusing this preference. Each of the facets (e.g. thinking vs. feeling) is broken down into five pairs based on how much the facet reflects your preferences versus your experiences. This is probably a new concept for beginner and intermediate users of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator and could be worth the price of the book just to learn more about each facet pair and how to address deficiencies or excesses for each. Also, the Leadership Architect competencies don't cleanly tie to the facet pairs so the tips will be largely unique to veteran Lominger users.

In the end, I asked myself, "Does this book accomplish what the authors set out to do?" Going back to the four reasons they gave me for reading the book:
1. Am I more type wise? Even though I am an MBTI-contrarian for many reasons (which have all been previously documented), I am open to learning and the section on facet pairs was very interesting. I know more about the MBTI facet pairs so I am more type wise.
2. Do I understand myself, others, and what happens when I interact with different types better than before I read this book? Well, my MBTI type has varied slightly throughout my career so it is hard to say whether I learned anything new about myself by reading the chapters on the types I have been. INFP rang truest to where I see myself right now. Readers of this review can definitely appreciate this sentence from the book: "Extraverted Thinking acts as an evaluator, making INFPs appear critical and unnecessarily skeptical at times." Perhaps because I already knew so much about the types I did not really gain any additional insights into myself or others. Also, any MBTI resource faces the same problem: I don't always know what someone else's MBTI type is. Finally, there is nothing in this book that clearly helps me understand what happens when different types interact. The organization formerly known as California Psychological Press has several books that do that very well. (On a side note, CPP publishes four of Pearman's books, but they were not mentioned in this book until page 555 – even though they are the primary source of the MBTI tests that trainers and consultants use in organizations. No contact information is given for CPP so I assume they did not pay a royalty or the authors consider them a direct competitor.)
3. Did I get any tips on how to be more effective, given my type? Absolutely! This is clearly the best reason to buy this book. However, I am more likely to use this book as a supplemental tool for coaching others who have gone through Lominger's Leadership Architect card sort or Voices 360 assessment rather than for people who have taken an MBTI quiz. It will be challenging given the lack of an index, but I am pretty handy with colored highlighters and my copy is already well marked-up.
4. Did I learn how to solve typical interaction problems? I think this is redundant with question number two for the most part. If I were a proponent of the MBTI and I was not very familiar with my type (perhaps I only got a brief summary description of my type from a workshop where I took the quiz), I would have learned a lot about my type. Can I solve interaction problems based solely on self-awareness? I may be able to proactively prevent a few problems, but it takes two to tango. If I could determine someone's type within the first few minutes of a conversation, and if I had memorized this book, I would be somewhat more effective in solving typical interaction problems. Unfortunately, neither is true of me or anyone I have ever met. This was too much of a stretch goal…

If I was on the editorial staff I would make the following changes prior to the third printing so that this book could be significantly more effective:

With criticisms of the Myers Briggs including factors such as the scoring mechanisms fail to use validity scales to remove socially desirable or exaggerated responses and the absence of valid double-blind tests (positive research findings are almost exclusively found by MBTI advocates – not independent researchers), this book had the opportunity to provide references directly to the research that underlies each recommendation. Because the real value of the MBTI is in understanding the interactions between yourself and others, such validity would have made this a valuable tool for all MBTI proponents. Instead, YOU includes "facts" such as "a general lack of follow-through in a timely manner is considered an issue by observers of this type". More glaring is the research used in the Introduction, the first section that readers often peruse, and the section that the authors use to assert the validity of the MBTI:
· "Millions of people around the world have taken the MBTI, and many have taken the instrument multiple times. Many people, in casual conversation at work and in social life, will know their "type" and most share that information casually."
· "We have seen license plates with the owner's MBTI type displayed!"
· "To pretest this book, we sent it to many people familiar with their type. The feedback we received was that people found about a 75-80% hit between their preferred type and typical developmental needs we described. Some said the fit was 100%."

As stated before:
· The authors should identify all key developmental competencies and include an index so that readers can quickly find tips, regardless of what type or facet pair the tip is associated with.
· Graphics for visual learners would help casual readers and consultants alike. The absence of a matrix that highlights challenges that different types face when they work with each other is glaring.
· Either eliminate the "Application" sections or complete them. A great case study tells the entire story and has lessons to be learned all the way through to how the final solution was received and implemented. Lominger has an army of users that could contribute stories that are applicable so why not use them? This would also provide an opportunity to help the reader understand how to apply the lessons in the book. Some of the tips, especially in the facet pairs section, are so brief that even a consultant may be left wondering what the next steps should be.
· Use a consistent layout. Learning preferences should read like the rest of the sections at the beginning of each type. Ensure parallel sentence structure for each of the 3 to 4 facet pair descriptors. (That was just plain distracting.) Provide contact information for all companies that are mentioned or none of the companies that are mentioned. Create parallel language between the first two pages on each type and the developmental tips so that they are clearly connected or just delete the first two pages.
· Eliminate redundancy and the use of the copy-paste function. Page 555 was first written on page ix. Large chunks of section three were copied directly from the Introduction and Appendix C in FYI For Your Improvement.

Coachable vs. Scorable

2009-08-22T08:16:00.002-04:00

Some very excitable HR newbies would like to drill down during the creation of performance management systems and make everything scorable on an employee's annual review. Then two things go wrong. First, managers don't want to spend a lot of time on each review so they push back on the shear volume of items to score. Second, employees cry "foul" when any items are subjective, which makes them ripe for abuse and favoritism. What is equally problematic, but rarely considered is the ad on TV by lawyers that specialize in helping employees exact revenge on bad bosses and bad HR processes. (Not that those lawyers are in any way evil. On the contrary - they truly protect wronged employees.)

Effective performance management systems are simple, valid, and reliable. Those traits ensure that they will be effectively used, will measure the attributes that matter, and will be objective.

So, what can you do with all of the subjective issues that impact performance? If you had taken the time to analyze the job (objectives, activities, and competencies), then you would know how to turn most of the "soft metrics" into measurable or observable ones. However, not everything turns out to be completely objective so you have to deal with those performance characteristics in another way. You must coach employees on those factors.

For example, how can you consistently and reliably measure tone and pitch on phone calls with customers? You could try to calibrate all company leaders who are responsible for measuring those attributes, but calibration never really gets everyone on the same page. Instead, you can either turn it into an objective metric by calling customers and asking them for their opinions (that is the only opinion that really matters anyway), or you can capture calls with questionable voice attributes and have coaching sessions with the employee. If you document the agreements and next steps/changes that were commited to after each coaching session then you start to create evidence of a pattern (either of improvement or a continued problem). As a coach you must help the employee identify how the problematic tone and/or pitch of his/her voice can hurt his/her ability to be successful. Once you get their buy-in you can almost always get them to hear on thier own calls how their voice may be preventing them from reaching their goals with each call.

So, if a metric is one of the seven most critical - in that it truly differentiates peak performance - and it is both valid and reliable, then it should be on the annual appraisal. Everything else should be part of regular employee coaching and development. If the negative behaviors are ongoing and a pattern can be documented, then it can be addressed as a performance issue.

Biology of the Brain: are all competencies biological?

2009-06-26T14:45:00.004-04:00

Outside of the skeletal-muscular abilities that enable performance on the job, every other competency that support our ability to perform our job may well be based on a biological function. Pheremones have been shown to elicit hormonal responses (colloquially known as arousal). We are most agreeable with people who remind us of our parents, suggesting that we might be trying unconsciously to sustain favorable genetic traits (though this also results in perpetuating cycles of abuse). Oxytocin is released in the brain when we are with the one we love, resulting in a calming effect (an emotion described as love). We also now know that memories are created by the formation of proteins, and memory is key to learning.

Anyone who really wants to excel in the application of competency-based human capital management must take the time to learn more about the function of the brain and how it affects human emotions, learning, personalities, and behaviors.

The Competency Categories

2009-06-25T12:35:00.002-04:00

Has the term "competency", as it refers to personal factors that enable individual performance, become too broad? Let's begin by asking the question, "What factors are NOT competencies?"

First, we can eliminate the external factors. Those are "facilitators" of performance. (The opposite would be "barriers" to performance just as the opposite of competencies would be "weaknesses".) External factors (e.g. resources, processes, information, rewards, etc.) can have a clear impact on the ability and/or willingness of an individual to perform, but the term "competency" includes only the factors that are elements of an individual person's make-up. External facilitators of performance are not competencies.

So what is a person made of? And which of those elements affects the capacity to perform? Through my research and experience I have identified the following categories:

Abilities
Physical (body or brain) traits that enable performance are called abilities. If a task requires one to lift a certain weight without aid of an external resource then the "performer" must have the capacity to lift weight. This ability is comprised of the muscle strength required, as well as the appendages required, to lift. The brain must also be able to interpret the instructions. Therefore, intelligence sufficient to grasp and act on the instructions is also an ability. However, intelligence, as a physical function of the brain, is not the only mental trait that is critical. For example, judgment is a competency that is based on knowledge rather than intelligence. Data storage is different from intellectual horsepower, but they are interdependent on one another when we need to leverage them.

Knowledge
The brain stores facts and generalizations about the world around us. For example, some of the information that we store allows us to understand and speak a language. Information comes from our personal interpretation of each event that unfolds in our life. Experience itself is not a competency so much as the knowledge we have gained from each experience is. This is most clear when we find that someone has learned a lesson from an experience that is contrary to what we expected. Do you know anyone that has graduated from college or passed a specific certification test, but who is not as good at a job as someone who learned from the "school of hard knocks" (general life experience on the streets)? Performance requires us to collect data and convert it into usable information so knowledge is a competency.

Skills
Skills are techniques that an individual has learned and intentionally applies to a given situation. The three most common academic skills are reading, writing, and arithmetic (computation). However, there are also gross motor skills such as riding a bicycle. An example of a combination of both skills would be using a specific software application (reading and typing). Many interpersonal traits are also learned skills (e.g. listening is a skill, hearing is an ability). Once a person becomes fluent at a skill they no longer consciously practice it. They just do it. When someone does not know how to do something that they never even knew was possible, they are unconsciously incompetent. After they learn of the skill's existence they are consciously incompetent. As they learn the skill they pass from being a novice to being proficient to being an expert. At some point they may just begin to use the skill without even thinking about it. That level of unconscious competence may be called a habit, but habits are also things that we unconsciously do in response to some stimulus as part of a regular routine. For example, Pavlov's dogs salivated when he rang the bell because they associated the bell ringing with being fed. Skills rely on knowledge and ability because you must have memory of prior experiences, if any, with the skill and the ability to execute the skill in order to use or improve the skill.

Instincts
Instincts are things that we never learned, but that we innately know how to do. Pavlov's dogs were not born salivating when a bell rang. However, they did know how to mate once they reached a certain point of maturity (without anyone teaching them). Unlike skills, you cannot increase your levels of expertise in a given instinct. Reflexes are not instincts, they are reactions of the nervous system, which makes a reflex an ability. Instincts are independent of memory, experience, and all other competency categories. Physically, learning is required to strengthen connections between synapses when abilities are developed, but instinctual behavior does not improve neurological wiring. Examples of human instincts include the facial expression associated with the person's emotional state (e.g. smiling when happy), staring at the threat when becoming aggressive, eyebrows flinching when recognizing someone or something, and how someone's posture changes when they are mentally preparing to leave. Instincts are responses to stimuli that we cannot control or unlearn so they are not useful when we are analyzing performance, but they are related to many performance situations (e.g. body language when delivering sales pitches).

Drives
Urges that are present at birth or develop over time, but that can be overridden by logic are called drives. Drives are genetically influenced behaviors (e.g. fight or flight). People are influenced by drives much more than by instincts because we have eliminated many of the instincts that lower animals possess. Genes can be influenced by external stimuli over multiple generations and we have simply bred out the lack of control. We now choose to succumb (as opposed to not having a choice) to urges that are instinctual in most animals (e.g. maternal - we give up children for adoption, territorial - we sell our houses, imprinting - we get divorced). Drives can be critical to performance because half of any performance equation is the "willingness" to perform.

Values
Willingness to perform is also based on our values (e.g. there are certain products that some people simply refuse to sell). Values are deeply held beliefs that are manifested as preferences or susceptibilities. Values generally fall into the following categories: moral, ideological, social, and aesthetic. Values influence the development of other competencies, but are separate from the other categories. While many values are collectively shared by common groups (e.g. religious ideologies), they are also modified based on personal experience (e.g. materialism is most prevalent in people who did not actively participate in groups in their youth). Values are often manifested as norms that are reinforced by one's cultural upbringing (e.g. the value of respect during mourning is expressed by the norm of wearing black).

Attitudes
Attitude is another category that impacts a performer's willingness. Attitude is the liking, dislikeing, or conflicted combination of liking and disliking something. Attitudes are reactions to our beliefs, which have predominantly developed over time based on our experiences. Attitudes are more susceptible to change than personality and other people can persuade us to change an attitude through communication. Attitude is an important competency category because not only is it physical (just like long-term memory, attitude resides in the affective and cognitive nodes in the brain), it is a critical element of decision-making - commonly referred to as intuition or "gut reaction". The more important the performance is to you, the greater the impact of attitude has on your performance.

Personality
Everyone has a past. Even within the same family we have unique experiences that shape our perception of the world and the preferences that are manifested as our personality. Like several of the other categories, personality can and does change over time. Personality is not fully understood, and thus, there are a variety of theories about the causal factors behind someone's personality, what elements constitute the description of a personality, and how one can measure a personality. The Big Five is the closest that psychologists seem to have come thus far in creating a model that identifies how personality affects our ability to perform (and even then, only one of the five factors - conscientiousness - seems to be strongly correlated to performance). Though it is extremely complex and not well understood, it is generally accepted that performance requires certain preferences or personality traits.

Emotions
Skills and intelligence are often enhanced by the performer's mental state. This has given rise to the popularity of such concepts as emotional intelligence. Mental health includes competencies that are both personality traits and emotional states. However, these are clearly unique constructs. Hunger and sadness are not points along a continuum. Hunger is an ability because it is physical in nature. Sadness is an emotional state (which certainly may have been induced by a physical state) that probably resides within the limbic system and/or prefrontal cortex. Emotions can trigger physical traits, such as sadness leading to tears, but they are separate attributes because tears can be released when the dominant emotion is joy. There has been recent research into specific chemicals in the brain that are described as the root of romantic love. Though that research may help clarify some of the root causes of emotions, it does not mean that emotions are simply abilities because they are far too complex to be described as such.

ASTD releases research on Talent Management

2009-05-11T16:50:00.002-04:00

The American Society for Training and Development released the results of a survey on talent management. Given that a majority of the membership represents only one aspect of the spectrum that they defined as talent management (development), it is interesting an interesting read.

ASTD recognized in the late 1990's that the International Society for Performance Improvement was onto something when they starting converting ASTD members to Gilbert's Behavioral Engineering Model. Many trainers intuitively realized that they were being called in to fix problems that were not caused by gaps in skill or knowledge. ISPI's take on Gilbert's model helped trainers start to identify causal factors through performance analysis that freed the training team from very frustrating and often fruitless work. (ASTD eventually adopted ISPI's CPT certification and now offer it to their own members.) Now it seems that ASTD is embarking on an even broader view of its members' potential roles in organizations. ASTD is researching a scope of work that traditionally belonged to organizational development teams.

The ASTD study defined talent management as,
"A holistic approach to optimizing human capital, which enables an organization to drive short- and long-term results by building culture, engagement, capability, and capacity through integrated talent acquisition, development, and deployment processes that are aligned to business goals."

If you are interested, read the entire article here. Why do you think ASTD is looking into the entire spectrum of talent managment?

Headhunters

2009-03-18T17:29:00.002-04:00

As the job market has slid over the past 15 months, I have had a lot of newly unemployed friends contact me for referrals to great recruiters. At first, my response was, "A recruiter will only want to hear from you if s/he is actively working on an assignment for which you may be a perfect fit." Then the market worsened and my recruiter friends started asking me for referrals to companies that had open positions. So my advice to both groups became, "Great hunters always know how to think like their prey, which allows them to accurately predict where they will be and what will draw them in." This may be an odd metaphor, but it has been working so I decided to share it with everyone via my blog.

First, what drives a recruiter's behaviors? External recruiters live and die by their individual placements. They must find a great candidate, sell both the candidate and the employer on the match and then convince them to stay together for at least six to twelve months (recruiters rarely get paid if the person does not stay for a pre-determined length of time). Internal recruiters live and die by the quality and speed of placements because they must deal with the "customer" every day (i.e. they both work for the same company). Depending on how clever they are, they may rely on global job boards (not very clever) or they may reach out to a network of well-connected contacts in that industry (very clever). Greed-driven external recruiters will often spam a company with a ton of applicants hoping something will stick (aka spray and pray). Thoughtful ones will do a thorough job sourcing candidates via channels not usually used by internal recruiters and will do a nice pre-screen on the front end to make sure they are only sending a small number of highly-qualified and strong-fit candidates. Internal recruiters may spend a great deal of time only filling entry-level positions, which means they will be found at college job fairs. More valuable internal recruiters will spend that time at industry events, talking up the benefits of working for the company (to employees of competitor companies) and identifying fresh thinkers who may be delivering cutting-edge presentations.

Recruiters can also be found online. This is a great way to play "fly on the wall" and start to learn about the current recruiting market and techniques that recruiters use. (It is better to be easily found by a recruiter than to look desperate by sending your resume to hundreds of them directly - remember, unsolicited resumes from people who cannot be immediately beneficial will be tossed in the garbage.) Some of the places where recruiters are lurking include:

RecruitingBlogs.com - as advertised, this is a warehouse of blogs and comments by both internal and external recruiters (you can quickly learn about fee splits, search basics, and other hot topics by poking around this site)
ERE.net - this site is run by a media company and I believe that they cull the membership in order to promote the Journal of Corporate Recruiting Leadership (for leaders of internal recruiting teams) and various conferences that they sponsor, but the members post great information and they have local groups that you can join
NetworkedRecruiter.com - look for a group like this in your neighborhood because this is where the recruiters literally meet!

For the most part, you will find that good recruiters prefer someone who is a top performer and so they are looking for people who are still employed and who are a challenge to steal away from their company. They find those types of people by using creative Boolean searches on Google, LinkedIn, Facebook, and other social networking sites. They look for evidence that the candidate is an expert and is valued by others (e.g. popular speaker or writer or referred by more than one person). They want to see some longevity on the candidate's resume (no job hoppers), which shows dedication to the employer and stability. Then, once the recruiter has found you, you had better be on top of your game and honest in all that you claim to have accomplished because the interviews have just begun...

IDP: Future State

2009-03-09T14:56:00.003-04:00

The second step in documenting an effective individual development plan is to define the end of your journey. What will you look like when you have made all of the changes that you hope to make as a result of this plan (or the final plan if this is just a preliminary step)? This is the goal that you are trying to achieve. Questions that will help you document and define that future state:

"The new habits that I will have include..."
"Around the water cooler people will say I am..."
"When my boss gets called for a character reference she will say..."
If you are basing your IDP on an assessment you might ask, "What are the opposites of the negatives that are documented on my assessment results?"
"The things that I do well today that I want to continue to do well include..."

The end state should read as a confirmation that the things you do well will not go away, just as it should read as the opposite of the problematic behaviors that you listed when documenting your current state. As much as is possible, define your end state in terms of measurable and/or observable behaviors. This will give you a much clearer objective to shoot for.

IDP: Current State

2009-03-09T09:49:00.002-04:00

When documenting an Individual Development Plan it is best to start with a clear understanding of your current state. This is the starting point on your personal improvement map. Whether you are focusing on a single competency or a combination of personal factors, you should begin by answering the following questions:

If you are working from some sort of assessment, ask yourself, "How would the people who rated me low in this area describe me?"
"What are my habits?"
"How do I see the world today?"
"I am concerned that I might be..."
"This issue concerns me because people are critical of me when I..."
"The most overt symptoms that people have observed include..."
"The underlying cause of this behavior is..."
"The things that I do well and do not want to lose sight of include..."

It is important that you internalize the assessment of your present state by taking the time to document it. You should be clear about the positives and the negatives. It is probably not all bad news because no one is completely incompetent. There are things that you do well in this area that you don't want to lose as you change.

The most important thing to do is to be brutally honest with yourself.

Planning Your Career Adventure

2009-02-27T17:00:00.004-05:00

There are several factors that contribute to an enjoyable and successful career adventure. Matching your preferences and abilities to the jobs available in this economy is no small feat, but it is a challenge that you may be facing. Finding the perfect job involves exploring several issues, including:

• Your interest in the things that make up the job’s responsibilities and tasks

Do you know what the job really entails?
Do you like to do the things that someone must do to be successful in this job?
Will your interest translate into skills that will make you good at this job?

• The temperament required for success in the job

Do you have the stomach for the conflict management skills required?
Do you want to manage people and their problems?
Are you excited and happy when you come to work?

• Your aptitude for doing the type of work required by the job

Can you develop the required skills and knowledge? How long will it take for you to get up to speed and be productive in the job?
Are you naturally inclined to making the types of decisions that would make you successful in the job?
Do you have inherent abilities that would benefit you in the job?

• Personal goals and limitations

Are you willing and able to relocate? To where?
Are you willing and able to travel? How often?
What is best for your family?

The more accurate and honest the information is that you share with the recruiter or hiring manager the more likely you are to realize the type of career adventure that would truly benefit both the hiring company and you. To aid you in determining what information should be helpful the following websites and books have been collected. You may utilize none, one, or all of these tools. The choice is yours to make. My goal is to help you identify the most accurate information that would truly benefit both you and the company in planning your career adventure.

One of the best texts on job content is the “Occupational Outlook Handbook”, published by the US Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is not light reading. It would literally take you days to read through all of the job descriptions. Of course, most people simply read the descriptions of the jobs that they think that they want. That leaves them with only half of the answer. The deeper, and more effective question to ask is, “Would I be good at this job?” Do you prefer to do the types of things that are required by the job? Can I turn my interests into real skills and be successful?

The classic text on determining job preferences is “What color is my parachute?” by Richard Nelson "Dick" Bolles. This year's edition has been completely revised and rewritten and is designed to work in conjunction with the book's website. At the heart of Bolles's formula for finding the right job are two questions: What do you want to do? Where do you want to do it?

Capitalizing on the popularity of self-help career reference manuals, several websites have taken the initiative to regurgitate much of the same advice online. Of these the most comprehensive and useful are those put together by colleges for their recent graduates and alumni. At http://www.cdm.uwaterloo.ca/index2.asp you will find the University of Waterloo’s Career Development Manual. In its second edition it is one of the most-visited career assistance sites on the Internet. It guides the browser through a series of explorations and decisions leading to an overall life and career map.

Clearly, the challenge begins with knowing what your interests are and whether you can translate those interests into career success in a given job. If you have taken the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® or another profile that measures interest or preferences then you can look up the types of jobs that are usually associated with that type of individual. For example, an INFP in MBTI® terms is “particularly interested in being a counselor, editor, education consultant, English teacher, fine arts teacher, journalist, psychologist, religious educator, social scientist, social worker, teacher, writer, and other occupations that engage their values” according to http://www.geocities.com/lifexplore/

Another website that links your preferences directly to the jobs found in the Occupational Outlook Handbook is http://www.assessment.com You take a free 71-item questionnaire and get a brief synopsis of your motivations and top ten career matches. You can even look up five of those matches for free. http://www.assessment.com offers a free tool called MAPP that is comprehensive in its scope and job matching capabilities. MAPP is a fully integrated, computer-aided vocational assessment system that:
• Measures your potential and motivation for given areas of work.
• Describes your temperament, aptitude and vocational interests.
• Formats information in three ways:

Narrative
Numeric
Graphical

I also highly recommend O*NET OnLine. O*NET helps you narrow down the potential careers by searching your primary skills.

Play, Play, Play - one of my first books

2009-02-27T15:50:00.002-05:00

A few people have written me emails about my books. Here is the original introduction to one of the most popular books, Play, Play, Play: Games You Never Played Before Because I Just Made Them Up. The original title for this book (when self-published) was Facilitating Success. Companies were just starting to warm up to the use of outdoor experiential activities to help them improve communication and collaboration. I helped the traditional outdoor (ropes course) facilitators move indoors with portable games, which was more interesting to corporate clients.

If you are interested in Play, Play, Play then you can order it online here or through any bookseller.

This book was written from the materials presented at the 1994 Annual Texas Experiential Ropes Association Conference and the 22nd Annual International Association for Experiential Education Conference by the author. It is intended to be used by persons with some previous understanding of experiential education. Please take all necessary emotional and physical safety precautions when facilitating these activities. The facilitator of these activities assumes all risk and liability for any loss or damage which may occur as a result of the use of these activities or their variations.

Playing games and conquering initiatives should always have a purpose (i.e. meet a goal) for your experiential clients. Successful experiential leaders will always have these goals in mind when instructing a group, and the group will always expect to learn while they have fun. Knowing why you are using a particular game or initiative is always the first step in successfully using it.

Always modify the game or story line to be the most relevant and stimulating for your group when presenting the guidelines. Allow the group as much flexibility in interpreting your words as possible while still challenging them to meet their goals. The more enthusiastic you are in your presentation the more fun they have. The name of the game/initiative and the labels for the elements of the game are always more meaningful to the participants when they are specific to the group you are working with. For example, "Put Out the Fire" might be called "Math Mashers" and the balloons represent whole numbers 0 through 9. The first grade student must smash the balloons with a bag that has the sum written on it of the balloons thrown at them by the teacher within 15 seconds. Or a corporate executive may have to stamp on balloon colors representing poor management skills while avoiding good skills in "An Exercise in Efficiency".

Make mental notes and observations while watching the challenge participants. You must resist the urge to give hints or solutions to your group. Your role is to find and recognize issues that would be beneficial to the group in processing the game or initiative while keeping the members physically and emotionally safe. Now is the time to formulate your processing questions and observations that will help your students/clients meet their goals.

Processing is the most important element of any experiential exercise. Questions should be open-ended and not leading. Participants should use their own discovery during processing to gain the maximum benefit. Guiding a resistant individual may be best done by other participants. You will probably find processing time most efficient if you have developed appropriate expectations in the group members prior to bringing them into your group.

Frequently successful questions:
What did you notice during the activity?
How did you feel during the activity?
What did you learn?
How can you apply this new knowledge to your life?

Always make time for closure for your group. You may discover that the group feels best about their experience if the closure focused on their strengths, success, or growth.

Feedback: accountability that drives change

2009-02-27T14:41:00.004-05:00

Which weightloss program is more effective?
A. You purchase pills or food over the Internet or phone and stick to the diet because you don't want to waste the money that you have spent.
B. Every week you meet with two dozen people who are also trying to lose weight and you must stand on a scale in front of all of them and announce your weight.

The answer depends on how much integrity you have. If you are one of those extremely rare people that never cheats or lies to yourself (most of us forgive ourselves immediately and craft very clever personal excuses), then you might find A. to be more effective. However, most people won't make the kind of wholesale personal changes that are required to both diet and lifestyle without significant external motivation. It might be a doctor's warning, but more often the changes are only made once we have a group of people that we care about holding us accountable. The same can be said about office environments where individual performance results are kept private vs. publicly posted on the bulletin board. You probably already know which technique drives the most performance from employees...

That is one of the two main reasons that feedback is such an integral part of personal and professional development. Someone is there to whom you have given explicit permission to give you feedback on how you are doing. In the example above, there is an entire group of people who you have grown close to because of a shared challenge. In the office it is someone whose advice you value and who you genuinely care about and trust. (The other reason that feedback is so critical is because you may be headed down the wrong path and need to make a course correction. You think that you are exhibiting the new skill correctly, but you are not getting the results that you hoped for.)

Once you have chosen some resources and started learning foundational information and skill, you must apply them. Once you start to apply them, you need someone to observe your behaviors or performance and tell you how you are doing. You must chose someone who is in a position to observe you using the skill that you are trying to improve. Then you must ask them to be your accountability coach. Thirdly, you must share your individual development plan with that person so that s/he knows exactly what you are doing and what you hope to accomplish. Finally, you must schedule regular meetings to solicit and get that feedback.

Your accountability coach's greatest challenge will be to help you accurately evaluate your performance. Delivering the type of developmental feedback that promotes an effective assessment of your paradigms is difficult to master and requires strong communication and assessment skills. One of the most effective tools that your accountability coach can use for exploring assumptions, beliefs, and values was created by Chris Argyris and popularly referenced from Peter Senge’s book, The Fifth Discipline. The concept called ladders of inference helps your coach get past the "what" and understand the "why" behind actions. Often, the ladders of inference concept is used to point out how faulty assumptions are created. However, effective inquiry can lead someone who is effective at giving feedback backwards from what was observed to what your intentions were. The goal of feedback is to help you identify and break down your own assumptions and open up to the facts that were previously filtered out.

Example (think about your opinion of the series of events that led to a recent election):
1. Something happened
2. You selectively noticed certain aspects of the situation
3. You tuned into that subset of the facts because they have meaning to you
4. That meaning was created because you are predisposed to your own assumptions
5. Those assumptions are based on your personal beliefs
6. You take action on that subset of the facts
Thus, your ladder of inference created a self-fulfilling prophecy by reinforcing what you already believed to be true. If you could break out of this cycle by preventing your beliefs from undermining your observations then you could really learn from your experiences!

Look for future posts on other models that can help an accountability coach move beyond the observable symptoms to the root cause of performance.

Assignmentology: learning from experience by design

2009-02-27T14:20:00.004-05:00

The goal of a developmental assignment is not merely to gather knowledge or skills; the goal is to extend new knowledge or skills into personal actions that result in improved performance. The most common model for understanding this type of learning application is Kolb’s experiential learning cycle. The cycle refers to the process by which individuals, teams, and organizations attend to and understand their experiences, and consequently modify their behaviors. It can be a powerful guide for managers who wish to fully realize the return on investment for employee developmental assignments. Using this model promotes accelerated results.

The failure of many developmental efforts results from making repeated mistakes or the inability to learn from experience. Left to chance, learning by trial and error can result in performance that is extremely off target. The learning cycle is based on the idea that the more often we reflect on a task, the more often we have the opportunity to modify and refine our actions. The learning cycle contains the following four stages:

1. Experiencing or immersing oneself in the "doing" of a task is the first stage in which the individual, team or organization simply carries out the task assigned. The engaged person is usually not reflecting on the task as this time, but carrying it out with intention.
The manager’s role: Learning initially occurs when a person encounters a new concrete experience and deals with it in terms of observations, feelings, and reactions. The most profound way to promote Stage 1 learning on the job is by providing the learner with exploratory tools (e.g. concrete experiences and manipulative materials). This would look like the manager reviewing the objectives of a training course or the content of a book that the learner attended or read and then assigning work that required effective application of the knowledge and skills contained in the learning material. This should be done with honest reference to why the assignment is being given and what the manager expects from the application of what was learned.

2. Reflection involves stepping back from task involvement and reviewing what has been done and experienced. The skills of attending, noticing differences, and applying terms help identify subtle events and communicate them clearly to others. One's paradigm (values, attitudes, values, beliefs) influences whether one can differentiate certain events. One's vocabulary is also influential, since without words, it is difficult to verbalize and discuss ones perceptions.
The manager’s role: As the learner observes the Stage 1 experience, the learner adds to or adjusts his or her perceptions based on previous learning. This process compels the learner to reflect on past experiences and to think about the current experience as either fitting into previous patterns or not. The manager should provide feedback to add another perspective. Feedback should cover both what was done and how it was done as observed by the manager. The ideal learning opportunity would come in the form of feedback from the person or team who was the supplier or customer of the Stage 1 experience in addition to the manager’s view. Perception is reality and a balanced reality is better than a self-determined view.

3. Conceptualization involves interpreting the events that have been noticed and understanding the relationships among them. It is at this stage that theory may be particularly helpful as a template for framing and explaining events. One's paradigm again influences the interpretive range a person is willing to entertain.
The manager’s role: If the experience fits a pattern, then the learner can form a generalization and a set of concepts to define the situation. As the learner develops these concepts and generalizations, the learner's thinking includes imagining other discrete concrete experiences that invariably raise new questions. The answers to these questions require further learning experimentation and the accompanying development of new concepts. The most profound way to promote Stage 3 learning on the job is by introducing the learner to key concepts (e.g. subject matter vocabulary and relationship diagrams). The key is to ensure that the learning is framed in the way that the lessons were intended and that faulty personal paradigms are minimized.

4. Planning enables the learner to translate the new understanding into predictions about what is likely to happen next or what actions should be taken to refine the way the task is handled.
The manager’s role: When the learner realizes that the answers constructed in Stage 3 are not necessarily complete, further testing is required. Further testing may also be required when the desired results are achieved so that performance habits are cemented in the learner. The learner proposes new concrete experiments and begins the learning cycle anew. The most effective way to promote Phase 4 learning on the job is by assisting the learner in the formulation of new situations to be tested. Additional assignments should be given that challenge the learner’s ability to apply and use the lessons effectively.

The timing of the learning cycle is particularly important. If one waits until after a task is completed, there is no opportunity to refine it until a similar task arises. For example, if you only had a single sales call with a potentially large account, there would have been no opportunity to modify how you prepared for that meeting after the fact. However, continual reflection leaves the learner spending more time on thinking than getting the task done so these must be balanced. In general, the learning cycle should be used during initial framing of a problem to see whether past experience may offer an approach; during natural breaks in tasking such as the end of meetings or workdays; when progress is noticeably going well or poorly; or when a crisis occurs that disrupts a process. Each of these situations is a viable assignment for the learner to apply their new knowledge or skills.

The logic of the learning cycle is to make many small and incremental improvements, which when done by many people, constitute major improvements over time. For example, if each day after work you reflected on your efforts and identified just one small thing to do differently, by the end of the year you would have 240 improvements in your performance. Consider the implications for an entire team or business unit! When this procedure is implemented as a habit or norm, continual improvement results.

The advantage of the learning cycle is that it enables an individual, team or organization to learn from experience and thereby improve performance. This, however, may not be sufficient when the assumptions and beliefs on which the learning is based is outdated. It is possible for one to complete all the stages of the learning cycle, while still perceiving, interpreting and acting in a biased way. Periodically, one should question the model itself; look for exceptions to the rule; and challenge the dominant paradigm to determine whether it still holds.

ASTD 1998

2009-02-27T13:46:00.003-05:00

After reading my prior post on the Red Shirts, a couple of former Red Shirts asked me if I still had copies of the reports that I posted on the listserv while at the ASTD International Conference and Exposition in San Francisco's Moscone Center in 1998. I finally found them on my old computer...

Day One and Two

Well...
After an hour delay in the airport in Houston due to weather from the day before in San Francisco (can you believe that weather can affect flights over 24 hours after it is bad?), I arrived in San Francisco with my buddy, Brook Bickford (also from Performa Solutions). My luggage was the first off of the plane since I arrived at the airport ten minutes before the scheduled time for the flight. Brook's was the second luggage off. Thank goodness for bad weather- I have clean underwear on today. At least we did a quality job with the group we facilitated yesterday before running out in a panic like chickens with our heads cut off! That is what was important.

We found a nice van to take us to our hotel in Fisherman's Wharf. This hotel makes our business manager, Cliff, very happy because it was relatively inexpensive. We are planning to tape tonight's performance for Cliff so he can appreciate it just as much as we did last night. Just as we were falling asleep... the music began... You see, San Francisco is two hours earlier than Houston in the time-zone thing. We had been up since 5:30 a.m. on our biological clock, facilitated a high (climbing tower)challenge course group, taken a harried three and a half hour flight, and it was midnight as far as we were concerned. Our personal serenade-dude was just starting to get some decent business at 10:00 p.m. his time. He was not that bad, but not many people were putting coins in his hat. Fortunately, the concert ended within 30 minutes. We think Cliff will like this tape played real loud in his front yard at midnight some day... But hey, the price was relatively good for this street-level corner room!

Today is our first day. Brook is in a pre-conference workshop on measuring return on investment. We ate lunch with several people from his workshop and they agreed that they had better get $150.00 worth of training after lunch. They expect to of course, but they are definitely looking at things in a different light already. They asked the waitress at Willow Street Pizza about the value of each item on the menu and ended up giving her feedback on four different levels after our meal, how they liked the pizza, what they learned from the pizza, how they utilized the pizza, and how the pizza will impact their stay in San Francisco overall. I told them that they needed to review Kirkpatrick's Level 4 Evaluation before returning to class. That last piece of feedback was slightly off the mark.

I have been pre-selecting the workshops that I plan to attend. I have been reading my program guide thoroughly. I am on page 66, the Sunrise Sessions (7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.) for Tuesday. Only 140 pages to go! There are a ton of quality listings so the picking is difficult. I am going to have to network pretty hard to find people who attended every other workshop here so I can get a copy of their notes. So far I have met five people and I have two business cards/prospects. Only 6,493 more people to go according to the lady at the information booth. I think I need more of my own business cards...

I have met one lady from Quaker Oats/Gatorade and it seems like a certain sell. She really wants to find out the value and application of experience-based training and development for her company. Now that Peforma has a commission structure these contacts are extremely exciting. During lunch we talked about how many different models there are in my industry and which one I use and who I have worked with before, all of those pressing, pre-qualification questions that potential clients always ask. Then she told me about the companies she has contacted so far. One of them was Performa Solutions. I asked her about that particular company and how well they were received by her. Our sales dude will be happy to hear she likes us so far. I wonder how many other prime prospects I will meet that he has already talked to! So much for commission sales...

I hope everything is going well for you while you slave away at work. I am enjoying this tough assignment, learning in San Francisco. Until I get access to a computer in the Cyber Cafe again, this is Darin, signing off.

Brook and I stayed out too late for the harmonica man last night so no tape for Cliff yet, tonight we will turn in early for Cliff's special surprise...

So.... The conference is progressing nicely. I attended the orientation yesterday and was thoroughly educated and entertained. Eduardo Ramirez from the Sacramento Chapter was a hoot! He modeled the volunteer clothes with perfect runway precision and made the best of a phone ringing in the room during his piece. The icebreaker afterward was also very good. I wish they had someone different for tonight's session unless we get to see something different, but the politically incorrect and brash style of the Maven of Mingle eventually entertained me when I realized she was only joking. The International Reception last night was also a big hit with the Moscone Center turning off the lights several times before they could get the several hundred participants to leave.

Some key learnings from Saturday's opening day:
Susan Roane, the Maven of Mingle, is not shy.
Michele Nieman of Synopsis is going to take off and rule the world of CBT in the next five years with her spunk and determination (and an engaging smile doesn't hurt either).
Most of the American delegation attended the International Reception while I have not met any other Americans when networking since that reception.
There are an estimated 15,000 attendees over the course of the conference. (9,000 more than I heard yesterday)
You have to leave really quick to get lunch before the next workshop because there are so many people doing the same thing.
So far, ASTD has made sure that there was enough room to accommodate everyone.
Abalone is $60.00 a plate at Aliotta's. Don't worry Cliff, I did not order it for dinner last night.

Day two, Sunday the 31st---

The day began with Jim Collins' plenary session on the successful habits of visionary companies. The prime lesson from the last 45 minutes of the session really hit home with me because I seem to be involved in a lot of culture blending/merger and acquisition programs right now: No matter what changes your company is facing, stay true to the core values that brought you into the world and drive your organization.

There was also an annual meeting, but I was networking like a big dog. I can not report the results of that meeting, but my filters would have greatly affected what they want to publish anyway.

I attended a super workshop by Lois Webster and Phillip Hoffman who are both expatriates for their companies, Motorola University, China and General Motors China. It was great at bringing those subtle differences back to the forefront of a trainer's mind when considering the concept of training across cultures. The salient points to consider would include: translations must be done locally with content being confirmed by the home office, surround yourself with trusted advisers/consultants who will make you aware of when you have made a gaff or how you might wish to properly approach a particular subject, and do not offer green hats to your male Chinese employees to wear on a retreat. Their presentation validated for me the level of quality and value that the presenters that have been chosen bring to the ASTD conference.

Tomorrow I shall report on any of tonight's key learning's as we eat in China Town (I am determined to find a restaurant void of Anglos), attend the Networking Session (I am committed to deepening my contacts in Japan, China and South America where they hunger for my industry's programming), and check out the first set of Forums.

Until I find a computer free in the Cyber Cafe,
Darin

Day Two and Three

Sunday ended exceptionally well with a super networking event! The two poor speakers were drowned out by a largely inattentive group because we were intent on meeting and greeting our peers, but that was a minor learning moment for the association. The speakers finally gave up and we stopped talking really, really loud to each other. I did discover some interesting things: Earthlink, the Internet Service Provider, has grown from 2 to 1,000 employees in three years. They sent three staff; Tami, Margaret and Kristin; to find the latest technologies to help a Fast Company that is also in a fast-changing technology market. The stories were excellent reminders that training is not always the solution though traditional managers continue to ask for it.

Leaving the Moscone Center is always a treat since the Catbert of my world, Cliff the Penny Pincher, has Brook and I rooming next to Alcatraz. We get to ride the cable cars daily! A week-long pass is only $15.00 which will win Brook and I plenty of bonus points with Cliff. We have been applying our new knowledge to the cable car industry as a result and have the following recommendations to the supervisor of the gripmen and conductors: create an organization and a system that encourages and expects customers to be treated with dignity and respect. I did not take names to protect the innocent, but there are several 'heroes' in the industry that we have met, but there is also an element of evil that made us believe that 'The Boys from Brazil’ might have been based on a true story and that there are survivors. One evil gripman made incessant fun of several tourists from other countries, entertaining only himself in the process. He went so far as to stop the car altogether to yell at someone who failed to understand what he was asking them to do because of a language barrier. This is not purely a training issue, it is an organizational performance issue due to its lack of isolation. He was just an extreme example. We will submit our proposal to the city if we find time tomorrow...

We did get one extreme adventure last night because we went into Chinatown. We ate at Chung King because there were no other Anglos inside but it was very crowded. If you get the chance, try 'The Ants on the Trees'. It was excellent! I had attended a workshop on China and was able to say thank you in Chinese several times. The waiter was able to say thank you in English as well. Those were the only words we were able to say in each other's indigent languages and he could not speak Spanish so I can't tell you what was in 'The Ants on the Trees', but I can tell you that I have no ill effects 19 hours later. We also wandered aimlessly about after leaving the restaurant before finding the cable car tracks again. When we found them we even got to push the cable car up hill to help get it started. That was pretty cool. Apparently it stopped in the one place where the grip can not reach the cable so we got to be 'official engineers' for almost two minutes. I think I can add it to my business card now. I will certainly be a hero to my nine year old son.

By the way Cliff, the Abalone had Sea Cucumbers in it (an invertebrate that looks like a large intestine) so Brook would not eat it, saving us almost $20.00! (anything to make Cliff happy...)

M0NDAY...

I missed the Sunrise Sessions and breakfast, but I made it to a program on remote teambuilding. Gerhard Buzek uses portable challenge course events for three days to help virtual teams connect effectively down the road. His model was informative and relied on phone, fax, video and e-mail to continue the collaborative work environment. It was obviously a test case and it proved to have some merit. Cultural differences are clearly the big barrier still in distance teaming and none of these technologies were said to clearly overcome those obstacles. I look forward to other people's attempts and experiences.

I also saw Deltapoint's Rapid Performance Improvement model as it impacted PageNet of Orange County (a huge paging service provider). The results were amazing and Joal Wellman is my hero only because her organization did not make PageNet dependent on their services. They trained people in-house to implement RPI so that future issues could be tackled. The best idea I took away from that presentation actually came out of the Q&A at the end: Deltapoint has an annual conference for the in-house trainers once/year. They share best practices, discuss issues and learn updated information! Cool.

I also attended Geary Rummler's workshop. I am familiar with his Performance Improvement work and had seen it before so this was an update. The best piece was his connection between the material and his anecdotal, real-world applications. I want to check three huge bags when I leave San Francisco just to see how the ticket agent handles the situation! You can check his website in the near future to get the notes, you will have to e-mail him for the anecdotal stories. http://www.rummler-brache.com

I am presently nine minutes late to the meeting of the Red Shirts so I must sign off... Until tomorrow, HA HA HA HA YOU ARE AT WORK AND I AM NOT!!!

Learning and growing,
Darin

Day Three and Day Four

Monday Evening...

The Red Shirts met at the top of the Marriott and we were all excited to meet several of the faces behind the text. Scott Simmerman caused quite a stir as did the sleep-deprived Marcia Conner. Scott was actually in the elevator with me on my way up to the meeting and read my nametag first. He thrust out his hand (covering his nametag) and I was appalled. How did this homeless person make it all the way into the elevator? There was no way I was going to give him money as we raced toward the View Lounge!!! I am not sure what my facial expression was, but he put his hand down quickly and I finally realized who he was. Bob Pike was also in attendance though I did not have any quality time with him. Three people who play for a living in one room at the same time. Yes, it was that type of defiant and loud group. For people who are on the computer a lot there were no real shy or introverted personalities. It was like finally being among friends instead of potential clients. Interestingly enough, I got back to my room last night and realized that I think I met the star of Fast Company's article on teaching the company culture through stories. I met the Chief Storyteller himself! He was extremely gregarious as would be expected, but I did not hear any stories. I also can not report on dinner because I was being polite in talking to someone at the end of the meeting and the dinner party left without me. At least Cliff will be happy to hear that I only went to Burger King ($2.99 value meal Cliff).

I spent the rest of my evening going through the 2,345,870,342 pieces of mail that I received in the three weeks prior to ASTD advertising that I should visit the 'best' booth around. I shuffled them numerically so as I walk through the 2,600 exhibits, I can enter all of the contests. The Expo is really quite amazing. I suppose I will miss at least one workshop just walking through half of the Expo. There are more workshops at the Expo (marketing ploys) than there are outside of it. Some look really, really good! There are also great deals on products during ASTD only. I need to ask Cliff Catbert if I can spend a couple of dollars...

So, on to Tuesday's kernels of wisdom:

I attended the Financial Services Forum and found that the 25 people I have already met are in all of the workshops that I am in. This may be stalking behavior, but we may share the same interests. The FSF was excellent. I finally got to meet Thiagi, a fellow game master. He did a forty-five minute workshop on icebreakers to get things rolling. At least 100 non-FSF people attended just for that piece and they got their time's worth. We began with an activity in which Thiagi used the pillars in the middle of the room. Everyone had to have their entire palm against one pillar and know at least eight other people's names around that pillar. The pillar with the most people (and with a randomly-chosen person who could say eight names) wins! Next we wrote on a sheet of paper the one trait that was most important for any icebreaker. We marched around reading each other's sheets and when he said, "Stop!" we partnered with the person who was reading our sheet. We then decided on which trait of our two was the best one and would have moved on to making a foursome if there had been time. It is like cumulative musical chairs or blob tag. He was also incredibly funny. Catch his workshops whenever you can!

I also liked the case study approach to many of the other workshops. Examples of what other people are really doing is always so helpful. My favorite was First Union's presentation because they shared openly about the mistakes that they made so that others might avoid them also as they turn to computer-based training for rote skills. I even learned about a few things I had not considered that could be applied to what I am doing. The best hints were: have the instructions for how to turn on the computer and start the program on videotape right next to the computer, put a phone next to the computer with the technical help phone number on it, make the work area a model of the area that they are learning about, and TELL THE STUDENTS TO TAKE BREAKS! They will just keep on going and going, losing track of time.

So far I have given away about 120 of the 200 copies of my book on disk. I have been using the signature line about asking me for a copy for the last four weeks. This tells me that I am running into a decent number of people who follow the listservs. We are out there somewhere and we keep finding that we are relatively normal people. But hey, it's still only Tuesday, this could change.

Until someone walks away from their terminal tomorrow,
Darin

Day Four and Day Five

I missed my Performance Consultant Competencies workshop in the afternoon because I lost track of time when writing to all of you so there is nothing to report. However, I do have a CD with all of the workshop handouts (except the Forums) so I can read them later. The CD is just one of the many innovations that are making this trip extremely efficient and effective for everyone involved. Of course, before the Expo opened yesterday many workshops were full and had to turn people away. Now the crowd is more evenly distributed. Hopefully ASTD tries to learn from this year's format and finds some way to spread out the crowd during the first few days as well. The time left between sessions in different buildings also causes many people to eat on the fly after standing in line for up to 45 minutes just to get a sandwich for lunch. I have experienced little sleep, missed meals, and sore calves with the frantic pace, but I would not miss the opportunity for the world! (Sorry Cliff, I did find time to eat breakfast today.)

So, on to the Expo! I spent two hours in the Expo yesterday and another hour between sessions today. I got from the 200 row to halfway through the 800 row so far. The rows go up to 2700. I will certainly not have time to see all of the exhibitors before they close tomorrow. This story is being repeated by everyone that wants to see the exhibits. Those who just wanted to get free stuff are finishing the rounds in about 55 minutes. The booths are so crowded that any company with fewer than two representatives has a small line and anyone with only one space has several people waiting in the aisles blocking traffic. If you plan on having a decent booth in Atlanta for ASTD '99 I highly recommend three knowledgeable staff at all times (trainers and the like, not sales people, because of the informed audience and level of questioning) and at least two spaces. There is little time for people to use the interactive video pieces so have several computers if you have a sample for consumers to try. Use outrageous colors/cartoons and give away something cool, if it is food, make it bananas or something tangible and nutritious since no one has time to eat. Also have enough handouts, running out too soon limits your efficacy reallllll quick.

The evening was my first Meet-To-Eat. The principle is to have people sign up for a meal at a local restaurant and all go together. Next year I hope they go ahead and have cabs lined up too. We had sixteen people headed to a restaurant and one cab was ready. We found a limo and had them call for enough vehicle space to move the lot of us to The Stinking Rose, a vampire-free restaurant. The food was really good if you like garlic (hence the vampire theme), and I love garlic. It was okay to have garlic breath amongst our crowd who turned out to be outrageously fun and loud. 'The Stinking Rose Gang' included several of the same people that I am finding myself surrounded by over and over: Mean Jean the Fly Fishing Queen of Orvis, Lora Wasson of http://www.cmacmi.com, and the three Earthlink women. Of course Brook and I were there, but we also met Bruce and Bruce, Karen Shaffer Penny of Comsat, and Kathleen Stanley of Small's Tuxedos. I suspect they will all subscribe to the TRDEV-L now that they fear what I might say about them. Needless to say, they can really put away the Ben and Jerry's! I will post a picture of everyone on my website later to help tie this whole story together... One of the coolest things was the initiative we faced in reaching the restaurant. Brook and I both facilitate experiential learning so we each rode in separate vehicles. We challenged the group and they were able to get six trainers in one Lincoln (plus one driver) and ten trainers in one limo (plus one driver). Just like any team building activity that is worth any money at all, we experienced each other in an intimate way and will be forever changed because of it. If anyone's spouse reads this, the change may be more detrimental than beneficial. I still think we could have all fit into one new VW bug.

WEDNESDAY

After the six hours of sleep that is becoming the norm, I rushed out and hit the cable car. Today's lessons come from three very informative and well-planned workshops.

Sheila Paxton can kick your butt. That is just a fact, I am sorry if it offends you, but she is one dynamo that I will never tangle with. She also did one of the coolest things in her workshop to encourage participation: when someone took the risk to acknowledge the issue they were thinking about, Sheila had them come to the front of the room, speak into the mike, beat their soul... and then she gave this lady a big pile of videos and a 3 inch binder of material! There were several volunteers after that though only the first person got 'Sheila in a Box'. The poignant lessons that will forever change how I do my performance improvement and training interventions: I will add an informational piece to the coaching manuals that I already use so that people can list resources that will help them maintain their action plans/commitments AND I will add a pre-learning piece to my work for the participants to research the vocabulary and articles surrounding the type of training or commitment that they are going to seek prior to the workshop/training session. Make them take some prior ownership in their learning! Duh! Why didn't I think of that before? I can't wait to read her PhD dissertation on self directed learning. Ask her for it in about one year at spaxton@careertrack.com .

One of those kind-of-technical-you-got-to-really-want-to-learn-this-stuff-to-keep-up-with-the-presentation workshops was actually put together in an effective format by Phil Landsberg and Joe Willmore. The subject matter was on putting Royal Dutch/Shell's Scenario Planning model into a Deming and Performance Improvement program in order to use Strategic Planning in deciding what actions to take or to be prepared for as certain events/signs emerge. Have I lost you yet? Email Joe for copies of the handouts that were eaten up in the feeding frenzy that immediately preceded the end of the workshop at Willmore@juno.com . I did not get one so I have to ask as well. It was really neat, but this is not the place to discuss such matters, my wrists are killing me as I stand here typing!

I am saving the creme de la creme for last: the marriage of experiential learning and cyberspace. Yes, it is beginning. Finally, after years of my own search for code heads and ex-gamers to help me put my talents in creating experiential metaphors for work and facilitating learning through activities, someone has gotten a grant to create a soft-skills training platform on the computer. It is not ready yet, but the results thus far seem promising for high-context societies that speak English and need diversity-valuation training. The military has supplied the Franklin Institute with a grant to develop a program that will teach adults through a virtual environment. The Consortium for Advanced Education and Training Technologies (CADETT), which includes Univ. of Pennsylvania and HRDQ among others, has created Cadett Interactive Multi-user Business Learning Environment (CIMBLE). CIMBLE allows for a multi-user 3-D environment controlled by a mouse and including actual voices of the distant participants (up to 6 plus one facilitator). You can manipulate objects in the environment by point-and-click, see avatar representations (like 3-D cartoon characters) of the other participants, view real time video, enter text as needed from the keyboard, and complete a project in about four hours if you use good team skills. There is still no accounting for tactile stimulus or actual participant faces on the avatars so that you can read expressions such as sarcasm (thus no application for low-context cultures such as the Chinese that use a lot of expression and subtle inflection to convey meaning) and the team always succeeds which tells me that the ownership of success belongs entirely to the facilitator, but overall this is a quantum leap in technology merging with training. The consortium also started from scratch so this is not a Doom-ripoff or multi-player game based on someone's existing code or engine. It will also become available to the public I suspect because of the government financing. If nothing else it will spur copycats. The project still has a year left so don't get hungry yet. However, if you are extremely interested in investing in a competing project, I can be bought to advise and play with the next generation of training.... Does this mean all trainers will soon be designers only? No way, the real heart of training has to start with real interaction, not a simulation in a virtual world. Star Trek is still a few hundred years away for the general consumption of the public.

Well, I must find some rest before the big Exploratorium Cosmic Bash tonight! Catch you tomorrow,

Darin

Day Four and Day Five

Wednesday Night

I hit the Moscone Center at 8:20 pm with my room mate Brook only to find that the buses left between 7:30 and 8:00 ONLY. Three other lost souls were also standing there. Then to disprove the theory of natural consequences a limo pulled up and offered the five of us a ride to the Exploratorium for $5.00 each! This was my first time in a limo. We got to catch the end of the NBA Finals Game One on the way to the Social Event. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA... This is directed at all of those poor souls that fought for space on the crowded buses to get there on time.

The food was excellent, the drinks were plentiful, the karaoke was unbearable (which is just what karaoke is supposed to be) and the 'real' band had some serious staying power. They did not even take a break that I noticed from 8:40 pm to 11:00 pm! And they were awesome. People were dancing, carrying on, laughing incessantly. Even the reclusive souls like myself found tons of mind-expanding toys to play with in the museum. Everyone left with a new friend or two, but that is another story... and not mine to tell.

True to form, the final day came hard and fast with little time to sleep once again.

DAY FIVE, the end

Man, did 7:00 a.m. come early. I think I got six and a half hours of sleep one night, but that was on accident. This was the most jam-packed conference I have ever been to and I have been to dozens over the past five years. I don't know how this was pulled off with so few mistakes, but I commend those who made it possible! It was extremely difficult to make the early workshops and I found myself more interested in visiting and learning from more of the Expo vendors. I only made it to row 1200 out of 2700 overall and that was my biggest disappointment of the entire event. I erred on the side of attending the maximum amount of workshops and neglected the Expo. The Expo was itself an event of epic proportions with tons to learn if one took the time to ask. The booths with real trainers and facilitators were exceptional (at least in the first 11 rows). Everyone was extremely willing to discuss best practices and to share their products. Of course, those with the best products will get calls from me in the future as partnership opportunities arise, but everyone was helpful and informative. There are far too many people to list here but some of the key ideas I heard:

* Have everyone stand when they are done with a task to keep their blood flowing (Bob Pike).

* Many companies are narrowing their practice to helping the client only with one very, very specific issue, facilitating the client through to its resolution. This helps prove ROI, but no one I met promises results or full refund. I also did not find anyone with a program or video/book/game on dealing with women who hate men, most blatantly denied that it was an issue. I did hear that someone had it, but they must have been on row 1300 or later...

* Human Performance Technology seemed to be the keyword that attracted in-house trainers to potential outsource consultants and trainers (a non-scientific and informal survey done after overhearing some sales conversations). The trend toward solving problems, not training to instill knowledge and skills is growing and you had better be prepared for it.

* People are willing to ask for up to $3500.00 for individual activities that are available for free if you dare to ask on the listserv... of course, you have to buy your own Legos or cards or dice, etc.

* There are a ton of new personality inventories again. I am not going to go into the arguments for or against, but I was tremendously impressed with The Big Five by CentACS out of Charlotte, NC. They had great information and a great printout for the respondents that took the test.

* Louis Allen had their model of training areas broken down into the most pieces of the circle models that I found (20 on the outside, 5 on the inside). The circle was the most-used model of a company's methods or systems in rows 200 through 1200.

* The best handouts (another informal survey to help me determine what to do if Performa Solutions has a booth next year) were articles by company principals that taught the reader a skill or idea.

* The best 'goodies' were T-shirts. Those were few and far between so I only got one, but I gave a few out to really good leads.

* The most heavily-attended booths were full of games, toys and fun.

* Most AMA members get to use their new intranet-based training software as a benefit of membership. That was really cool.

* Several of the people who mailed me a 'get yours free at ASTD' post card were not present. I will not use them for sure!

I hope these tips serve to educate those who might have a booth in the future.

The closing remarks were fairly well attended with many people leaving late Wednesday or early Thursday to report back to their jobs ASAP. I was fortunate in that I was allowed to stay (at my own expense) until Saturday. I hung out with my old college room mate and his bride for the remainder of my week, which would probably not interest you except for the Comemanga. Brook and I did finally get to see some of San Francisco before he left late Thursday night, and we visited Alcatraz with our buddies from Space Camp, Christy and Tracy. See? Contacts do last beyond the conference! If you are interested I will attach the one last piece of non-conference adventures to another posting, but for now suffice it to say- never go to a town like San Francisco for a great conference without allowing some time on the front end or back end to see the town. ASTD '98 was an unwavering success, no doubt about it. The time was solidly filled with quality programming and attractions. There could have been five more days and I still would not have seen or done it all. Leave time to enjoy the host city because you must take the time to maximize your investment in ASTD. It is well worth it!

The previous two postings lack the typical wit associated with most of my writings due to exhaustion. If this takes away from the essence of the posting for you, too bad. I don't care about anything but sleep right now.

good night,
Darin

Planning for Talent Management in Your Organization

2009-02-27T12:37:00.004-05:00

Organizations should acknowledge that their greatest assets are the people (human capital) that make them work. Whether these are the stakeholders, employees, customers, suppliers, or partners, the business does not exist without their active participation. Creating a successful business involves capitalizing on your people. To take it a step further, successful human capital management can be defined as effectively sourcing, attracting, selecting, onboarding, training, developing, assigning, steering, promoting, and retaining people in your organization.

The primary problem with doing this effectively lies in the disconnected solutions currently being deployed by most organizations. The human resources department hires recruiters or headhunters to add to the human capital pool. The training department identifies knowledge and/or skills gaps and sets up one-time classes to fix the employees. Supervisors, Managers, and Directors manage the performance of individuals through assignments and feedback. Human Resources then posts vacancies that ambitious employees apply for (even though the boss’ buddy may get the promotion). Of course, nowhere have we mentioned the critical competencies needed by the organization for employees at different levels. Hopefully, those just happen to be present in the people who move up the organization.

The solution begins with an accurately defined vision, strategic initiatives, and organizational values. If an organization knows where it wants to go, the other pieces more easily fall into place. From the goals, the executive team can derive the major tasks and the critical competencies (i.e. knowledge, skills, aptitude, experiences, personality traits, abilities, and attitude) of the leaders required to achieve those tasks. The leaders then cascade the same process down through their organizations. This creates a road map for management to identify up and coming stars and for employees to identify areas for development that could present them with lateral move or promotion opportunities inside the organization. This also creates measurable performance metrics and facilitates the creation of hiring qualifications. Finally, it unifies the language of the organization so that, for example, the definition of "active listening" is consistent during hiring, training, and performance appraisal documentation.

The other side of the solution involves the organization's culture. The culture must be quantified as accurately as possible. The necessary organizational values to realize the vision must be drawn up and cross-referenced to the current situation. From this document a list of attitudes, beliefs and behaviors can be extrapolated that define the type of person that is most likely to ensure the success of the organization. Of course, an organization's culture matures and cycles occur, so significant diversity should be promoted when these attributes are applied to selection. This process must be repeated over time to keep up with changes.

If the organization is young or reinventing itself this process can be implemented without too much resistance. If the company is established or extremely stable this process should be introduced as part of a change initiative. In either situation this process must be thoughtfully planned and organized. Driving and restraining forces must be identified. Action plans must be devised and implemented to tackle each restraining force and to reinforce each driving force. These plans must include:

· Methods for creating a need in the eyes of the current employees

· Methods for communicating the objective to current employees

· Methods for securing commitment from current employees

· Process steps that create necessary change through elimination of anticipated restraining forces and how the elimination steps will be specifically implemented

· Process steps that create necessary change through modification of existing restraining forces and how those steps will be specifically implemented

· Process steps that create necessary change through reinforcement of existing beneficial driving forces and how those steps will be specifically implemented

· Process steps that create necessary change through creation of missing beneficial driving forces and how those steps will be specifically implemented

· Observable milestones to measure the levels of success that describe what will occur along the way

· Timelines that target deadlines for each milestone

· The format for reporting milestones and to whom

· Resources required to implement each process step (people with their roles and responsibilities, capital, tools)

· Contingency planning meetings to evaluate progress and make course corrections if the organization is dysfunctional (moving against the changes) or nonfunctional (moving away from the changes)

· Next steps meeting after the process steps have been implemented

· Create incentive by planning how success will be celebrated and rewarded

Pop Culture Personality Inventories

2009-01-28T13:43:00.004-05:00

At least as far back as the stories that are attributed to Shakespeare, storytellers recognized that there were several unique personality types that would create entertaining situations when faced with various types of life situations (e.g. the seven recurring themes). Fast forward to today's exploitation of polar opposites through television shows that swap wives and put people in highly stressful situations (e.g. on a barren island or in a singing competition), and we see that pop psychology continues to deliver results. However, it is rare for anyone to effectively cross-reference the archetypes used for entertainment and those used for professional psychological classification. That is why I am very excited to have found an online version of an article that led to a great discussion at the 1998 ASTD international conference and exposition.

In San Francisco at least 6,000 people gathered (4,500 were vendors I think) to swap, borrow, or buy ideas about corporate training and development. At that time a very active listserv group used the international ASTD conference as a chance to meet face-to-face anually. This group was known as the "red shirts". We had an affinity for debate and for freely sharing best practices. In San Francisco several of us lingered long after the other red shirts had retired to thier hotel rooms. The topic that drove our passion that evening was the creation of a pop culture personality inventory that would become fabulously popular with corporations (assuming that we would be granted licensing rights to the show that we leveraged). Many of us were in favor of using the personalities from Gilligan's Island. Others wanted to use a more progressive and popular show such as Friends. The entire conversation was sparked by a 1996 article by Lise Mendel that was intended for use in the creation of role playing games. You can once again read that article because it was posted online here.

Has anyone created or used a team personality or individual personality assessment that is based on a popular book, movie, television show, etc? If so, please comment on this post so that we can all benefit from your experience and insight.

New Talent Management Network Survey

2009-01-22T09:40:00.002-05:00

Marc Effron just released the 2nd Annual State of Talent Management survey results. It indicates that 75% of the companies involved planned to increase spending on TM in 2009 and only 10% plan to decrease spending despite a significant number of TM professionals not being satisfied with the results that they or their team delivers to the business. Though there are more candidates to fill senior TM roles, companies still find it very challenging to source and attract those candidates. And larger companies are more likely to have formal TM groups and those groups are serving senior executives, while smaller companies have HR groups with TM functions that serve middle management. I encourage you to check out the full report and to check out the conference call that Marc will do in partnership with DDI on February 18, 2009.

Go to http://www.newtmn.com/docs/_.pdf.pdf to download the results.

Creating a Talent Management Approach Requires Planning

2009-01-14T12:27:00.005-05:00

Organizations should recognize that their greatest assets are the people that make them work. Whether these are the stakeholders, employees, customers, suppliers, or partners, the business does not exist without their active participation. Creating a successful business involves capitalizing on your people. To take it a step further, successful asset management can be defined as effectively selecting, developing, assigning, and retaining people in your organization.

The primary problem with doing this effectively lies in the disconnected solutions currently being deployed by most organizations. The human resources department hires recruiters or headhunters to add to the human capital pool. The training department identifies knowledge and/or skills gaps and sets up one-time classes to fix the employees. Supervisors, Managers, and Directors manage the performance of individuals through assignments and feedback. Human Resources then posts vacancies for individuals to take the initiative to locate and apply for or the buddy system leads to a promotion. Of course, nowhere have we mentioned the critical competencies needed by the organization for employees at different levels. Hopefully those just happen to be present in the people who move up the organization.

The solution begins in accurately defined vision, strategic initiatives, and organizational values. If an organization knows where it wants to go the other pieces more easily fall into place. From the goals, the executive team can derive the critical knowledge, skills and abilities of the leaders required to direct the company. These can be broken down into their core competencies. The leaders then complete the same process for their direct reports down through the organization. This creates a road map for management to identify up and coming stars and for employees to identify areas for development that could allow them growth opportunities inside the organization. This also creates measurable performance metrics and facilitates the creation of hiring qualifications.

The other side of the solution involves the organization's culture. The culture must be quantified as accurately as possible. The necessary organizational values to realize the vision must be drawn up and cross-referenced to the current situation. From this document a list of attitudes, beliefs and behaviors can be extrapolated that define the most likely people to ensure the success of the organization. Of course, an organization's culture matures and cycles so significant diversity should be promoted. This process must be repeated over time to keep up with changes.

If the organization is young or reinventing itself this process can be implemented without too much resistance. If the company is established or extremely stable this process must be introduced as part of a change initiative. In either situation this process must be thoughtfully planned and organized. Driving and restraining forces must be identified. Action plans must be devised and implemented to tackle each restraining force and to reinforce each driving force.

These plans must include:

Methods for creating a need in the eyes of the current employees
Methods for communicating the objective to current employees
Methods for securing commitment from current employees
Process steps that create necessary change through elimination of anticipated restraining forces and how the elimination steps will be specifically implemented
Process steps that create necessary change through modification of existing restraining forces and how those steps will be specifically implemented
Process steps that create necessary change through reinforcement of existing driving forces and how those steps will be specifically implemented
Process steps that create necessary change through creation of driving forces and how those steps will be specifically implemented
Observable milestones to measure the levels of success that describe what will occur along the way
Timelines that target deadlines for each milestone
The format for reporting against milestones and to whom
Resources required to implement each process step (people with their roles and responsibilities, capital, tools)
Contingency planning meetings to evaluate progress and make course corrections if the organization is dysfunctional (moving against the changes) or nonfunctional (moving away from the changes)
‘Next Steps Meeting’ after the process steps have been implemented
Create incentive by planning how success will be celebrated and rewarded

Performance Management: Both 'What' & 'How'

2009-01-14T09:19:00.007-05:00

I was asked to comment on performance management by a friend who is trying to help her boss understand that performance is not just the number of units sold at the end of the quarter. My friend is absolutely right, it is not just what you do, it is also how you do it that counts.

In fact, my friend's company has a perfect example. They hired a new salesperson in October 2007. This person was extremely quick to pick up on all of the technical attributes of their product and was very tenacious on the phone. He was held out as an example by the middle of the year because he was setting goals for number of calls per day and meeting or exceeding those goals every day. This initially translated into a lot of new business with previously untapped customers. Late last year they asked this salesperson to help them earn repeat business from those new customers, but the salesperson could not deliver. He explained that he is a "hunter not a farmer". So the company paired him up with a terrific relationship-building "farmer" that had been with them for years. After a couple of months the company still did not have a single repeat sale to any of the top gun salesperson's original customers - not a single one. On top of that, the "farmer" had asked to be reassigned back to his old position three times over a two month period. What was going on?

To quickly summarize what had happened:

The salesperson had a very solid understanding of features and benefits and could quickly and effectively overcome objections related to those factors
The salesperson set goals specific to individual clients and followed up with them tenaciously
Many customers eventually were worn down into submission and made an initial purchase
Those clients were not completely satisfied and did not want to deal with the salesperson's personality any longer (the value of the product was not worth the perceived abuse they were subjected to during the sales process)
The company had a quick spike in sales, but had lost any hope of doing repeat business with those customers in the future

Sales management held this "hunter" out as an example to all of what they wanted and expected from their salesforce. That pride in his accomplishments was based solely on the fact that new doors were opened and sales jumped. When they looked at their metrics the "hunter" was a fabulous performer! Unfortunately, they only had metrics that focused on what was done. They had completely ignored how the work was done to their long term detriment. If this was a B2C company that was selling a product that would last a lifetime (hence, only one sale per life is expected) then they might expect long-term success following this role model. However, even then, the company's reputation would eventually be tarnished and sales would slump. Customers simply have too much access to comments on a company's performance for any company to allow a singular focus on what in their performance management system.

So why do companies rely so heavily, if not completely, on what gets done? Because it is objective and easy. Technology allows us to measure and manage tangible results without having to think. The numbers are there on a spreadsheet and those numbers are accurate. Employees either did or did not reach the minimum acceptable standard. They either did or did not hit the top 5% when everyone's results were compared. Management understands that what results in a clear impact on the bottom line. The relationship is almost always easy to prove.

However, don't results suffer over time when how is ignored? In my friend's company the impact was noticed much faster than in most companies. Often, reputation takes a while to disintegrate to the point where new customers cannot be found and harvested. A classic example is car sales. Many dealerships only expected to sell one car every five or more years to a customer and they hoped that memories would fade. Therefore, they went for the kill on every single sale. As consumers started to buy more than one car per family and more often than every 5+ years, car dealerships had to make a significant change in their sales processes. However, simply changing the process did not fix the problem. That is because how you sell is just as much a factor of what type of person you are as it is the process that you are supposed to follow.

How people perform is perceived as very difficult to measure. I have often heard managers say, "It is too ambiguous to measure. I don't want to get sued for using subjective data." On the other hand, I have also seen managers embrace subjective evaluations and get themselves and their company into a lot of trouble. So, how can it be done?

First, a company must understand that the process of managing how begins with the strategies that they employ for sourcing, attracting, and selecting talent. A large number of performance problems can be avoided by making sure that only the right people get hired. And, it is not enough to simply put a nice behavioral interview guide together and expect to hire the best fit for the job. You must know where the best fit people are. You must market to them and create interest and demand for the jobs in your company. Then you must have an effective screening process that evaluates the competencies that make up how. Those attributes typically include attitudes and beliefs, aptitude, and interpersonal skills. The best methodologies for measuring these seemingly subjective traits focus on the behaviors that are manifested as a result of having the trait.

As an example, when measuring 'listening skills', create and validate a rubric for what it looks like if someone is not listening (e.g. they interrupt the customer), what it looks like if they are an average listener (e.g. they use the customer's name), and what it looks like if they are an active listener (e.g. they repeat back what they understood the customer was saying). Create a simulation based on a very typical customer scenario and have a trained rater listen to or observe the candidates going through the exact same scenario (always use the same script and employees as both the customer and the rater in these scenarios to avoid variance in results). The rater will check off the actual behaviors exhibited by the candidates and the results can be compared to narrow the field of applicants. Multiple attributes can be rated during the same simulation to give a more robust view of the candidates. There are also vendors who have created validated instruments that measure aptitude and other how factors.

Once the rubrics have been created for selection purposes, they can also be used for measuring the performance of current employees. However, this is where most managers give the greatest push-back. They must observe their direct reports' performance. The typically objection is, "I don't have time. I have too many direct reports and I am already too busy." If their job is to manage a team, what are they doing that takes precedent over this primary responsibility? I am going to guess that they are either doing the work for their direct reports or they are fighting fires (which may have been created by their direct reports). Again, prevention is the key to freeing up time for the process that most effectively measures how. The process is as follows:

Observe performance (e.g. a complete interaction with a customer from start to finish)
Rate the how attributes using the validated rubrics
If the performance that was rated was recorded, have the employee watch and rate their own performance using the same rubrics
Have the employee share his/her self-rating first
Compare and contrast any differences between employee and boss rating results
Identify why behaviors and actions were taken by the employee (the manager may identify a systemic problem that would prevent future problems if it was successfully addressed)
Document a final rating (some scores may change based on what was discussed) and enter it into the company's performance management system
Repeat no less than once per month
Aggregate the annual results (minimum of 12 observations) and apply to the annual review

Of course, if there are any actions or behaviors on the job that are in direct conflict with company policies or external regulations or laws then the incident must be immediately documented and action taken. What I am focusing on in this article in a long-term, sustainable, and effective process by which companies can manage how work gets done. If my friend can convince her company to allow her to analyze performance, create the tools, and validate them, then she will be able to prevent the slow, corrosive impact that the previous 'top performer' had on their long-term repeat sales. She can start softly by using them in the selection process, but once the new hires are identified as top performers, she should be asked to build performance management tools out of the same content. Only then will her company truly optimize performance by focusing on both halves of the equation: what gets done and how it gets done.

Leveraging Gilbert's Model: Assessment

2008-10-29T13:06:00.004-04:00

In an earlier post I shared the Behavioral Engineering Model developed by Thomas Gilbert in his 1978 article “Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance". I have received numerous requests for my thoughts on how to leverage that model in very practical ways inside an organization so here goes...

You can identify barriers to performance by asking salient questions related to each of the six cells in the model. I like to teach this model to organizational leaders and the questions to ask are a favorite job aid that is used to assess the team and its individual contributors. Of course, you want to go through the cells in the following order so that you tackle the least expensive-highest impact issues first.

Information - the data needed to succeed (the external inputs required for success come in the form of data that I use to do my job and data that tells me how well I am doing my job)

Do I know what is expected of my team? Have I clearly communicated that to my team members? (Does the company have a clear vision, mission, strategy, and plan? How does it cascade down to my team? Are we working on the right things the right way at the right time?)
What metrics should I be capturing on each employee in order to drive the desired results? (For example, measuring number of new sales drives a killer instinct to capture new deals, but does not foster relationship-building treatment of existing customers so those go away.)
Am I capturing accurate data about employee performance? (The performance management inputs must be both valid and reliable or they will not be trusted.)
Do I give my employees regular and timely feedback about how they are performing? Do I review both what they have accomplished and how they reached those results?
Am I effective in delivering feedback? Do my team members make the required changes? Do they really know what is expected and what our priorities are?
Do my employees have real-time access to feedback on their performance? (Can they see the data themselves and make adjustments as necessary?)
What are the inputs/data that my employees need in order to do their job properly? (For example, if we create layouts for magazine ads, where do we get the copy that we use?)
Are those inputs accurate, relevant, and timely? If not, how can we make them so?
How can I help my employees streamline access to the information that they need in order to make decisions? (This is not related to empowerment, that is assumed at this point.)

Resources - the tools, financing, processes and procedures, systems, training, raw materials, technology (hardware and software), workspace (physical environment is safe, clean, organized), time, and other resources needed to succeed (ask the following questions about each one of the items in this list)

Do my people have access to the resource?
Are the resources available in a timely fashion?
Is the resource relevant and accurate? Does it meet our quality standards/requirements?
Do the resources work as expected/needed? (This relates to downtime that is both unexpected and scheduled.)
Are we both efficient (not too much and not too little) and effective in how we leverage these resources?
Does my team know how to fully leverage the resource? What bad habits should we eliminate? What best practices are not universally adopted? What changes would result in us being even more effective when leveraging team resources?
What external resources have been involved in or caused incidents and near-misses?

Incentives - external motivators/consequences that encourage employees to want to succeed (both rewards and punishment)

Are the financial incentives consistently and fairly distributed based on clearly-defined and commonly understood triggers?
How does compensation for this job compare with similar jobs inside and outside of the company in this town?
Have I put enough pay at risk to drive the right behaviors and results?
Does the pay attract the best talent to this role? Have I justified/documented the benefits of paying a little more for a significantly better performer (i.e. have I created an effective business case for the pay grade)?
Are negative consequences effectively aversive? Does the progressive discipline process quickly result in improved performance or amicable exits?
What "hidden" (i.e. not obvious) incentives drive certain behaviors and actions at work?
What behaviors and actions am I unconsciously or accidentally encouraging and how?
Are top performers praised by all or ridiculed by some?
Do I model the performance that I expect of my team members?
Is this a great place to work?

Motives - slippery set of life experiences and mental models that shape one's attitude as manifested by beliefs, which are exhibited as behaviors

Why did my employee just do that?
What does my employee really care about and how does that tie to this job? Is the work aligned with their personal goals?
Is this work meaningful? Is it clear how the job activities impact the customer, coworkers, the team, the company, and/or the shareholders? Is there a clear line that ties this job to the company vision, mission, strategic plan, etc.?
What do my employees really like and really dislike about this job? What can I do to create more satisfaction?
How well did my team score on the "engaged employee" assessment?
What is the energy level of my team today?

Capacity - a mix of aptitude and competence/ability that ensure that employees could do the job - if so inclined (Gilbert limited this to things for which the employee does not have a choice about, which would have put attitude in the final bucket, but I believe that some people do not have the capacity to control their emotions.)

What are the physical requirements of this job (e.g. lift 40 pounds or shorter than 6 feet 3 inches)? Do my people meet those requirements? Can I adjust the work environment to accommodate for any gaps (e.g. wheelchair ramps)?
What are the intellectual requirements of this job (e.g. IQ below 120 for street beat cops)? Have I measured for that requirement?
What are the emotional requirements to succeed in this job? How do I measure that? What interpersonal skills are required? What intrapersonal skills?
What previous experience is required to succeed in this job? What evidence/justification do I have of this need? (see these blog entries on the traps you may fall into here)
What innate predispositions directly correlate to success and/or failure on the job (i.e. aptitude)?
What personal barriers are preventing my team members from maximizing their results/output?
What employee attributes have led to the most incidents and near-misses? How am I managing those?

Knowledge/Skill - what you must know and be able to do to succeed in your job

Have I taught my employees the exact steps to take using a clear and accurate process map or outline?
Have I defined exactly what my employees must know and be able to do to execute their jobs efficiently and effectively? How do I assess my existing and potential future team members against these knowledge and skill requirements?
Is there a safe (i.e. no real impact on the company's performance and no fear of learning from failure) environment in which my employees can practice before actually doing the work?
Do my employees have on-demand/instant access to answers and examples of best practices? Do they have access to experts, including me, when they need direction/instructions?
How long does it take a new hire to reach full production? What can be done to accelerate the learning curve?
Am I wasting time focusing on improving commodity skills (i.e. things that the employee should have known before getting this job that 'everyone' knows)? How should I change the selection process to account for those?
Based on how this employee is performing, should I be using supportive or directive leadership behaviors?
Who is an expert with few bad habits that can mentor this employee on that specific need/gap?
What assignments (e.g. projects) will help this employee quickly improve his/her knowledge or skills?
What will my direct reports really learn from the training classes that they can attend? Do I support the use of the new knowledge and skills they learned?

Ernst & Young on the Balanced Scorecard

2008-10-14T10:12:00.002-04:00

My all-time favorite introduction to the Balanced Scorecard was created by some brilliant people in Ernst & Young's Swedish office in 2000. I finally found a cached version of this video on Google's servers so check it out while you still can!

Click here to see the video.

Rating Performance Factors

2008-09-04T18:50:00.002-04:00

Once you have identified performance metrics and you have made them SMART (specific, measurable, ambitious, realistic, and time-referenced), you can rate the performance of an organization, department, team, or individual employee. I recommend that you develop a weighted measurement system so that the most important performance objectives earn the greatest focus from your employees. This can be done in a simple manner when you review the objectives with your team.

First, make it very clear how important each objective is. I suggest that you use the following scale:

Mission Critical – employees in this position must succeed in this area.
Very Important – this factor is one of the most important for this position.
Useful – this factor can help employees in this position be seen as successful.

When you then sit down to review results with team members you can put their results in a matrix. Each column represents how important the objectives are. The most important objectives are in the first column. The rows represent how well that employee has executed against each objective. If someone has emphasized an objective to the detriment of others they will be doing very well, but perhaps too well. Therefore, the very top row is actually not a positive thing, it is "excessive focus". That is just as problematic as having a performance metric in a lower row (e.g. underperforming). The rows I recommend are:

Excessive Focus – the employee ignored other important factors because he/she was so focused on doing this well.
Exceeded Requirements/Expectations – the employee did more than I had hoped or expected in this area.
Met Requirements/Expectations – the employee was as successful in this area as I wanted or needed him/her to be.
Missed Requirements/Expectations – the employee did not live up to my expectations or did not fully realize my requirements in this area.
No Focus – the employee seemed to ignore this factor.

This 15-cell matrix (5 rows x 3 columns) drives home a very clear, visual message. Of course, you must discuss each individual result as measured during the performance period that you are discussing with the employee, but the visual representation of their performance is what will stick in their mind. Their goal will be to have all objectives in the second row across every column.

Individual Performance Factors Based on Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard

2008-09-04T18:26:00.004-04:00

For those readers who want a more detailed list of actual performance metrics that may be used to measure individual performance, this list has been successfully used in several settings, including a multinational's contact center. Each of the four cells in the balanced scorecard matrix are represented. However, instead of the corporate-level goals, this outline breaks the metrics down into those that should be used to measure individual performance. For companies that want to roll performance up (as opposed to cascading objectives downward), aggregate results of individual team members should be used as the performance objectives of that team's leader. All direct reports roll up to their boss at all levels of the organization.

Productivity & Process

Quantity of work completed

Number and scope of activities completed
Percent of work completed on current projects/assignments

Efficiency & timely delivery

Speed of work relative to expectations and peers
% of deadlines met
Efficient use of down time
Efficient use of people involved
Efficient use of tools and resources
Efficient use of money

Quality of work

Valid
Precise/concise
Verified as accurate
Met requirements and scope
Consistent look and feel
Clear and coherent
Justifiable content (not too much, not too little)
Solid craftsmanship
Organized and planned (and plan executed)
Thorough
Applied best practice(s)

Impact on Bottom Line

Impact on other employees, leaders, customers, company, industry

How actions or results affected direct reports
How actions or results affected peers
How actions or results affected self
How actions or results affected the boss
How actions or results affected internal customers
How actions or results affected external customers (Travel Partners or guests)
How actions or results affected the company
How actions or results affected the industry (cruise, travel, hospitality, or function)

Increase revenue

Dollar amount that the company made as a result of the employee’s actions
Projected impact that actions will have on company revenue
Unintended consequences (positive or negative) measured or observed

Increase customer loyalty

Quantified increase in customer loyalty as a result of the employee’s actions
Projected impact that actions will have on customer satisfaction
Unintended consequences (positive or negative) measured or observed

Increase in productivity

Quantified increase in company, team, and/or customer productivity as a result of the employee’s actions
Projected impact that actions will have on productivity
Unintended consequences (positive or negative) measured or observed

Increase in quality

Quantified increase in company, team, and/or customer accuracy and/or precision as a result of the employee’s actions
Projected impact that actions will have on quality
Unintended consequences (positive or negative) measured or observed

Reduce costs

Quantified reduction in company, team, or customer spending or expenses as a result of the employee’s actions
Projected impact that actions will have on costs
Unintended consequences (positive or negative) measured or observed

Reduce cycle time/process time

Quantified reduction in the time it takes to complete company, team, and/or customer processes and/or activities as a result of the employee’s actions
Projected impact that actions will have on activities, processes, and systems
Unintended consequences (positive or negative) measured or observed

Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty

Compliment/Complaint ratio

Positive vs. negative customer and employee reactions
Unsolicited compliments vs. complaints

Identified and met or exceeded expectations

Number of projects where stakeholders mapped (identified and their position documented)
% of stakeholders who confirm their expectations and requirements were met

Customer satisfaction survey results

Results of regularly-scheduled surveys
Results of solicited customer surveys

Impact on team credibility

Number of times that personal actions brought the team into question
Number of times that personal actions helped the entire team gain respect or recognition

Continuously improving

Results improved for same solutions or activities
Streamlining processes, procedures, policies, or methods

Learning & Growth

Organization’s core competencies assessment

Self vs. boss ratings
360 ratings

Position competencies assessment

Self vs. boss ratings
360 ratings

Error reduction/repeat ratio

Number of errors vs. last time on like activities
Number of mistakes by level of impact

Increased autonomy

Amount of time spent getting specific direction (whether sought or given)
Self-regulated efforts
Proactively seeking solutions
Focusing on the right objectives/results

Creative or new solutions applied

Number of new ideas sought out
Number of ways existing ideas used in new ways
Number of existing ideas adapted to new situations
Number of completely innovative solutions generated

You can clearly see the connections between this post and my earlier posts on performance management topics. I hope that this, more inclusive and thorough, review of individual performance helps you build a scorecard for the members of your team.

Individual Performance

2008-09-04T18:05:00.002-04:00

All employees should:

Contribute to Team Success – establish and maintain team credibility by sustaining the positive perceptions of others, share best practices and help others, and help complete team member’s work when they are out of the office.
Produce Results Relative to Company Investment – ensure value of productivity meets or exceeds rate of pay and contribute to team results relative to percentage of team investment represented.
Meet Customer Requirements and Expectations – establish or identify and met or exceed internal and external customer performance requirements and expectations, including quality and other standards.
Produce Timely Results – delivery results on time, including work, reports, and/or products; be on time, stay engaged throughout the workday, and make up lost time.
Optimize Resources – optimize use of all resources, including tools, equipment, budget/money, and people; minimize waste.
Work Autonomously – achieve results with minimal supervision; identify, source, and invest in solutions where skills do not match requirements.
Constantly Improve – identify opportunities to increase efficiency and efficacy all of the time; surpass previous personal bests; continuously produce more year over year.
Develop and Maintain Effective Work Habits – focus on improving how results are achieved, increase interpersonal competence, eliminate ineffective behaviors, and increase effective behaviors.
Champion the Company – represent the company through professional dress, speech, and behavior in the office, with customers, and in the community; promote achievement of company goals and realization of the company mission; maintain alignment with the company vision and model the core competencies at all times.

Whether you are an executive, middle manager, front-line supervisor, or individual contributor, these are objectives that everyone should be focused on at all times.

Team Performance

2008-09-04T16:31:00.001-04:00

Below the organization or department level, performance can be viewed at the team level. Basically, this is a view of the team leader's individual performance. If the leader is effective then the team should excel in each of these areas. The questions around team performance are the same as those for project management. How effective is this group at getting their work done?

Integration - are all team resources such as hardware, software, chemicals, etc., coordinated properly?
Quality - is the team meeting the agreed-upon quality requirements? Metrics include quality planning, quality assurance, and quality control.
Schedule - is work completed in a timely manner? Metrics include activity sequencing, resource planning, activity duration estimating, and work schedule development and control.
Cost - are approved budgets being met? Metrics include resource estimating, cost estimating, and cost monitoring and control.
Risk - have issues that may or do inhibit performance been identified and proactively tackled? The team should identify, assess, and mitigate risks associated with factors such as new technology, very tight time constraints, lack of availability of skilled resources, and customer readiness for the team’s work.
Communication/Information - does the team generate appropriate information and disseminate it in a timely manner to team members, management, and other stakeholders to ensure that their expectations are consistent with the realities of the team’s progress or results?
Organizational Impact - how effectively does the team identify and plan for organizational changes that may or should occur?
People - is the team effectively led? Does the team's boss provide effective leadership and management of the team, including organizational planning, staff acquisition, conflict management, and team development?
Procurement - how effectively does the team manage the processes required to acquire goods and services from outside and inside the company? Metrics include procurement planning, RFP preparation, source selection, and contract negotiation and administration.

Organizational objectives can be cascaded down to a team in similar language, but if you are only measuring a team's performance these generic categories can be very useful. Exact metrics depend on what the function of the team is and how they operate. Hopefully, these nine categories provide some structure for setting up team objectives.

The Big Seven

2008-09-04T15:52:00.002-04:00

Recently, I have received a number of requests for help with identifying performance management metrics. Therefore, I wanted to post a few ways to look at performance. Let's start with the company-wide metrics that are often taught in B-school and are affectionately known as "The Big Seven" by students who have suffered through an MBA program.

Effectiveness
1. Increase revenue
2. Increase productivity
3. Improve quality
4. Increase customer satisfaction
5. Increase bench strength
Efficiency
6. Reduce costs and waste
7. Reduce cycle and delivery time

In response to a recent LinkedIn Answers question I pointed out that even though these objectives are meant to drive overall organizational performance, they can be applied at all levels. For that particular question I pointed out how six of the seven can be used to measure the value added by a company's purchasing department.

Regardless of location or size, procurement has several significant impacts on the overall organization. If you look at the 'big seven' performance objectives that they teach in US business schools then you can define the impact that supply chain/purchasing/procurement has across a fairly powerful spectrum.
1. Increase Revenue - the Sales team must have the proper resources or they will not succeed. It does not matter if they are both willing and able if they do not have the products to sell or the tools that enable them to make the sale (software, phone system, etc).
2. Increase Productivity - personal productivity relies very heavily on having the right tools at the right time working the right way.
3. Increase Quality - you can imagine the impact that purchasing had on our guests when I worked for Royal Caribbean Cruises. If the strawberries were rotten the entire ship was slammed on the guest comment cards. However, the extremely comfortable mattresses and sheets resulted in praise from everyone.
4. Increase Customer Satisfaction - this is all about procuring the right tools for the job. If the purchasing agent takes the time to understand how the tools are used and what makes one better for the business than another (value) then s/he can have a significant impact by buying a tool that allows employees to delight the customer (e.g. the right content management system will enable the call center to quickly find accurate information when answering customer questions).
5. Improve Bench Strength - internal to your own team you should make sure that you have planned for near-term workforce needs and have developed talent as needed. Your actions as purchasers can only tangentially affect this objective.
6. Reduce Cost - there is more to this that meets the eye. Sure, things can be procured for a low cost, but a very savvy purchasing team can train the entire company on how to negotiate (or not) with vendors. If people who are clueless or corrupt get involved then your vendors can get the upper hand during negotiations and rob your company blind. I have seen several IT people who favored a product erode the company's negotiating position by giving insider information during negotiations. They were not evil, they just really wanted to help the vendor that they felt was clearly best and deserved the most possible money from the company. (As one IT person said, "We have a ton of money so it doesn't really matter.")
7. Reduce Cycle Time - excellent negotiators can get faster computers and more bandwidth for the same price that competitors are paying for inferior products and services. That extra power and speed is a distinct competitive advantage because it cuts down on the overall time to deliver answers. Clearly, just-in-time delivery of raw materials for construction can also improve cycle time by eliminating wait.

Bonus thought: there is an eight performance metric.

8. Increase Market Capitalization - this is effectively the net result of the first seven objectives being met. If you do the first six things right then your company's tangible and intangible value should increase and be justly rewarded by investors.

Recruiting Videos

2008-08-02T13:18:00.002-04:00

Visit YouTube.com and pull up Jeff Sass's video called "Work's A Beach!". He shot this with his phone before going into the office, downloaded it to YouTube, pushed it to Twitter while walking back to work, and had an interested candidate Twitter back before Jeff reached his desk. The person that wrote back was JC, and JC ended up earning the job (after properly being interviewed and such).

What is the lesson learned for your company?

Building a Job Profile or Core Competency Profile

2008-07-12T15:02:00.004-04:00

The steps I typically follow depend on the nature of the position that I am looking at. If the position is a leadership role within the organization and it is fairly senior then I am probably going to leverage the Lominger Leadership Architect products. I am certified in all of their products. If the role is more tactical then I am going to use a job analysis to identify the competencies and from there build the required strategies and tools.

Leadership example:

Assess the required culture for driving the company's vision, mission, and strategic plan by facilitating a discussion with the executive team. A deck of cards (Cultributes) is sorted by each executive and the aggregate results and agreements define the organizational environment needed to drive the company forward.
The environmental attributes are converted into a core competency model by software. This set of competencies is also discussed by the executives, who often want to have their own team assessed using a 360-degree feedback tool that Lominger developed (Voices).
The results of the multi-rater feedback are shared in confidence with each executive. An individual development plan is created that includes learning, application, and feedback loops. Most executives embrace the feedback and want to improve in any areas of weakness, even if the weakness is only relative to other strengths.
The collective picture of the executive team is shared with them and gaps in the core competency model are identified. Future members of the executive team will be chosen, in part, based upon a competency assessment so that the executive team can add competencies that are currently under-represented.
I create strategic plans for sourcing, attracting, and selecting future executives that will bring the missing pieces to the team. I build the selection process and tools, which will include a behavioral interview and other assessments.
I am often asked to provide coaching to senior executives in areas where they want to improve and require confidential feedback (e.g. managing ambiguity).

Key technical position example:

Bring together a group that represents the boss, peers, customers, and high performers for the identified position. Review all existing job descriptions and other performance management data.
Conduct a near-term scenario plan with the group so that we have some reasonable collective idea about what the position may entail over the next 2-3 years.
Collectively document the 4-7 most critical performance objectives for the people in the position, given what we have discussed thus far.
For each objective, define the activities that must be executed well to meet the objective. We also identify some of the activities that, if done poorly, could seriously impact the person, team, or company in a negative way.
For each activity, we identify the competencies required to execute the activity as flawlessly as possible. The competencies will include knowledge, skill, experience, ability, and personal traits.
I compile the results and bring the group back together to review and prioritize the list of competencies. In this meeting the group also splits the competencies into two categories: price of admission and train/develop.
Based on the price of admission competencies (those that are a commodity or those that are almost innate), I create strategic plans for sourcing, attracting, and selecting candidates for the position. This includes the development of behavioral interview guides, a scorable simulation, and possibly another assessment.
Based on the training/development competencies (those that are not reasonably learned outside of the organization) I put a strategy together for providing on-demand access to critical information and best practices, instructor-led and self-paced training, learning activities (e.g. special projects that will force application of the required competency), and feedback programs (e.g. mentoring assignments and accountability coaches). I may create some of the materials myself, but typically there is so much work to be done here that I am assigned subject matter experts and people who need to learn the skills to help me.
A final step that many organizations want to take is to assess the incumbents against the competency-based profile that was just created. This leads to identification of people who need to improve in some of the critical areas. Those employees are often the first to take advantage of the new learning strategy and tools.

Using Tests During Selection

2008-06-20T14:12:00.002-04:00

Late last year we decided to improve our Sales selection process. We completed job analyses on both inside and outside Sales team members who were consistent top performers according to production numbers. We created two tools based on the price-of-admission competencies: behavioral interview guides and work simulations, but we also wanted to assess sales aptitude. It was clear that aptitude had a great deal more to do with their success than any specific sales process or technique. In fact, they were very diverse in their approach, the tools that they used, and their demographic makeup. The only historical trait that many shared was their involvement in sports during high school and/or college. One was a former NFL player.

To identify a sales aptitude assessment vendor we started with the usual tools: Google and our professional networks. We ended up with over 12 companies that we decided to investigate. All were the 'big dogs' in the employee assessment space. However, the approach that each company used to sell us their tests were very different. Most resisted our insistance on an internal validation study because their products were already supported by a great deal of statistical analyses. That showed a lack of appreciation for the impact of organizational culture, sales philosophy, and preferred processes and tools on sales effectiveness.

We only moved forward with those companies that agreed to test a few of our employees so that we could see whether their tool was a match with our own performance data. We asked both top and bottom performers to take two of the assessments at least a week apart. Some of the companies told us that they knew who the top performers were based on the results, but they were completely wrong on roughly 80% of those that they tested. Two of the companies used a different approach. They asked to be told who the top and bottom performers were up front. They then analyzed the results by pointing out the behavioral attributes that were common amongst both the top and bottom performers, which were not all of the attributes that were measured. When we gave them a couple of additional people to assess they were spot-on with predicting who the top and bottom people were based on their prior results.

We also looked at whether the tests would have caused us to rule out any protected class of employees (adverse impact). No such impact was observed as the tests scored a diverse group of people both high and low.

This internal validation process is of critical importance in the selection of a test or assessment. We met the requirements of the EEOC's Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Criteria because we made certain that there was no prima facie evidence of discrimination, the test is a business necessity because it will help us hire top performers, and we are also incorporating other, equally-weighted assessments in the process (interview and simulation) so that we don't run into problems with alternative practices with lesser impact on protected classes.

If you are wondering which product we ended up selecting, the final criteria was based on the relationship that the top salesperson at that company built with our selection committee. He was an excellent salesperson in his own right and practiced what he preached:

Michael Hopkins, Senior Vice President
Profiles International, Inc.
5205 Lake Shore Drive
Waco, TX 76710
1-888-744-5205 x141
mike.hopkins@profilesmail.com

The Sourcing Strategy and Plan

2008-04-27T13:08:00.004-04:00

There have been several requests for additional information about how to build a sourcing strategy, specifically around tactics that have been successfully used to execute the part of the strategy that is typically called "birds of a feather flock together". Some recruiters recognize that one cannot discriminate and fear that looking for too many similar people will also result in a homogenous group of employees. The value of diversity can not be understated so let me make some points here:

Employers should look for diversity not just in the traditional umbrella (e.g. sex, age, etc.), but also in thoughts, behaviors, and goals (not everyone can be the CEO)
When filling key positions the competencies required to execute the activities that lead to realizing the performance objectives are more important than what someone looks like
Write a great job profile that clearly markets the benefits of working for the company as well as the exciting opportunities and challenges that the selected person will face, include a list of the most critical competencies that candidates must have or are preferred

Clearly, you want to start with a robust employee referral program. If you selected great people then that is the group you want to continue to 'clone'. So, the question is, where are more people like this and how can you tap that market through this group? In today's world that is best done by having those employee leverage their social networking connections. The job profile can be forwarded by your employees to the people in their network whom they believe would represent them well if hired. You should also make finding the next great hire a lucrative event for your employees. Consider how much you would have to pay an external recruiter if they were to bring you the eventual hire...

As the profile is circulated in a viral method you will hit passive as well as active candidates. In your strategy you should clearly define the route you wish to go based on the timing and strategic nature of each hire. If you need someone fast you will need an active candidate. If the position is more strategic you will probably benefit from a more passive candidate. Those take longer to source and may require some research into professional associations, white papers, conference presentations, and other resource pools that indicate someone's expertise, philosophy, and methodology.

Also, don't forget to evaluate the value of each referral source as part of your plan. If you are doing a great job of screening candidates you should end up with a forced-ranking profile of each. Look retroactively at the source of each candidate to also force-rank the quality of each source. For example, if three of the top five candidates were sourced through employee connections on LinkedIn then LinkedIn should be a strategic priority and you should invest accordingly (e.g. pay for some employees to have account upgrades). If none of the top 50% of your candidates came from a specific job board then you should stop wasting time and resources on that board.

If you are shopping for an Applicant Tracking System (ATS) to use in order to execute your strategy, look for a product that either closely matches the plan you have created or one that can be setup to follow your plan. If you want to incorporate the three strategies mentioned above, I suggest you look into Jobvite. A quick search of LinkedIn Answers about ATS's indicates that Jobvite is the preferred ATS that fully leverages social networking as well as source ratings.

One final point, The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs administers a number of laws and regulations. Make sure that your strategy (and your ATS, if you use one) complies with those laws.

Take Advantage of Free Self-Paced Content

2008-04-21T09:32:00.002-04:00

With the growing popularity of the belief that knowledge belongs to everyone, the expiration of the training vendor is coming. The need for a large group of itnernal instructional design gurus is also on the wain. With open source solutions and freeware affecting the way that people see intellectual property rights, and with universities opening their vaults by putting free course content online, it is only a matter of time before companies realize that the only training design that is needed internally is subject matter expert (SME) training on company-specific topics such as new hire onboarding and in-house processes or home-grown software. Many leadership development and soft skills development courses will still be instructor-led, but more and more companies are also including those competencies in their hiring profiles because they realize that many of those skills do not improve after training (or, at least, not very quickly).

Harvard's recent release of free self-paced training at
http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/flatmm/hbrextras/200804/friedman/index.html is a perfect example of what internal training teams will start to include in their intranet sites, learning management systems, content management systems, wikis, etc. What is your training team doing to prepare for this fundamental shift?

The Problem With Experts

2008-03-16T17:20:00.003-04:00

In an exchange with Sushil Mehrotra through Ecademy.com I was reminded that there are two key challenges when leveraging subject matter experts (SME).

As Sushil pointed out, you can learn to copy the behaviors and skills of a recognized expert, but you may not find a way to take those competencies to the next level. The goal should always be to move the standard distribution of your team to the right (increase the number of top performers and raise the top performance bar). So mimicry may help you get better quickly, but just as benchmarking only allows a company to become as good as a competitor, you must apply creativity to take that skill to the next level. The goal is always to create space and differentiate oneself from others.
When you have a SME teach others the 'students' will learn the SME's best habits, but they will also likely learn some of the worst. Everyone falls into patterns of taking shortcuts to be more efficient and some of those may not be fully aligned with the desired way to achieve results (i.e. they may bend the rules a bit). More detrimentally, it is highly likely that a SME has a few bad habits and that those are not differentiated from the best ones by the students. I have come to prefer video as a behavior modeling tool for that exact reason. You can sterilize the model and eliminate the bad habits. These may be as innocuous as taking six steps to complete a task in Excel that should only take two or as grand as not using automation at all to complete a significant task.

So there is a place for subject matter experts in the training and development of others, but it is not a panacea or the most effective quick-fix in most situations. Create some structure and challenge the students to identify ways to take the skill(s) to the next level.

Training vs. Performance Support

2008-03-15T11:41:00.007-04:00

Having recently taken on the CLO role (in addition to my role as the Director, Customer Experience) at my company, I was faced once again with the need to accelerate the potential of the training team. I inherited a group of instructor-led classroom training professionals that provided three types of 'training'. They provided technical instruction that covered the primary areas of Operations and the programs that we sell. They delivered 'soft skills' training to customer-facing employees (and a few internal-only people). They delivered motivational presentations. They put a curriculum together for every position and measured success by the percentage of the curriculum that was completed by each employee and by the number of employees that attended each class. Of course, these were very complimentary goals because forcing someone to take all of the assigned classes ensured positive 'butts in seats' numbers as well. But what happened when an employee needed to enhance some knowledge or skill immediately and that class was not scheduled? This team was sharp enough to realize that they also needed to be available to sit with employees to provide that just-in-time assistance.

I needed to do two things very quickly:

This team was full of wonderful people and we needed to fully take advantage of their skills and knowledge across all areas within our parent company. This meant that we needed to organize the existing 42 classes and fully flesh them out so that these 11 trainers could advertise their offer and become fully leveraged.
We needed to identify methods by which we could quickly put answers in the hands of our employees without making them wait for a training class or for a trainer to become available and sit with them.

It took three weeks to accomplish number 1. and the results of that effort will be shared with the leaders of the training organizations at our sister companies this coming week. The trainers created pre tests so that employees who did not need the training could place out of it and stay productive (keep on working). They created post tests so that we could measure an increase of knowledge 30-45 days after training (based on an increase between the pre-test and post-test scores, if any). They created job aids for the students' bosses so that the bosses would know the learning and performance objectives of each class and could hold the students accountable for using what was learned on the job. (The company has also recently beefed up our performance measurement with a more robust set of KPIs that I will monitor pre and post training to reach a Kirkpatrick level three measure of the team's effectiveness.) All of the class materials have been stored in a folder on a shared drive along with an overview so that anyone can pick up and deliver the course with only a little homework to prepare. This also cut down on all travel as there are trainers in each of the three main cities in which we have Operations and Sales groups.

The second objective has taken more work to realize and we must also get IT's approval, which is always interesting. Because people learn different ways we must provided a blended approach to increasing knowledge and improving skills (training ONLY improves gaps in knowledge and skill - see my blog on Gilbert's Model). Not every knowledge gap is also best filled by attending an instructor-led course. Some information should be at the employees' fingertips at all times. Some employees know what to do, but not how to effectively do it. They simply need to see it done right a few times until they master the skill themselves. Employees also need access to experts, and no trainer can be an expert on everything. Finally, we need to expand the offering beyond the line employees and help the leaders effectively do their job. Many people are sent to training to be 'fixed', but training does not fix 'broken' people. Leaders must learn how to identify the root cause of performance problems, and leaders must take ownership of developing their employees. The training team is a support team and our customers are the team leaders and executives. We should not do their job for them.

I am presently working with the trainers to develop skills in the following areas (which will help us realize the second goal):

Subject Matter Expert Created Content

Enterprise Wiki - a searchable database of information that is updated in real time by the employees (and confirmed for accuracy weekly by assigned experts who have the final say)
Behavior Model Video - the video shows an expert executing the skill well (e.g. pre-positioning to prevent a common sales objection) and the attached job aid outlines the steps that were viewed
Screencasts - Flash-based software tutorials that demonstrate 'how to' use key functionality in 30 to 60 second clips
Facilitated Case Study - the 'students' review a deal prior to the session and identify issues; they share, discuss, and debate the issues during the session; the facilitator types up the documented agreements and sends them to the students and the students' bosses (collectively the group knows more than the trainer/facilitator)

Trainer Created Content

Self-Paced Training - whether a workbook or a web-based module, the trainer bases the content of the self-directed materials on job analyses (only facts and decisions are taught this way)
Job Aid - a quick how-to reference guide (not an FAQ) for common skills that employees should post on the walls of their cubicles
Instructor-Led Class - some topics require the opportunity to interact with others, practice the new skill in a safe environment, and to get feedback on that performance

Special Learning Activities

Assessment - valid and reliable test of soft skills, aptitude, and/or capacity that might be a self-assessment, boss-assessment, or 360 degree-assessment followed by an interpretive feedback session
Individual Development Plan or Performance Improvement Plan - specific improvements are defined and documented along with the steps that the employee agrees to take to execute the plan (and improve)
Coach - based upon a specific interpersonal skill gap a weaker employee (protégé) is partnered up with a stronger employee (mentor) and their interactions are guided by a plan such as the IDP above
Developmental Assignment - most learning comes from doing and evaluating the results of our decisions and actions (both successes and mistakes) so employees are put into roles on projects, etc. where they are forced to excel in the area that needs to be developed

The High Cost of Super Stars

2008-03-11T10:53:00.002-04:00

I was reminded by today's HBR Management Tip of the Day of the high price of bringing super stars into your organization. First, you have the premium that you have to pay in order to lure them away from their present job (and enough to keep someone else from luring them away from you in the near future). Then, you have the internal cost of envy and frustration (from incumbents who think they are as good or better than the new guy, but being paid a fraction of the salary). However, today's Harvard Business Review tip reminded me of the statistics on super star failure. When they join your company they no longer have the network that they had at their old job (their formal and informal go-to team). They no longer have the same software, processes, policies, and culture that they learned to optimize.

Individual performance drops by 20%, which frustrates the super star and your company.

The actual losses mount as morale declines, roadblocks are intentionally placed in front of the super star, Wall Street punishes you for a highly visible bad hire, and the super star eventually leaves in very public fashion.

http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/hbsp/hbo/articles/article.jsp?articleID=R0405F&ml_action=get-article&pageNumber=1&cm_mmc=npv-_-MGMT_TIP-_-MAR_2008-_-MTOD0311

How to Build a Success Profile

2008-03-10T18:52:00.002-04:00

Establishing Job Profile Context

1. Define the mission of the job.
a. What is the ultimate product or service produced?
b. How does this product or service contribute to the organization's strategy?
c. How would one know whether the mission was being accomplished successfully?
2. Describe the major outcomes/accomplishments required to achieve the mission.
a. Which outcomes does the organization NEED to have?
b. Which outcomes are NICE to have?
3. Define performance standards for each outcome NEEDED.
a. What does someone in this position need to know to achieve the outcomes?
b. What technical skills would be required to achieve the outcomes?
c. What experiences would someone need to have to successfully achieve the outcomes?
d. Which of these knowledge, skills, and experiences are possessed by the best performers, but not by the rest?
4. Identify barriers to achieving the mission and outcomes.
a. What has prevented people from succeeding in the past?
b. Which barriers are caused by knowledge, skill, or experience deficiencies?

Capturing Knowledge, Skill, Experience Requirements

NOTE: Save all knowledge, skill, and experience components for use as a master list of components. These will be used to validate the success profile.

5. Isolate knowledge components.
a. Circle points of knowledge identified as NEED to know, not nice to know (i.e. those that help the best performers in this position succeed beyond the rest of the performers in this same position).
b. To what degree must this knowledge be entrenched to be a best performer? (basic, intermediate, or expert)
6. Isolate skill components.
a. Circle skills that were identified as NEED to have, not nice to have (i.e. those that help the best performers in this position succeed beyond the rest of the performers in this same position).
b. To what degree must each skill be mastered to be a best performer? (basic, intermediate, or expert)
7. Isolate experience components.
a. Circle those experiences that truly differentiated the best from the rest in this position.
b. Which of these experiences would a person have for at least a year before becoming a top performer?

Capturing Leadership Competencies

8. Leverage research. (In this example we will use Lominger's Leadership Architect, which includes 67 research-based leadership competencies.)
a. Mark competencies that are critical by level according to Lominger's research, add the Price of Admission and Competitive Edge unique to that level to the poster.
9. Modify based on incumbents.
a. Identify top three people in the position.
b. Sort through Lominger cards to find the top ten competencies that differentiate those three from the rest (i.e. the top three have more of this than anyone else).
c. Mark top ten on poster with colored dots or 'X' marks.
d. Discuss to reach consensus.
10. Narrow selected competencies down by presence in the general population.
a. Select 8-10 Price of Admission competencies for the Success Profile.
b. Select 5-9 Competitive Edge competencies for the Success Profile.

Validate the Profile

11. Assess all incumbents against all 67 competencies.
12. Identify highest performers and select competencies that they have more of than the other performers.

The Case for Blended Learning

2008-03-10T18:45:00.001-04:00

Think back on the training classes that you have attended during your career. Of those that provided a great deal of theory instead of focusing on the work that you did at the time, did you do anything differently or better as a result of attending that course? It is highly unlikely that anything changed for better or worse.

Theory can establish a deep understanding, but must be followed by a focus on observable and measurable work-related activities. For example, learning about effective listening can begin with compelling reasons to become a better listener and theory on how listening works, but improvement won't happen without providing a concrete, easy-to-remember model and plenty of practice time during the class (with immediate feedback). The learner should also identify critical times to practice effective listening on the job and create a plan for using the model during those times. Sharing that action plan for listening with your boss is the most powerful anchor because you now have to meet her/his expectations as well. Had the class stopped with just a theory on listening, real improvements at work would not occur, especially during critical times.

Some Competencies are too Complex to Teach

2008-03-10T18:41:00.002-04:00

Some competencies should only be leveraged during selection. Requiring development in a competency that is innate or nearly impossible to improve or to notice improvement has resulted in legal actions by employees against their employers. It is also prudent to ensure that all employee development processes and systems set the learner up for success and not for failure. (If a competency is extremely hard to improve or change then it is not likely to provide significant ROI to provide training on that topic.)

Developmental difficulty is based on several factors:
• How complex the skills are that are needed to execute the competency well
• How much experience is required to master the competency
• How much the attitude, values, opinions, and beliefs of the learner impact the desire to be competent
• How the competency involves, engages, or triggers the learner's emotions
• How much intellectual and cognitive complexity is required for mastery
• How much hard-wiring is required to use the competency
It is also important to note how frequently the competency shows up in normal distributions. The rarest competencies may be the hardest to develop simply based on its rarity.

Keys to Successfully Creating a Competency-Based Training Curriculum

2008-03-10T18:37:00.002-04:00

To build a competency-based training and development system or to map existing courses to a competency model, you must be mindful of the four keys to success:
• Training should only include competencies that can be effectively developed (i.e. hard-wired traits that don't significantly change over time won't change as a result of some fabulous training class)
• Students must be able to apply the lessons learned while on the job in observable or measurable ways (if the benefits of training cannot be measured then training will not be valued)
• Courses should teach more than one competency (competencies do not live in isolation so teach clusters of common skills together, e.g. planning, prioritizing, and decision making)
• Courses should be followed by on-the-job application and feedback and bring the manager into the developmental cycle (create job aids for the bosses of the students so that the bosses can hold the students accountable for what was learned)

Communication is the Key to Competency Success

2008-03-10T17:55:00.001-04:00

Training, staffing, HR, and line managers often speak different languages. For example, when a manager asks his/her HR representative for permission to seek a new direct report the manager is given a job description following approval. Staffing is told about the opening and screens for 'planning skills' based on the request from the manager. Once the top candidates have been identified and screened the manager selects one based on fit with the rest of the team. Soon the manager realizes that what staffing screened for was different than what the manager understood 'planning' to mean. The HR generalist who had produced the job description disagreed with the manager on the meaning of 'planning skills' and then found that what HR meant per the job description and what the staffing person interpreted were also different. To bring the new employee up to speed as quickly as possible it was decided that the new person should be sent to a training class. Looking through the available classes, two were found that referenced 'planning' in the learning objectives. The manager sent the new employee to the first available class. Upon returning from the class the new employee attempted to show the manager the newly-learned skills only to find that what was being taught was still not what the manager needed the employee to do.

What a painful, yet common, story from a real organization that has a competency model. The real problem is that only the titles of the competencies are in common use instead of the descriptions. The real power of competency-based models lies in the common language that results from the clear and unambiguous definitions of the competencies. This language should be applied to all HR systems so that job descriptions and success profiles lead to consistent interview questions, employees are consistently represented on workforce planning maps, performance appraisal feedback means the same thing to both manager and direct report, and classes teach the competencies as they are commonly understood.

How Trainers Should View Work

2008-03-10T15:59:00.002-04:00

There are the worker bees (Implementation/Evaluation), the managers (Translation/Communication), and the top dogs (Creation/Re-Creation). The top dogs are those folks that create initiatives and objectives for ABC COMPANY as a whole and the business units. The job of the managers is to put those initiatives and objectives into words that can be understood and utilized by the worker bees. The worker bees are accountable for both the implementation of the plans crafted by the managers and for evaluating the results to ensure that we are going where we think we are going.

The skills that must be taught fall into three distinct categories: Strategic, Intra/Interpersonal, and Technical. As you move up the organization you will find that there are fewer technical job skills but more strategic skills required. Therefore, a training curriculum should be weighted accordingly with line employees focusing more on technical knowledge and skills, some interpersonal skills related to working with customers and/or team members, and only a presentation on the company's strategy and how the line employees fit into that equation. Mid-management would get a mixture of those same classes with the emphasis being on understanding (not doing) the technical work, managing people (not work), and executing the strategy. Senior leaders will not need to know the technical work, but should have a high-level overview of the company's employee activities; senior leaders need to know how to manage cross-functional processes (and teams of leaders); and senior leaders must know how to craft and cascade strategic plans.

Thomas F. Gilbert's Behavioral Engineering Model

2008-02-22T09:50:00.006-05:00

Reference: Thomas F. Gilbert, “Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance,” 1978, 1996

Dr. Gilbert recognized that the least expensive solutions happened to be those that were also the easiest and fastest to implement.

Managers should start in the top right cell (factors that are outside of the employee’s control) and ensure that employees have the information they need. If they don’t have that then no other intervention is going to make a significant impact.
If the employees have those three data points then the Manager must look at the next cell and ensure that their team members have all of the resources that they need. Again, without the right resources and employee is set up for failure through no fault of their own.
If the employee has the right resources then the Manager must ensure that the proper incentives are in place. In fact, the employees may be unintentionally incentivized to do the wrong thing (e.g. take shortcuts to make their job easier).
If the proper incentives are in place then the Manager will look at the individual and seek solutions that the employee can take ownership of and improve.
If the employee has the environmental requirements, but is not getting the job done, the Manager must look at the employee’s motives. If employees are unwilling to do the best that they can do, the behaviors that are observable and/or measurable must be tackled (you cannot easily measure attitude, but you can measure the associated behaviors). Progressive discipline may need to be taken based on failure on the employee’s part to meet the required goals for their job and/or the improved behaviors.
If the employee is willing, but still not performing to the level of their peers, then they may lack the capacity to be a top performer. That would indicate either a bad hire on the Manager’s part or a need to compensate for the gap in order to comply with ADA requirements.
If the employee lacks knowledge or skill they will need to be trained. Training is the most resource-intensive solution to performance problems, yet it is often the first (and sometimes only) solution that companies pursue. But training will only help an employee increase knowledge and skill, both of which they very well might already have.

As a strategic human capital management professional you should ensure that your company leaders understand this model and use it to diagnose performance gaps. Managers are responsible for making certain that employees have the information that they need, the tools required to do the job, proper incentive to do the right thing the right way at the right time, and the access to solutions that will help the employee succeed (discipline, aids, and training).

See also http://www.howcast.com/guides/1600-How-To-Leverage-Gilberts-Behavioral-Engineering-Model

Factors Affecting Willingness and Ability

2008-01-27T22:43:00.001-05:00

Challenge	Factors Affecting Willingness	Factors Affecting Ability
Opportunity for Advancement	Career Path	Performance
Job Design/ Learn New Skills	Personal Traits & Interest	Knowledge & Skill Mastery
Company Management	Engaged Heart	Engaged Mind

Based on the previous blogs, this chart models the impact that the three key retention factors have on employees. If they do not have an opportunity to advance then they will not be as inspired to work their hardest. If their job is not designed to take advantage of their interests then they will not be as willing to do the work well. Company management must engage the employees' hearts (to increase the employees' willingness) and minds (to increase the employees' abilities).

They Stay or Resign Because of the Leaders

2008-01-27T22:41:00.003-05:00

Because it is in both the top three reasons that employees stay and leave, opportunities for advancement are critical to manage. Employees are more willing to be engaged when they understand and can participate in managing their own career path. Employees who have high performance ratings are able to take advantage of lateral moves and promotions. Managers should also be aware of external barriers to performance that can rob employees of the ability to perform and increase their frustration. Leaders who engage their direct reports in the employee development processes help their reports create and manage their own careers. Leaders who leverage situational leadership skills drive superior performance, which creates more opportunities for their high performing direct reports.

Engaged employees are more likely to join your company and then stay if they have challenging work that allows them to test and develop new competencies. Competencies affecting commitment include those that are interpersonal and intrapersonal in nature, including the ability to learn (which is a strong predictor of future leadership potential). Competencies that affect capability include knowledge, technical skills, and ability.

According to every contemporary piece of research on why great performers become disengaged and leave companies the number one reason is consistently a bad boss. Leaders that engage the hearts and minds of their direct reports keep their top talent or help their best employees move up the organization. They engage their direct reports’ hearts by building a sense of deeper purpose, building relationships amongst team members, and appreciating both what was done and how it was done. They engage their direct reports’ minds by providing autonomous work environment in which each employee can take credit for his/her own success.

Why Employees Stay, Why Employees Resign

2008-01-27T22:38:00.001-05:00

What attracts and retains employees?

79% stay because of opportunities for advancement

69% stay because their job is redesigned

65% stay because they are learning new skills in their current job

Why do employees resign?

56% leave because they are dissatisfied with company management

56% leave due to inadequate opportunity for advancement

50% leave due to dissatisfaction with pay

“Strategic Rewards” by Watson Wyatt, 1999

Employee Referral Programs

2008-01-11T12:13:00.001-05:00

Pro: Top performers should bring in other top performers because birds of a feather flock together.
Con: Not everyone is a top performer. Top performers may be unwilling to refer others because it would reflect poorly on them to bring in a poor performer. Poor performers will refer a lot of people just for a little extra money or to surround themselves with their friends at work.
Strategy: Ensure that employees know that anyone who gets referred is a reflection of the employee who made the referral. Actively request referrals from your top performers, especially when there is a specific opening you want them to help you fill. You may want to provide some meaningful financial incentive if a referred candidate is chosen and stays with the company for more than 90 days. If that same new hire is rated as a top performer at the end of the year you should give the referring employee an additional bonus.

What the Web Says to Your Recruits

2008-01-11T11:05:00.000-05:00

Any candidate that is worth considering should be Googling your company. What will they run into? (You better run that query right now yourself to find out.)

Is your company the first link (below the sponsors) when the query is run? If not, why not? If the candidate is a top performer then she or he is in high demand and will want to go to a company that is legitimate. Not being the first link when your own company name is Googled starts to raise some questions that you will not be given the opportunity to answer.
What are 3rd party sites (e.g. blogs) saying about you? If a potential customer has ever asked about you in an industry-related weblog then your potential hires are going to see what people have said about your company. It may not be fair if competitors have posted some of the answers, but that is the reality you are faced with. Dig at least ten search results pages deep and click through each link to see what threaded discussions include your name and how this reflects on your company. If you find dirt, you should create a plan to tackle that dirt. You might also want to create a strategy to mitigate future dirt.
What are your employees writing about you? These are the search results that potential employees are going to give the most credence to. If you have poor management in place you will definitely want to scour the web for opinions on those people. If you are serious about attracting the absolute best people to work at your company or on your team... manage the bad leaders out or help them improve IMMEDIATELY.
Many people indicate who their employer is on their social networking page (e.g. LinkedIn or FaceBook). What type of people they are in the outside world may become transparent on those pages and affect how a candidate views your entire workforce. Again, it is just a reality that people have lives away from work and are allowed to do all sorts of fascinating things and have all sorts of unique interests, just hope that those things are all legal and not too divisive.
Finally, has any unscrupulous blogger or webmaster included your company's name on a webpage that is just looking for some easy money via pay-per-click advertising? I have worked for companies that found their name on pages that were covered with links to all sorts of explicit materials. Set up a Google daily news alert with your company's name to see where your name pops up and report those sorts of false pages immediately. I have always found that Blogger.com and other are very quick to take those pages down.

There are obvious steps that you can take to present the benefits of working for your company. Have a great website with at least one page devoted to educating potential employees about some of those benefits. Give candidates a sense of 'a day in the life' of an employee in the job that they are interested in. Make the first two steps in the application process extremely easy and intuitive. Treat each candidate as if they are a potentially lucrative customer. Be polite, responsive, and appreciative of the applicant's time. Encourage employees who love working for you to spread the word. Be vigilant and act on negative press immediately.

Why do I end up hiring poor performers?

2008-01-11T10:58:00.000-05:00

Resume writers write great fiction.
Interviews are a superficial and biased selection tool.
Candidates only let you see what they want you to see.
Performance is one organization does not often translate to another.
You focus on fit for the job and ignore fit for the culture.

Why Can't I Find Top Performers?

2008-01-11T10:51:00.000-05:00

Top performers have lots of options.
There are very few really great employees.
Top performers are not looking for a new job (unless they are starting their own company).
Top performers want to be with winning companies and surrounded by other top performers and supported by great leaders. Is that your reputation?

Step Four

2007-12-31T14:16:00.000-05:00

The gap analysis reports and high-performer models should also be used to strategically manage the selection and deployment of employees. It can also be used to create succession plans. Managers can use the data to identify high-potential employees (those that add future value because of their learning agility), their team’s short and long-term skill requirements versus the skills their team presently has (benchstrength), best ‘fit’ successors for each employee, and hidden talents across the organization that could be more fully leveraged.

Step Three

2007-12-31T14:14:00.000-05:00

Compare employee assessments to the high-performer models. The skills required to improve performance become clearly evident. Employees must clearly understand what they need to improve and be given a compelling reason to do so. Even though companies can provide employees with the opportunity to improve the employee must decide to improve and take effective actions to learn, apply, and tweak their skills. A database of effective developmental solutions for each skill must be generated. Then employees can select from those solutions (self-paced reading, online or instructor-led courses, observation of experts, etc.) and add them to a Learning Plan. Managers can also use Learning Plans to coach employees on what is required to achieve acceptable levels of performance when an unacceptable trend is identified. To aid employees in the process of real skill development (learning--> application --> feedback --> course correction) they must receive ongoing feedback from trusted sources that are affected by the use of that skill.

Step Two

2007-12-31T14:11:00.000-05:00

Use subject matter experts to identify the activities required to accomplish the objectives for a specific job family or position (focus on the future objectives, not the past). Then they should identify the skills required to effectively execute the activities (both interpersonal and technical can be identified, but the technical are most important at this point). Define each skill and assess employees (via tests or multiple raters) that are in that position or that job family against the skill to determine how skilled they are. Then look for the skills that are common to the highest performers based on the assessments. These are the most important skills and should be saved as a high-performer model. For selection purposes, use the competencies that are common to the high performers, but not the low performers (these are called 'differentiators').

Step One

2007-12-31T14:10:00.002-05:00

Taking the past, present, and future trends in your company’s industry draft a five-year strategic plan. Cascade this plan into functional objectives, team objectives, and individual objectives with clear metrics. Measure individual progress against these metrics using ratings by the people who are actually impacted by the performance (not just the employee’s boss). Provide team leaders, functional leaders, and executives with ongoing status reports that show performance rolling up into the team, functional, and strategic plans so that leaders can manage by exception in real-time.

Step One

2007-12-31T14:10:00.000-05:00

The Steps Required to Build a Strategic Human Capital Asset Management Team

2007-12-31T14:07:00.000-05:00

There is an accurate and applicable body of research on how to determine what differentiates the best performers from all others. This research has been put into practical use in several companies and had a terrific impact on performance at the company and individual level. Whether it is called competency-based HR practices, human capital management systems, talent management, or some other buzz word term, the steps for determining what differentiators are and how to leverage them to improve performance is known and can be applied at any company.

Factors That DO NOT Predict Performance

2007-12-31T14:02:00.000-05:00

The first question often raised in competency model research is which factors truly differentiate performance? If you look at actual business practices you would assume the list of factors goes well beyond interpersonal and technical skills. Most job descriptions and training classes cover such things as professional experiences, industry experience, physical environment conditions, physical ability, education, licenses or certifications, employee tenure, and intelligence. However, each of these factors has one or more critical faults:

We cannot quantify the lessons gained from a professional experience, but we can identify the technical or interpersonal skills that were gained or improved after that experience.
Having worked in a particular industry does not make a difference unless specific skills were gained as a result. Those should be evaluated as technical skills and not assumed based solely on industry experience.
The physical environment is managed by a person’s interpersonal and technical skills. Successful performance in a specific environment (ergonomics) is based on those abilities more than any previous experience in such an environment.
Accessibility requirements are being challenged more frequently through the legal system so an employee’s physical abilities are less of barrier to performance than his/her skills at managing his/her physical abilities via resources. More and more companies are being required to provide such resources.
Most education systems, including training programs, are too generic to provide a performance edge. Instead it is the motivation of the students and their ability to synthesize and use information (skills) that determines the value of the classes. The classes themselves offer no value and the average retention rate of students in any environment is six to twelve percent.
Being certified or having a license is no guarantee of performance. If there is a legal or regulatory requirement for such status then consider the requirement a ‘price of admission’ item and omit it from the position model.
Length of employment is in no way correlated with job performance. Having spent a great deal of time with the same company or in the same position does not guarantee continued success in that position (requirements change over time for every position) or in the next level higher in the organization (the Peter Principle shows us that a unique set of skills are required at every level from managing work to people to process to strategy).
Intelligence is a favorable predictor of performance up to a point. In excess of 120 IQ seems to be a problem in leadership positions and lower IQ’s can have an adverse affect on positions that require highly technical skills. However, there are no IQ tests currently available that fairly assess everyone. All existing testing instruments produce prima facie evidence of discrimination in their results, often discriminating against black males. Also, it is not always how smart you are in terms of performance it is whether you use your intelligence to perform or to learn how to perform. That ability is affected more by interpersonal skills than intelligence.

How to Address Competency Model Challenges

2007-12-31T13:48:00.000-05:00

Content
Challenge: Items are too generic
Solution: Generic content is good at providing a baseline from which a company can jump-start the development of skills lists, but only internally built or refined lists can account for the specific industry, market, and culture of an organization.
Challenge: Items don’t allow comparisons between exempt and non-exempt positions
Solution: The tool must capture skills important at all levels and also drill into skills that are specific to key positions. Assessing employees against all items then allows for cross-level comparisons.
Challenge: Content based on self-serving assumptions
Solution: The tool must be based on independent research from noteworthy individuals and institutions only.
Challenge: Content not updated as conditions change
Solution: Content must be revisited annually as the performance objectives change to meet market conditions.
Challenge: Compound items
Solution: The list must be longer than currently in use to separate potential differentiators, but it should be categorized and drillable to maintain speed of use.
Challenge: US-centric
Solution: Only globally valid personality traits should be used, and value must be defined internal to the organization based on actual performance outcomes.

Process
Challenge: Tool is cutting-edge, not grounded in reality
Solution: Best practices from leading organizations should be borrowed and barriers realized by companies implementing such systems should be proactively mitigated instead of making guinea pigs out of clients.
Challenge: Focus is on what is done instead of what should be done
Solution: Begin by cascading company strategy down into functional and then team objectives and roll those down into position objectives to define importance of jobs and activities.
Challenge: Leaders are disengaged
Solution: Engage leaders throughout the process as subject matter experts, participants, raters, and users. Provide them with their own online dashboard of real-time outputs so that they can manage by exception and leverage expert advice more effectively.

Ratings
Challenge: Results are confidential
Solution: The use of Q-sorting (forced prioritization of skills) results not only in greater accuracy and consistency amongst raters, it is not possible to skew results or adversely impact another employee. If the company wishes to use validated, self-administered tests instead then the results are also non-political.
Challenge: Cannot be accurately measured
Solution: Use only measurable or observable descriptors and clearly define each skill at three levels, basic through expert.
Challenge: Scores are inconsistent
Solution: By tying importance to actual objectives and using Q-sorting consistency will increase, but the system must also focus on the realities of performance: you must hit the numbers and satisfy a variety of stakeholders. All points on the 3 or 5-point scale must also be clearly defined.

Results
Challenge: Information overload
Solution: Use only the key success factors consistently identified in independent research, interpersonal and technical skills.
Challenge: Complex results build dependency on consultant
Solution: Use a sixth-grade reading level in the development of all skill lists and system interfaces, avoid jargon unless it is specific to the company being served, and ensure that all processes and reports are intuitive.
Challenge: Bias and discrimination
Solution: When actual performance-differentiating factors are used to build decision-supporting reports these reports are blind to traditional problems such as job descriptions built to hire a specific individual, visibility being based on your boss’ personal opinion, and data being inherently biased toward people who are like the creator of the tool.
Challenge: Serve the integrated strategic human capital asset management team
Solution: Focusing on the differentiating factors to build models of high performers provides information that drives the management of assessment, selection, development, deployment, succession, and performance. Instead of using analysis tools to determine status and pay, use the FLSA guidelines to determine status and local market data and performance to determine pay.

The Shifting HR Sands

2007-12-31T13:39:00.000-05:00

There is a shift in the way that companies are managing their people. Some of these changes are based on the shift from Personnel Departments to Human Resources Departments to the next generation of strategic human capital asset management teams. Other shifts are being imposed by the demands of line managers and executives. Finally, governments continue to require more evidence of equity and fairness in employee decisions. These changes have made many companies aware of the need to overcome the limitations of the worker-oriented job analysis tools and to automate the resulting best-practice solution.
Several progressive companies began experimenting with ‘high performance work systems’ in the 1990’s (see Mark Huselid's research and Jeffrey Kling's thesis). From those pioneers it was first determined that companies using those systems made more money per employee. Then in response to the accusation that more successful companies could afford better HR practices, follow-up research was done that showed the adoption of such work practices improved company results in key financial and non-financial performance areas (i.e. poor performing companies that invested in their HR practices became average performing companies and average performing companies became high performing companies). Essentially these systems boiled down to a few key elements: all of the human resources areas had to be integrated, this integrated team needed to focus on serving the strategic needs of the organization, and they needed to become consultants to the business leaders instead of compliance police and administrators.
Some of the shifts in the way HR was operating were in response to line manager and executive demands and some of it was based on fears of being outsourced. Other demands from company leaders that have impacted thinking about how jobs are analyzed include the leaders’ own use of such tools. Leaders did not generally support the results of the job analysis tools because: 1. they were not involved in the selection of the tool or its implementation, 2. they did not understand the results or they did not have the skills to use the results, and 3. they did not believe the reports that were generated (i.e. they questioned the validity). Being skeptical of any outsider who borrows your watch to tell you what time it is (colloquial definition of a consultant), these leaders wanted to see how these tools tied back to their business needs and they questioned the facts that the tools were not specific to the industry or company being served. The other two concerns could be more effectively addressed through the process being used, but often these same leaders did not want to be involved because they were ‘too busy’ and felt it was ‘HR’s job’. This catch-22 has been resolved by several pioneering organizations through the way they have sold and managed the process and then put it online to allow leaders instant, real-time access to decision-empowering information.
Finally, several laws and lawsuits have forced companies to focus on the end result of using job analysis tools. If these tools are to serve an integrated human capital asset management team as well as the leaders and individual contributors across an organization then they must effectively drive people decisions without any inherent bias or discrimination and they must produce opportunities to combat prima facie evidence of such problems.

The Limitations of Worker-Oriented Job Analysis

2007-12-31T13:32:00.000-05:00

Across all worker-oriented job analysis tools a common set of serious limitations exist, especially in rating the items:

By removing company-specific focus these tools are blind to the reality of a company’s culture and the industry and market within which the company operates and competes. These tools are also US-centric in their focus. In fact, the non-US-based employees used to originally validate one of the competency models were 80% American expatriates.
None of the analysis tools looks across all employees from exempt down through non-exempt positions. Therefore no comparative data can be created to help manage employees both in their current and future positions. In the case of the management-specific tools, many of the items refer to direct reports. If an employee does not have direct reports then they are rated low in every one of those items regardless of their actual skill. A company that wants a full-service solution will need to use at least two of the listed tools, none of which clearly overlap between levels.
Many of the work behaviors being measured are actually compound lists. For example, the definitions of several of the competencies in one of the competency models cited refer to the same interpersonal skill. If an employee is limited in that one area it has a dramatically negative impact on the evaluation across each of the items that include that single skill.
Each tool is based upon assumptions that certain interpersonal skills and technical skills always go together. Without clearly separating interpersonal from technical skills, the skills that truly differentiate performance are only inferred, but not valid predictors. The vendors’ assumptions are based on their own self-serving research, not on independent research on predictive validity. These theories are also founded on an ideal instead of being grounded in business reality.
These tools are not updated as business conditions and markets shift. Because of the initial investment of time and energy spent in creating each tool and the pride in authorship, these tools look and feel the same today as they did when they were created ten to twenty years ago. When they are ‘re-validated’ the authors simply review the data collected on the existing items without looking outside of their own models for additional items that should be added to reflect current global business conditions.
The items are not consistently scored the same way by each rater. Either because several of the numerical anchors are not clearly defined (e.g. you are supposed to rate the job on a scale from 1 to 5 and 1, 3, and 5 have text descriptions, but not 2 or 4), which results in two persons meaning different things by assigning the same number, or because the description of the item has one of the problems mentioned above (i.e. the rater did not understand the language used in the tool, the person being rated had no direct reports, and/or the same skill was mentioned across several items). This variability has been raised in court when employees who feel they were adversely impacted by a decision challenged the validity of the tool that was used to make that decision.
The focus of the tool has been on what the employee is doing instead of what the employee should be doing. In the case of the very first analysis tools, that was evident when I/O psychologists defined the importance of an activity based on the amount of time spent doing that activity during a normal workday. With the more recent competency models, raters decide what is important based on his/her own perceptions. Consultants who use the competency models may use some benchmark research, but much of that research suffers from the same problems first mentioned in this list (not industry or culture specific). Finally, this is a process problem because no analysis should be done without considering the strategic objectives of the organization and the position’s objectives that tie back to that strategy. Unfortunately, as that reality is being addressed today, the results are still skewed in favor of the status quo because even though incumbents are superficially defining importance based on objectives, actual results consistently indicate that they are only creating profiles that match the skills that they already have instead of the skills that they should have.

Origins of Worker-Oriented Job Analysis

2007-12-31T13:25:00.000-05:00

In the late 1950’s a compromise approach was designed to improve upon the challenges faced by both Personnel Departments and Training Departments. Worker-oriented job analysis allowed companies to analyze and compare even highly task-dissimilar jobs by using a common profile of work activities, the level of detail between job titles and task analysis. This dramatically shortened the amount of data that must be reviewed to classify jobs and provided a clear framework for the development of training classes that could be attended by members of several different functions that shared common skills.

As this technique reached maturity in the 1970’s several standardized instruments were developed to help Industrial/Organizational Psychologists complete an analysis. These tools addressed non-management positions* (usually non-exempt positions) because there were many more jobs of this type and they were more diverse. The first analysis tool for management positions** was not introduced until 1979. Following the conclusion of the 30-year management study at AT&T a host of additional worker-oriented job analysis tools for management positions were introduced and called ‘competency models’***.

Several problems plagued the non-management tools from the very beginning. They required the services of expensive I/O psychologists who created extremely complex and intellectual reports that were not usable by most managers or employees. Not only were the reports information overload, they ensured long-term dependency on the consultant to leverage the initial investment because no one else could interpret the results. The fact that only individual contributor jobs could be evaluated also meant that these tools continued to focus on legal compliance instead of impacting higher-value exempt positions.

Complex language issues also plagued the first-generation and some of the second-generation (competency model) tools for management jobs. In addition, the first generation analysis tools used terms that were too general and the behaviors could not be accurately measured or observed. In the case of the competency models the results of any measurements were unusable to the investing companies because they were confidential. This confidentiality was meant to overcome the pressure to skew results upward because, whether they should have been used for these purposes or not, persons rating the managers knew that the results of any measurement could affect pay and promotion opportunities.

* Position Analysis Questionnaire (1972), Job Element Inventory (1978), General Work Inventory (1982), and Occupation Analysis Inventory (1983) were the most popular.
** Professional and Management Position Questionnaire (1978), Position Description Questionnaire (1979), and Executive Checklist aka EXCEL (1988) were the most popular.
*** Following Bray, Campbell, and Grant’s 1974 research paper on their findings at AT&T several commercial models were created including their own (Developmental Dimensions International), Personnel Decisions International (1984), and Lominger Limited, Incorporated (1992) just to name a few.

The Origins of Task Analysis

2007-12-31T13:22:00.000-05:00

Personnel Departments were charged with several administrative and compliance issues, one of which was the categorization of jobs. They were required to categorize jobs for two main reasons: to determine the appropriate pay range for a given position and to ensure compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) published by the Department of Labor, provides a wide range of occupational information and acted as an early guide to Personnel Departments in their quest to classify jobs and assign a pay range. However, this book was exhaustively long and burdensome to use. The same could be said for using this book to determine whether positions fell under exempt or non-exempt status according to FLSA. Later the Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), published by the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics, broadened the categorization of jobs and decreased the size of the database that Personnel Departments had to search by 90%, but it still comprises several thousand pages of information.
The level of detail provided by these texts was sufficient for making pay and status decisions, but they were not detailed enough to help companies design training classes for new and existing employees. While the DOT and OOH listed job titles and other categorizing information they did not break jobs down into their component tasks. Employees responsible for training wanted to know exactly what steps were involved in doing the work so that they could teach those steps correctly. The process devised for finding out what work was being done and how it was being done came to be called task analysis. Whereas the Personnel Departments were content with analyzing positions at the job level to meet their requirements, Training Departments had to drill down two levels deeper – from job to activity to the required steps for each activity. The first attempts at task analysis involved asking job incumbents: 1. how much time do you spend on each activity and 2. what steps do you take an in what order to complete that activity? Task analysis resulted in long lists of fine details for each job.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Succession Planning

2007-12-30T00:18:00.000-05:00

Based on a conversation I witnessed a couple of years ago...

CEO: So, this chart indicates that we should be four-deep in this mission-critical Director position yet we only have two Directors that are capable today, one Area Manager that will be ready in 1-2 years, and four that will be ready in 3-5 years.
Consultant: Yes, exactly. Clearly you need to accelerate the development of the Manager that is only a year away from being ready and hire externally to fill the other gap.
CEO: What about the other Directors that are currently in this position? Where is the information about them?
Consultant: We found that the current Directors did not match the profiles of Directors at Fortune 500 companies that we have previously benchmarked. Their developmental needs were so large we felt that they would not be ready in 3-5 years. Therefore, they did not show up on this chart.
CEO: What are recommending that we do?
Consultant: Being a full-service consulting firm we have proposed that we assist with outplacement of displaced personnel as well as sourcing and selection of external candidates. We will also supply your company with executive coaches and training for the Manager that will be ready in one year and the four that will be ready in three to five years.
CEO: Two of the Directors that did not show up on this list led the fastest turnaround of under-performing divisions in this company’s history. One of the other Directors was the best Manager three-years running and is getting rave reviews from his peers and direct reports just four months after moving up. Did the benchmark data you are referencing focus on companies in our industry? Companies in our market? Companies with our culture?
Consultant: We benchmarked high-performing Directors in high-performing companies. By setting the bar higher we are helping you pull your company up, and thus, avoid being satisfied with average or the lowest common denominator. We have found….
CEO: What you have found is that this company is unique. And we are a solid number 2 in our industry. Tell me this, how did you determine that some people were 1-2 years from being ready and others were 3-5 years away?
Consultant: We assessed all Director and Area Managers against the competencies from our High-Performing Director Profile. As some competencies are more difficult to develop than others we calculated the time to develop the required competencies wherever there were gaps between what was in the profile and what the employees had.
CEO: What is the formula you use to calculate time to readiness?
Consultant: The partners in our firm have over 200 collective years of HR experience and we confer on all projections such as these.
CEO: So this is not a calculation of readiness this is your best guess. Did you take into account how quickly each of these Directors can learn? How receptive each is to change? Did you look at the opportunity to learn what they need to know from their present jobs? I believe that experience is one of the best teachers a man or woman can have.
Consultant: As we only used the competencies from the profile we were not able to evaluate learning agility, which you are calling quick or receptive learners. Of course, their jobs require the competencies from our profile so their jobs have those exact experiences by default. The fact that they have those gaps after being in the position for some time strengthens our case that they will take longer to learn than you seem to be suggesting.
CEO: So, if you did not assess them against enough data to determine their ‘learning agility’, did you bother to assess them against enough data to determine where they do fit in this organization?
Consultant: We would be more than happy to provide your company with additional assessments so that you can make additional succession planning decisions. That will also help us better place the incumbents who should be removed.
CEO: Maybe you are not listening to me… I am not about to remove the incumbent Directors. You have brought very limited data that is based on a benchmark that does not align with our business or our culture. You have taken a process that could easily rely on science and you have butchered it with art, opinion, circumstantial evidence, whatever you want to call it. You provided a limited view of the capabilities of each of the people you assessed in what seems to be an attempt to sell more assessments. I am afraid to ask how you determined that we should be four-deep in this position to begin with.

Fortunately for this company, the CEO knows enough to challenge the mystical art of succession planning. Whether internal or external, succession planning consultants are finding more and more highly-educated and street-smart executives questioning their practice and their recommendations. Even mainstream executives are asking tougher questions and not getting the answers they were looking for. In an age when information and technology are so ubiquitous, why are we continuing to put up with psuedo-scientists that disguise their opinion as expertise?

More than thirty years of research into executive performance and potential has resulted in some clear relationships and causal factors that should be used in any succession plan. The traits that predict success in the short and long term are known and have not changed significantly over time. The problem is that even amongst the professionals who know what those traits are there is considerable disagreement about how to use the information. In the example above the consulting firm was using a validated commercial competency model. They were also relying on well-known and documented benchmarks. They even know what ‘potential’ looks like (learning agility). Yet they failed to put it all together in a way that fully capitalizes on the most effective and scientific data collection, retention, and querying practices. As the CEO so eloquently put it, they used art instead of available science.

So, how can we take advantage of available research and best practices and avoid the art of succession planning? First, collect relevant data. Commercial competency models give you, at best, 60% of the answer. Technical competence accounts for a great deal of success as well. Always assess against all available data so that you can use that data to make all kinds of decisions. By limiting the data in the assessment the consultant above saved a few minutes of time, but now he cannot answer some very critical questions. Assess, store, and query the data from a common database. The consultant above used manual, pen-and-paper methods for storing data that was collected via an online 360 (multi-rater) assessment. To make calculations based on that data is extremely painful and probably accounts for a lot of the reasons behind why his firm uses ‘200 years of experience’ instead a mathematical formula. Even storing the data in Excel and running queries across multiple spreadsheets can be painful and requires significant spreadsheet expertise. If the data was collected and stored in a common platform then a lot of questions can be addressed to drive more effective succession decisions. This includes the ability to run queries to discover the high-performance model specific to your company. Companies wanting to replicate something that is only an aspiration and will never be a reality have thrown a lot of good money away.

It is time for executives to take control of the governance of their organizations now and in the future. The technology is there, the research is available, and successful practices have begun to withstand the test of time. Become an educated executive and you can expect to reap the benefits and avoid the pitfalls of succession planning.

Using the MBTI for Selection

2007-12-21T17:46:00.001-05:00

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is useful when teaching the platinum rule, but it should NEVER be used as a determining factor when selecting new employees or someone for a promotion! Like most personality assessments, the MBTI is fakable and situational. What that means is that candidates who are willing to do whatever it takes to get hired will provide you with the answers that they believe that you desire (assertiveness for Sales and collaborative for Customer Service). That also means that the frame of mind that you are in will affect the outcome of the assessment. I know that I will catch a lot of flack from the purists out there, but I have asked people to take the MBTI and DiSC in a different environment each year over a period of several years and the results clearly indicate the situational nature of these assessments. You are not the same person in front of your Mom or your priest/reverend as you are with your drinking buddies. We all put on the appropriate mask for the various situations that we find ourselves in...

By the way, the golden rule is either "she who has the gold makes all the rules" or "treat others the way you want to be treated". In fact, if you really want to get others to respond favorably to you then you better practice the platinum rule - "treat others the way they want to be treated". People are not one size fits all, and your size is not the perfect size for anyone except you.

Trainer Activities to Discuss Temperament

2007-12-21T08:45:00.001-05:00

· Separate the group into temperament groups - this exercise works best with large groups (21 or more). This exercise can be really wild and fun! Ask the group: "Using anything in your environment, create something."
· Separate the groups by temperament. Ask them to describe and write on a flipchart the qualities of a good teacher.

General MBTI Activity

2007-12-21T08:44:00.001-05:00

A transition application between awareness and team dynamics exercises....
Time--Between 1-1.5 hours (I've never completed it in an hour).

One exercise I do that seems consistently extremely effective, and is an adaptation from one commonly done during the MBTI qualification process. Once the "awareness" exercises are complete (i.e., "like" groups together, clarifying similar type behavior),

1) Move everyone to an open space in the room (or hallway, or outside). Have everyone physically line up (from E-I), leaving as much space as needed to really represent their strength of preference. I stand in the middle, and represent "0". Careful instructions are needed! They can use their actual scores, if they want, for guidance. ( I sometimes have them already charted.)

2) Ask them to comment on what they observe from the line-up. Light bulbs start popping, and often they start saying--now I know why we/you/I ....___________! Note that a thorough grounding, and the initial exercises, have already built a foundation of understanding!
.
3) Ask them questions centered around their own group dynamics, their line-up, and the particular type continuum being addressed. Usually, I focus on their team meetings. For example; for E/I--
· "Who speaks up most frequently in meetings? Least?"
· "How does that affect the way information is shared, decisions are made, people feel about the meeting?"
· " Is what you experience in meetings consistent with what you see in this line-up?"
It's fun to point out that even in this (E-I) discussion, the dynamics of the group (level of participation, etc.) are usually consistent. Let it play out for a while, then consciously note the impact.
· Ask the E's, "How much have you learned about the I's?" Ask the I's, "How much have the I's learned about the E's?" "What can you do right now to alter this dynamic?"
· "How do people on (E-side, then I-side) feel about the way this dynamic plays into your meetings and discussions?" "What are some ways you might be misunderstanding the intent of what is happening?" (Usually this is quite an open, fun discussion).
· " What are some positive and potentially negative impacts of these dynamics?"
· "What can you do as a team to ensure higher levels of involvement?" (Help them think about time, e-mail, etc. as a valuable tool to leverage "I" processing, etc.)

(Can also set the stage for future discussion of Argyris' work on Ladder of Influence, etc.).

4) Chart these suggestions for them, and help them to integrate into their future meetings, etc. Have them be very behaviorally specific on their suggestions. "What could you say?" "When in your meeting could you incorporate these techniques to build consistency, good habits, etc.?"

5) Have them switch to the next three types, (S-N, T-F, J-P). I tailor each of the questions and discussions to the particular type and relative team impacts/dynamics. Note that they are standing (or wheeling), and re-aligning each time. I find this keeps the conversation moving and everyone alert. This is a great physical approach that incorporates more visual "kinesthetic" learning and reinforcement of this model. Moving to a different physical space also infuses the learning with focus and energy.

Some Concerns to Note
I find that the differences are not always clear in the outcomes of these exercises, especially in the S/N and T/F exercises. I think that's because the behavior becomes somewhat "contaminated" by the culture of the organization. Especially in more traditional technical industries (engineering-oriented, chemical, manufacturing), the N's and the F's have learned effective behavior that is often counter to their preference.

MBTI Activity - Drawing by Description

2007-12-21T08:43:00.003-05:00

Also, clustering STJ's vs. NFP's , if you have a large enough population is fun ..... using the 'layoff example' noted above is a good one for these groups, especially if there is a large enough population of 'others' who can serve as observers of how both groups address the situation ...... video this for playback to both groups, if possible.

General MBTI Drawing Activity

2007-12-21T08:43:00.001-05:00

I first have each person draw a metaphor for the MBTI. Then, based on the different types I have in class, I put them the ST, SF, NT and NF together in a group to draw a group picture. We then look at the differences in the group picture and also the differences in the process they took in developing the picture. The most interesting one I ever did, I had to put an SF and NF together because of the class make-up. They found a way to use both pictures but half of the picture was full of details, while the other half was extremely abstract. They did, however, work through it very well. I have saved all of the pictures my students have drawn so I can see how it unfolds over a period of time.

I probably don't need to mention this, but when I use these types of exercises, I don't tell people in advance what their type is. I cluster them according to type and then have them report out their work and notice the differences.

Judging vs. Perceiving Activities for Trainers

2007-12-21T08:42:00.001-05:00

Judging-Perceiving (J-P) (outward preference for structure or flexibility)
distinguishes an outward preference for having things planned and organized (Judging) versus a flexible style based more on staying open to options than deciding (Perceiving).

1. Reviewing what you did last weekend.
2. Discuss a topic. I usually use "the environment" because it's something everyone can contribute *something* to, is a very broad topic (which drives the Js crazy, and illustrates their need to structure everything), and is relatively boring to the Ps, which allows them to feel all right about straying from the topic.
3. I have used an exercise where I put signs on opposite ends of the wall: "I must finish my work before I play." "I can play anytime." Then have participants line up where they feel the fall on that spectrum and explain why they are standing where they are and what each statement means to them.
4. Ask them what they would do with $100 given to them. The Judgers pay their bills, save some, and perhaps have a nice dinner. The Perceivers gamble, make more, and then spend on vacations, gambling, new stereos, etc. Or you've just inherited a large sum of money. what would you do with it ?
5. Have the groups separate and have one go outside the room. Take the first group, put them in a 'fishbowl' and have the group discuss something fairly benign for your group. I have used the environment, or the difference between the east coast and west coast. Have the group write down on a flipchart what they have discussed. Let the group tell you when they are done. Hint: be sure to look at the makeup of I/E in this exercise if possible.
6. What do you plan to do this weekend? Planning a party will also bring a lot of insight. We've seen J groups approach this like a really serious business launch. "Organized fun" was a description.
7. Use a future event for them to plan. It seems to me that you can get a better view of the divergence of the P thought process and the convergence of the J process when you're doing a "planning" activity.

Thinking vs. Feeling Activities for Trainers

2007-12-21T08:41:00.001-05:00

Thinking-Feeling (T-F) (style of making decisions)
distinguishes a preference for deciding via objective, impersonal logic (Thinking) versus subjective, person-centered values (Feeling).

1. Divide group into smaller groups w/ all Ts in one & all Fs in other (if possible - could also mix them). They all receive and read a business/employment scenario, then have to reach consensus as a group re: what to do. Basically, the group is the board for a large company, and face a critical deadline to deliver on a product for a major client (client responsible for 40% of annual revenues). Their production manager reports he/she cannot meet this deadline, even though the client is firm and must have the product by then. A consultant has promised to deliver the product by the deadline, but the board cannot pay the consultant and the production mgr. both! The board must decide what to do re: the production mgr. I throw in other "F" info to enliven the discussion - i.e. the production mgr. is a loyal employee of 25 years, w/ solid work history & strongly respected in the co., but has been having personal problems lately & has used a lot of leave, resulting in a drop in performance, etc. Having the groups report out their decision/recommendations leads to a nice discussion of the contrasting decision-making preferences in action. Often, the groups reach the same conclusions, but the Fs generally get there by a far different route!
2. You have just been advised by your company's top management that a layoff is required ..... you are in charge of planning the downsizing and you must get it done in a short period of time. How would you go about it ? Have them flip chart brainstormed comments from their group.
3. Deal with a problem employee. (Give them facts, including both performance information and personal information.)
4. Explain to a new employee why this is a good place to work.
5. Define "marriage," in a group breakout session format (this one usually yields great examples of the differences!)
6. Deciding who gets to attend a conference in the Caribbean, or other great location.
7. I've had some problems getting a clear difference in this one. I've used a similar activity using kids - like a girl scout trip that suddenly there are not enough seats and they have to decide who gets left out. The hang-up is they get way too much into problem solving and generating alternatives and just deny having to make the decision at all. If you watch very closely you can often get the T/F stuff from the reasons they use - do they say, "It's not fair" or do they say "I don't want her feelings to be hurt", for example.
8. "That building must go" where like types play the role of building administrators who have to plan out an eviction process for all the remaining tenants because the building will be demolished in a month.
9. Ask them to define conflict. The feelers have a hard time getting started, but once they do they are in agreement, while the thinkers enjoy arguing about it and never quite reach an agreement. T sees conflict when there is
10. emotion occurring while F sees it when someone is merely critiquing the issues.

Sensing vs. Intuition Activities for Trainers

2007-12-21T08:40:00.001-05:00

Sensing-INtuition (S-N) (style of gathering data)
distinguishes a predisposition for gathering data directly through the senses as facts, details, and precedents (Sensing) versus indirectly as relationships, patterns, and possibilities (Intuition).

1. Have the S's and N's look at an abstract painting for a few seconds, take the painting away, then have the separate groups describe the painting.
2. Give each group an apple and ask them to describe it. If you give them enough time the Sensors will have totally eaten the apple and perhaps demolished the core, while the Intuitives will return the apple to you in the same shape you gave it to them. Their descriptions also totally show the differences.
3. I give each group a clear glass containing M&Ms candies. The task is to describe (chart) what they see in the glass. Typically the S's get real sensory and eat the candy, but not until they count the 8 reds, 4 blues, etc. The N's nurses from that same group I mentioned above described M&M's as PMS food. I typically don't get that many sexual references.
4. Describe the meeting room.
5. Find as many uses as possible for a common item (a brick, perhaps).
6. Ask each group to do two different activities: for example, describe the meeting room and describe an ideal meeting room. Compare how they've done the two tasks and ask each group which task was the easiest for them.
7. I take them out into a hallway and have them describe the room we've been in. (S preferences tend to point out the details of the room, N preferences tend to not know the details but come up with some potential ways the room could be used or improved.)
8. Describe an object, in a group breakout format. I usually use a piece of fruit, or a simple drawing which could be described quite literally, or interpreted abstractly.
9. Describing an object, like a marker or a lipstick.
10. An MBTI-wine tasting. I bet the S's would be able to detect the flavors, be making notes about the vintage, calcuating case prices, etc. The N's would be recalling the wine they had when....or thinking about serving it with...
11. Dump a bag of contents out onto a table for about 15 seconds, then scoop them back into the bag and have the groups write down what they saw.
12. Have them describe something abstract like "TIME" or even better, have them look out the window (if you're fortunate enough to be working in a room that has one) and describe the scene. You could also ask them to describe the room they're working in. I think with a larger thing to look at you really get to see the difference between the detailed view of the S's and the broader view of the N's - the S's may say, "there are 3 trees - two oaks and a pine - and a blue house with white trim." The N's might say, "it's a windy day, since the trees are swaying, but looks like it would be a nice day to take a walk. I've always wondered who lives in that house?" I do these simultaneously, having each group write notes on the flipchart to share with the others.
13. I give them something and ask them to write the first things that come to mind. I might use valentine hearts (the ones with saying on them) or candy canes, or candy corn or something that will elicit some memories for Ns.
14. Buy one of these plastic Lego/ building blocks set (one for each group) and ask like types to build something (a factory, entertainment/training center or the like - something unfamiliar to everyone). It's fun and you might notice the S's reading the instructions in the box while Ns go wild with their ideas.
15. You might try having them give directions from the nearest mall, grocery store, movie theater, etc. to their house. Then you can debrief by having them discuss the communication styles associated with each type.
Watch for:
· Use of landmarks (spatial).
· Use of street names (verbal)
· Use of North, South, East, and West along with mileage
· (geographical)
· A blend of the above

Extroversion vs. Introversion Activities for Trainers

2007-12-21T08:39:00.003-05:00

Extraversion-Introversion (E-I)
distinguishes a preference for focusing attention on, and drawing energy from, the outer world of people and things versus the inner world of ideas and impressions.

1. Planning a recognition event for yourself.
2. Ask them how they would spend a free day. The Extroverts tend to spend it with others or out and about, while the Introverts enjoy reading a book, watching TV, or generally spending the day with themselves.
3. Plan what you would do on a weekend if you could anything. I put them in a circle from the highest E to the highest I and they share. You can see the shift between the two occurring. I find E's often talk about: food, sex, drink!!! I have them come up with five questions they would like to ask the opposite group. Then we ask and discuss.
4. I do the I/E activity in front of the whole group and it's always a big "aha!" to note that it's not necessarily the content of the discussion but the tone and volume and energy that's different between the two groups. It helps people to get away from the notion that I's are always recluses - they may very well plan group activities. I usually ask them to plan a vacation. Funny how I's would go to similar places - but the activities they will engage in gives them away.
5. I also know of someone who does an "Advice to a Friend" exercise wherein I's give E's advice on his/her ideal work place / work process and vice-versa.
6. I have participants self-select their preference and form two groups. I ask each group to describe (charting the responses) the opposite type and what's it like to work with the opposites. Typically positive and negative stuff gets generated. I find that it is a way to begin to look at how we need/appreciate each other and also how we bug each other. I remember one group of E's (nurses) who described the I's as sexier and better lovers--can't remember all the reasons they had but it got the day off to a fun start.

Myers-Briggs at Work

2007-12-21T08:39:00.001-05:00

The theory behind Jung's work and the MBTI is that the differences in normal people and consequently their work and relationship requirements and conflicts are a result of the different ways they perceive and adapt to the world. These differences are easily observable in the workplace and we are constantly dealing with the results of these variables.

The purpose of using the MBTI within a business environment is to attempt to measure these differences, so that they can be better understood. Instead of having creative tension in the workplace cause conflict and opposition, the MBTI can be used to anticipate these opposing but legitimate viewpoints and be creative with the tensions that come from them. Work environments using Typology as a systematic, workable, logical tool for individual organizational development and for team-building have proven more efficient, productive and, ultimately, financially successful.

Within corporate structures, Typology can profoundly affects people as well as the overall work environment. Human motivation comes from within the individual Type and no manager, regardless of how effective he or she is, can be successful if they attempt to motivate everyone in the same way. The challenge for leaders is to create an environment where people are encouraged to be all they can be. When a leader has a knowledge of the personality Type of their subordinates, it can assist them in knowing the unique abilities of each person and helps them work to develop and maximize their potential. This results in saving time and negative energy that may have been spent trying to make people fit a specific or defined position or way of performing. Exceptional performance by ordinary people occurs when leaders have worked with whom their employees are rather than who they think they should be.

Typology works on the basis that it is normal and healthy for people working together to have a variety of opinions and attitudes. The challenge facing the manager in any organization is to direct these distinct personalities into a formation that will work toward a common goal, to create synergy or organizational group cohesiveness.
Ideally, all managers would like to establish an environment where people, of their own free will and desire, want to work well together and optimize their own performance. Using Typology, a manager can learn to understand what motivates each individual and then create the conditions for superior performance.
People will strive to perform to the best of their ability when their work is satisfying, meaningful and enjoyable to them. When the workplace is conflict-ridden, unpredictable or too rigid, people will feel threatened and become preoccupied with surviving or searching for better opportunities elsewhere. The use of the MBTI and a thorough understanding of Typology can assist leaders and managers to construct a work environment that is creative, productive and fulfills both personal and corporate goals.

What is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)?

2007-12-21T08:38:00.001-05:00

It is a self-report questionnaire designed to make Carl Jung's (1875-1961) theory of psychological types understandable and useful (Briggs Myers, 1993, p1). It leads to greater self knowledge and helps to identify strengths, unique gifts, motivations and areas for growth. It was developed by Kathrine Cook Briggs (1875-1968) and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers (1897-1980) keenly studied human personality and elaborated on Carl Jung's work in this area. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was developed during World War II to reduce the waste of human potential and has been developed ever since (Briggs Myers, 1993, p1).

Jung's theory of psychological type suggests that predictable differences in individuals are caused by preferences in the way people used their minds (Briggs Myers, 1993, p2). The mind is usually doing one of two things (Briggs Myers, 1993, p2):
1. Perceiving or taking in information and
2. Judging or ordering information and arriving at a conclusion.

From these two functions Jung observed that there were two ways to perceive and judge (Briggs Myers, 1993, p2):
1. Perceive - i). Sensing ii). Intuition
2. Judging - iii). Thinking iv). Feeling

People use all four of these processes everyday and Jung observed that people have preferences toward certain types (Briggs Myers, 1993, p2). These processes are experienced in two distinct areas: Externally in the environment, people and experiences (Extraversion) and internally in thought and reflection (Introversion) and Jung observed that that people were drawn to one type environment.

Hence the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a matrix of 16 possible personality types based on 4 scales (Briggs Myers, 1993, p3):
1. Where a person prefers to focus their attention: (Extraversion or Introversion)
2. How does a person prefer to take in information: (Sensing or Intuition)
3. How does a person prefer to make decisions: (Thinking or Feeling)
4. What way does a person prefer to position themselves to the external world: (Judging or Perceiving)
Please note that extrovert does not mean talkative, introvert does not mean shy, feeling does not mean emotional, judging does not mean judgemental and perceiving does not mean perceptive.

The matrix of types:
Sensing Types Sensing Types Intuitive Types Intuitive Types
Introverts ISTJ ISFJ INFJ INTJ
Introverts ISTP ISFP INFP INTP
Extroverts ESTP ESFP ENFP ENTP
Extroverts ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

Research on Predicting Performance During Selection

2007-12-20T23:02:00.001-05:00

There are some inherent problems with using "predictors" of suitability for open positions within a company. Hunter and Hunter (1984) showed that interviewing is certainly one of the least valid predictors of future job performance (a validity coefficient of .14). Using such things as reference checks (.26), education (.22) or biographical data (.37) did not improve the odds too favorably. In fact, even the best predictor, test scores, came out at .57. So, one could make the argument that in order to be able to best predict future job performance of any person, a combination of methods should be used. Hunter, J.E. and Hunter, R.F. 1984. "Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance". .Psychological Bulletin. 96:72-98
Additional research, including Campion, Campion & Hudson, 1994; Huffcutt and Arthur, 1994; Huffcutt, Roth et al, 1996; and McDaniel et al, 1994, continued to show structured interviews having a maximum validity coefficient of .24. One of the most-embraced contemporary personality assessments, the Big 5, was found in Mount and Barrick's 1995 meta-analytic study to have a coefficient of .18 (uncorrected) for Conscientiousness. There is no silver bullet.
Additionally, at least in the US, one must be concerned about the legality of "testing" in employment decisions. Specifically, Griggs v. Duke Power found that any testing must show "a manifest relationship to the employment in question" and that it is up to the employer to show that it did.
To expand on the points about employing a combination of methods, one should conduct a job analysis to establish job relevance of various KSAOs (as required by Griggs, the Uniform Guidelines, CRA, etc.). A well-designed job analysis may also provide guidance with regard to selection methods (test, interview, resume screen, etc.) as well as testing constructs (cognitive ability, conscientiousness, job knowledge, etc.). Therefore, the job analysis will drive the appropriate selection methods.

Give the gift of learning games

2007-12-12T23:26:00.001-05:00

Yes, my books filled with activities for trainers and consultants to use when teaching interpersonal and collaboration skills are still in print. You can check out the links from my home page (darinphillips.com) or search for my name at my publisher's website (booklocker.com). You can also search for my name at Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com, or many of the other larger booksellers.

I hope you are enjoying the holiday season!

http://www.darinphillips.com
http://www.booklocker.com

Who owns finding new hires?

2007-12-12T23:08:00.000-05:00

I work for Silver Hill Financial (http://www.silverhillfinancial.com), which is part of Bayview Lending Group. Bayview's HR team has a recruiting team. That team is a shared resource for the other two companies within BLG and other Bayview companies as well. Whenever a manager identifies the need for a new position or needs to replace an employee they seek approval from the company's leader and then call the recruiting team and ask for a search. However, most of the time that manager (as a leader of a specialized function) is probably better suited to find a pool of qualified candidates with experience in that function. Once they grasp this reality they often share the locations where the qualified candidates may be found and then ask for a search. However, this same manager is probably also the best person to reach out to their peers and network in order to attract the right candidates from the same locations that they just sent to the recruiting team. In fact, once a small group of suitable candidates have been recruited to apply this same manager is also probably the best person to interview the candidates in order to determine whether the candidates have the specialized knowledge and experience for the opening.

So, what value does the recruiting team add? They are experts in how to put this process together effectively - from sourcing to attracting to selecting. The members of the recruiting team help the manager figure out what he/she really needs. They help the manager realize which sources the manager's industry provides that probably include people that are interested in new opportunities. They help the manager position the opening and the company in a very attractive way in order to attract the best candidates. They even pay for ads and job postings as needed. Finally, they run all of the candidates through the initial screens before presenting a small group of potentially qualified candidates to the manager. They also offer to help the manager develop effective interview questions and other steps in the process.

Managers should NOT delegate all of the steps to anyone. They must take ownership in the sourcing, attracting, and selection of their team members. Otherwise, they cannot complain about what they end up with. They need to exercise their right to lead.

Thank you for your nominations!

2007-11-13T23:42:00.001-05:00

It has recently come to my attention that I was nominated by a few fans of my books on teaching activities and people who have attended my conference presentations as one of the top management thinkers in business today. Thank you for your acknowledgement! It is humbling to even be considered for such an honor.

http://www.thinkers50.com/?page=vote

Price of Admission

2007-11-13T23:25:00.000-05:00

When you review a set of competencies you should be able to quickly pick out that some represent things that one knows, some represent things that one can do, some represent things that someone has accomplished, some represent personality traits, and some represent innate ability or strengths based on personal preferences. Because you cannot train or develop certain competencies you must hire for them. These are the 'price of admission' competencies.
First, there are certain knowledge and skill competencies that are commodities. So many people have these competencies that you have no intention of teaching them to a new employee. Examples of commodity competencies include how to use a computer mouse or how to fluently speak a language. These skills should be readily available in the general talent pool. Don't hire anyone that lacks these commodity competencies.
Second, there are certain competencies that one cannot develop or learn quickly. In fact, they may be practically innate. Only a life-altering incident is likely to quickly change the candidate's competencies in these areas. These include aptitudes and personality traits. You should not discriminate against candidates who have physical or other limitations that are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) unless you have a very compelling case that shows how it is not possible for you to make special arrangements that mitigate the impact of that limitation. There are very few challenges that your company should not be able to accommodate so this is probably not going to happen. However, if you identify that it is critical to have someone in a role that is an effective active listener, you had better create behavioral interview questions and a simulation that will highly the likelihood that the candidate is able to listen. You are not going to teach someone to listen after you hire them...

Facilitated Job Analysis Meeting

2007-11-04T20:11:00.000-05:00

At the core of any usable human capital management system is a set of competencies that drive the activities that lead to desired results. The goal is to have the right people (those with the right aptitude, knowledge, experience, skills, abilities, and traits) doing the right work at the right time the right way. If all of these factors have been optimized then your organization will achieve superior results. Tieing this concept to Kaplan and Norton's balanced scorecard, employees that know or have access to timely information can efficiently and effectively execute the company's processes, which leads to customer engagement and loyalty, which drives the bottom line. There are a lot of research papers (of course some are self-serving white papers created by vendors of various products, but many other independent studies also exist) that can be referenced to see actual results from real companies.

The simplest method for identifying the most critical competencies requires you to work backwards toward them using the following job analysis methodology:

1. Bring together team leaders and top performers from the position in question.

2. Have that group define the most critical objectives for anyone in that role. Typically, this facilitated discussion is best guided by reviewing the balanced scorecard methodology. Most positions will include objectives in the following areas:

- timely and accurate completion of core duties, including adherence to laws, rules, guidelines, processes, etc., (outcome is nearly flawless execution of duties);

- effective establishment and management of customer expectations and perception (outcome is an engaged and loyal internal or external customer);

3. Once the group has agreed upon the top 3 to 5 objectives have them focus on one objective at a time and identify the most critical activities that someone in the position should flawlessly execute to achieve the best possible outcomes against that objective. Some activities may impact results against more than one objective. However, list that activity under each affective objective.

4. After the activities have been defined dig into each activity and document the most importance competencies that will lead to effective and efficient execution of that activity. Competencies should include experiences, knowledge, skills, aptitude, abilities, and traits, including personality characteristics. Again, these may be repeated across several activities, but go ahead and list them under each activity that the competency supports.

5. Define each competency so that it is clear exactly what is meant by the lable that each competency was given.

6. Adjourn the group, but prepare them for future meetings during which you will ask them to help define metrics that will tell employees whether they are meeting those objectives or not, leverage their collective intelligence when piloting training for leaders of teams that include members in the role that was analyzed, and other related discussions.

In a later post I will share techniques on how to segregate the competencies into price of admission or new hire training categories, how to assess existing employees against the competencies that you fleshed out and defined. I will also help you identify how to turn the activities into training for new hires and the entire job analysis into training for team leaders.

Welcome

2007-11-02T10:13:00.000-04:00

Welcome to my little corner of the blogosphere. I hope to inpart upon you practical strategies and activities that will make you a more effective and valuable member of the leadership team in your organization (or a more value-added consulting or HR resource).

Let me know what you think. Feedback and constructive debate are always welcome!