New Brooms – clean sweeping change ahead of them

I have been working with a number of clients in the last year where a new senior manager has joined with a quest, or at least an agenda, to change the business for the better.  So they make better change leaders coming fresh from outside?  Are they recruited because of some magical abilities to make change happen? I think not… however what is clear, whether they are brand new to the organisation, or just internal appointments new to the department, they bring fresh perspective. Maybe that is enough to make a difference to the way people look at organisations.

I left my last organisation, which I really enjoyed working in, because I caught myself on more than one occasion saying ” that won’t work here because we tried that in the past and..” .  The power of socialization in organisations should not be under estimated. When you as a change agent cannot see things different from the mass who live inside the system then it’s time to go.

Maybe this fresh way of seeing the problem and the energy a new face brings is enough to make things happen. Given a reasonable process and some early wins maybe we need more new brooms to really get change moving.

In my recent experience of two successful transformations both clients had a new man at the top. They are not socialized, they do not have the learned helplessness often displayed by the long serving loyal workforce of the company.  neither of the individuals in case are genius’ but both have brought swift change to their respective organisations, with people and not in spite of them.

What is also refreshing to see in both these leaders is the humility to ask for support and ideas where they do not have the experience or knowledge. It seems being effective and being omnipotent are not the same.  More new brooms please !!

Talent – the missing generation?

Recently talking to one of my clients I found an interesting attitude relating to talent and particularly graduates. It seems earlier in the year when graduate recruitment was discussed there was a clear indication from the business, that they needed top quality graduates. Being an engineering company they were normally in tough competition with the other top companies for the dwindling supply of really good engineering gradutes. So all good for this last year with a mandate from the business heads to recruit and a potentially eager pool of graduates to select from, and some really being realistic about their employers offer – all was good in the world.

So what happened? Well it seems lots of internal politics, some over estimation of the ease of doing the process themselves,  lack of understanding of the graduate market place and possibly some apathy from staff. So the company will not recruit this year for the first time in many year- and NOT because of lack of need but lack of focus ! The people tasked with the process dropped the ball, missed the boat, lost the plot and failed to get a scheme together in time to recruit even when the go was given in August.

Why the missing generation? Well not only will there be no 2010 cohort to fill existing needs, but there will be a follow on effect in the university’s they recruit from, the lack of 2010 intake means less presence in the minds of the campus, less word of mouth contact as graduates go through the process of gettting a job they talk about it to friends, mainly others on their course or in their discipline… free PR.  Also internally the lack of graduates can send a signal to others in the professional ranks, thin end of the wedge… not taking on the talent for the first time in years… should I jump before I am pushed?

Now I am not saying recruit in all cases regardless of the economy… not at all… but when the buisness ok’s a  budget for it, analysed the need and agreed they had one, when the market is already tough ( engineers are hard to recruit normally) and when the buisines is doing well !! Now that is madness and there will be a missed generation of future talent who have gone to the competition..hey ho.

T maps in practice

Just some more thoughts on the positives of using T maps, whilst they are in the front of my mind. I have recently used them with two senior groups looking at strategy for a large international organistion. In both cases the time it takes to create one, even with a willing and able group, was under estimated. I think that the real value comes from the necessary diallogue and explanations, which means that the concensus is high in the group. However, that means the mapping takes longer.

For a senior team think about 2 x 2 day workshops, one to get the draft and directions right, and a second one a few week a later to get the gain on the picture sharpened up, more dates, more cost, more names, more interdependencies mapped out.

A great tool which people get … no selling really needed as the output clarifies complexity better than most change management tools or techniques.

Transformation Mapping – clear, concise, change.

One of the tools I am using with groups more and more is the process of transformation mapping. For those of you familiar with mind maps and other process mapping tools it will appear to be just a simple derivative – I agree, but one that add value to any group strategy planning process.

So what are they and how do they work?

Essentially they are a visual strategy implementation plan. A large diagram, showing where the organisation wants to be, or where the department needs to be, or what the team wants to achieve in a defned timescale, and then the streams of activity that lead them there, in time zones.  As I said they are not complex to explain or understand but they are effective in group work.

The typical approach is to use these in a senior team workshop where the ’strategy’ or ‘vision’ is know but vague, or not really articulated. Step one; use some tools and processes to gain clarity. Step two; define the starting state – again through honest appraisal and discussion. This is now a clear gap – seperated by the time scale, typically a mid range plan of 3 years. Now how to get from one state to the other – through a parallel set of activities over time – the swim lanes or streams of activity.

So the team must define the swim lanes and the core activities to get them to their end state.  Now phase the streams, so if one is ’structure and organisation’ it must be year one, year two and year three.  Same for all the other important streams, which should number no more than 7 or 8.

Now the trick is to populate the map with meaningful chunks of work, real actions that will lead to the end of each stream ,and collectively deliver the end state. Simples !

Now try it with a group, these really are great communication tools, not only for those of us who have  a preferrence for visualisation, but for anyone wanting to understand the interaction between lots of elements of implementation. They are tools to clarify and tools to create the change plan.

The paradox of power – giving leadership away

Today I have been thinking about how leaders get use power – both explicitly and also unwittingly – to get results they didn’t want.  Let me explain, one of the groups I have been working with is a pharma company talent pool. In exploring leadership with then they shared the company history and the fact that this is a family owned business where the family head is still the hands on leader of the firm. However, the Hr head says that the purpose of the workshops is to devolve leadership power into the lower levels of the organisation. So the will from the top is for others to do more leadership  and take initiative.  What also emerged in the discussion was that the family head longed to be challenged more by his team but that they rarely did so. This is not in any way  unique to this organisation, a similar issue exists in a couple  of my other clients organisations.

So how has this disconnect happened? The leadership talent are looking and shying away from the family head, who really wants to be challenged and give leadership away, but every time they discuss the idea of challenging, revert to their own  need to have strong leadership from the top. The real paradox is that real leadership comes from creating the empowering conditions that allows people to challenge, to feel comfortable in dissent, to take on responsibility and to step into the space that letting go creates.

Good intentions can get derailed by history and habits.  If this family head, a capable entrepreneurial leader, really wants to grow his leaders, he need to let them struggle with creating direction, in the absence of it from him. Jumping in too soon to solve the issues creates some level of dependency and challenging the saviour is not going to happen. Where strategies and directions have always come from the man on the mountain, there is little incentive to learn to climb – these leaders need to start to take actions themselves and discover that leadership comes with a responsibility to set agenda not just follow them and that at times that is uncomfortable.

It’s people stupid !

Many clients ask us what makes a great leader of change, what makes a really good team leader, executive or manager. Well the clues in title of this post !

It’s all about people – there is nothing in human endeavour that cannot be done better if you get people aligned, on-board, engaged, up for it or what ever you say in your world. To give a little context, for the last three days and some time before in preparation, we have been assessing the skills of applicants for a range of aero technical roles in a new start up business in Europe.  This is a business that services and fixes Executive Jets for the big corporations of the world or the people of high net worth ( don’t you just love that phrase).  So rock stars and hedge fund managers who own their own luxury aircraft.  So what… what does the people thing mean here?

Well here’s the issue – you own a mega costly aircraft which is your pride and joy – do you choose a cut price service for it – no – cost is not  a buying decision here for you…. do you care where it is serviced, ie how far you have to travel… a car maybe 40 km radius of home, a jet 2 hours? that means most of Europe is a possible supplier of services … what about standards of engineering…. Aviation here; there is only one standard of engineering allowed -excellent. So how do you decide where to have your jet serviced?   PEOPLE PEOPLE PEOPLE – you need to know they care,  that they love you as a customer, that they understand your needs perfectly.

Back to engineers in aviation – good engineers are common, the standards of training and regulation is high,  the passion for aircraft is high – however most are trained to work anonymously in hangars far away from passengers, pilots and paying fares. Most don’t see the customer in day to day life. they certainly don’t have to interact.

Private jets are different, Mick Jagger may accompany his pilot to see his planes new interior,  pick it up to fly off to Moscow,  Simon Cowell might want a particular thing sorting out and like to see it ( he loves cars and gadgets) so the people in the hangar might, and do meet the people of high net worth who decide on where to spend their large sums of money on services .

So the man in the overalls is important in the whole experience of service – he might be the difference that makes the difference.  So finding great engineers with a passion for service and the interpersonal skills to speak to owners and pilots is the trick –  real diamonds in the seams of shale that is engineering.

People make a difference- People make business’s work- People are the key to success, not systems , not processes, not software, not machines, not brands. People STUPID

Change, Challenges and Complicity – a model for the modern heretic.

This week I have been meeting clients who all face significant challenges in helping change their large and complex organistions. One is a government department and one a large bank. In discussion with clients, either leading or planning to lead change that affects the whole organisation,  we discussed how people are reacting to what seems like obvious and well planned changes. Bare in mind that both organisations are staffed by smart, intelligent, motivated people.

So describing some initiatives I have been involved in with other organisations in the past, their eyes showed sparks of recognition, nods of agreement and smiles of complicity. I was talking about the folly of organisations trying to implement change from a systems only or perfect plan approach rather than engaging staff in the whole process and using staff as the lever for real embedded change. I mentioned the stupidity of thinking because a senior leader had sanctioned it, that change would happen, and I talked about the lunacy of thinking that a  coercion strategy would deliver long term staff support. Nods and smiles of ” we understand cos we do that”.  So what is going on here?

Two very large, complex and old organisatons where smart people are smiling in recognition of major flaws in their plans to deliver lasting change? Why do we know that things are doomed to fail, can agree with other examples , share our own stories of such madness  - YET fail to challenge and act differently ourselves? What will it take for the small boy in us to tell the emperor that he is naked !!

Change agents, consultants, internal project managers, project leaders, change catalysts … whatever the title you must be prepared to take the risks needed to get things seen for what they are. Faced with the right thing or the safe thing to say you MUST say what is right.  No change agent worth his fee, salary or bonus – should be afraid of being a heratic. All great ideas are treated as madness when first voiced.  BE THAT HERETIC.  Be sure to be challenged and maybe have a shorter career with that company.

It’s not that I am saying change is easy to implement, that is not the case.. but starting from the mechanics and not the people will not help get real behavioural change into a complex organisation.  As a good and wise friend of mine says, ” polishing a turd is not clever ,even when it shines its still a turd “. If the process is broken planning to do it more efficiently or effectively is not smart – do something else instead, almost anything else. My advice – start with people.  What would make you change your way of working for the better? What would convince you, your colleagues and your staff that changes are  worth it?

Answer why first and how second and see what a difference it makes to getting change in place.  Good luck and remember you need to be taking more risks to be a real change agent !!

Talent, graduates and future managers – a word of advice.

This is the time of year when big employers and last year undergraduates start to pay real attention to the task of hiring.  It seems this year there are more people chasing fewer genuine professional graduate roles than ever before.  What does this mean for both parties; the employer who is seeing larger numbers of applicants all apparently fulfilling their criteria, and for the graduates who are all trying to make themselves stand out from the masses.

Well for employers this is a good time to be in the market for talent. However to cut down disappointment and ensure your talent search really  give you a return,  you must be clear what you are looking for.  Obvious I know, but alas so many employers are using out of date profiles for their talent search, or at best looking for the same sort of people they did last year.  In a market of unlimited choice, such as now, its pays to be really specific in what you are looking for, and getting a system in place to market specifically to that target group and have  an assessment method that REALLY differentiates the good from the average, and the excellent from the mere good.

Here’s the trick, do some analysis of the best performers in your last cohort, and the one or two before that. What makes them distinct from the average performers? D o the same for the more disappointing hires from the same time frame.  Compare the competencies from the distinctly good and those from those that disappoint – there will be a difference and if your smart you can construct on line or mass methodology question sets to find more of the same or better.

Now what about graduates – how do you get noticed and get to the interview?  Step one, realise who has the power here – it’s not you !  When you are applying online to a scheme with an employer and they ask lots of “dumb”  questions that are all contained in your generic cv -  realise that the 2 hours a good online application takes is the first hurdle and if they ask you to outline your biggest strength again,  theres a reason, if they ask you to tell them about your biggest disappointment, theres a reason ( they might even be smart questions in the right format). Failure to pay attention here and writing in ” see cv ” is instant nil point.  On average a screened by human application gets 20 seconds of attention before the next one, online automated , milliseconds, so do as asked is point one.

Now I know, I have a son just gone through this, that the response from many graduates is, this is my final year, I am so busy, there are exams you know, its mad taking so much time over one application – THIS IS TH E REAL WORLD, the point being, if you cannot manage your time,  priorities, and social life to do real justice to the application then do not apply.  The application form is the first test of your conviction , your ability to do as asked.

Secondly if you get to the telephone interview, a common second cut, have some prep done before the call. What do I mean, well this is the MINIMUM:

Research the company web site

Know who their biggest competitors are

Know what their mission statement says, not memorize but understand what is important to them

Know the competencies they are looking for and have some examples ( not as hard as it sounds, most are shown on the careers page, how to apply page or in the more about us section of websites)

Have some note paper to jot things down and have a pen ready!

As a regular consultant with companies recruiting graduates and as a past manager of graduate programmes I am still shocked at how many graduates won’t do the minimum when preparing for interview and the moan about companies not getting back to them quickly.  I think that the good graduates will succeed, and good is well rounded, hard working and those that realise this is a game and the rules are set by the employer – to win you have to play the rules and prepare and train hard to shine.

Good luck this year to all those who are looking for the best, and to the best  – you don’t need luck, just preparation.

eBOOK now available !

Be an early adaptor, get the book on the sony e reader or kindle -  have the text ready for the next flight, train journey or boring board meeting !

The price of Talent

I am working on a couple of proposals where the client is trying to address a talent issue within their quite different organisations. Both would like some independent assessment of the people they are targeting and also both are trying to determine exactly what it is, that will in their organisation make a successful player. Nothing so unusual in that. What is striking is that having identified their issue as not knowing who is good, who really contributes and what that would look like with new hires, they then go on to say they have no time, resources or investment to solve the problem.

What strikes me is the way organisations are willing to invest in new systems, new software, new hardware, new technology or new assets to grow the organisation, but baulk at investing in people in the same way.  Surely the lack of clear talent definitions, profiles or assessment criteria is part of the problem of lack of growth.  Senior managers need to see that the people they hire are their real competitive edge and the better the decisions they make about hires, the better the company will be. I know we are in a downturn, but that is exactly the time to ensure any new hires or any new appointments really are up to the mark when we talk about contribution.

So talent is a constant problem for many organisations because they see it as a cost, not an investment. Maybe the accountants should do some utility costing of bad hiring and promotion decisions and scare themselves the real cost of poor talent management.

Change for the better…. how to engage others

Just a short except from a session I did recently in London.  Hope you find it interesting, the audience seemed to.

Green shoots, or old roots and bad apples?

It’s starting to happen ! we are hearing of green shoots in the economy, things are moving, house prices are stable and some showing increase… hooray we are surviving.

Good. Now what? I also see in the press that banks are paying large bonuses, that senior executives are getting pay 1000 x times the pay of the lowest regular employee and that other bad practices have not changed.  Given the severity of the crash and the real angst that followed I am not surprised to see other areas of  normal life challenged.  The UK’s parliamentary expenses fiasco is one that was waiting to be exposed and is seen to be such an example of Orwellian double standards that we are incredulous when more of the scandal is revealed.

I see in British Airways there is trouble ahead, unions and management facing off for a ruck when they should be trying to compete with the external threats… nothing new there.  Willy Walsh has taken no pay this year as a token gesture to the state of play… easier to do when you have such a reserve and such a public position, not so easy to do if you are a ground crew employee with less flex in your earnings / spend ratio.

So what is my point? I think given the state of things a few months ago and the downturns effect on management, public . employee relations, you would have thought leaders would have leant something about what is acceptable and fair. It seems to me they have not.  Large bonuses,  larger salaries and tough disproportionate reactionary measures from the top will not get people to respect the leadership of their organisations.  Leaders need to show restraint,  respect and rational judgement in these times.  I see too many wanting things to return to how they were… untouchable in good times or bad.

Re Energized leadership is not about getting back to how it was, its about better and different leadership. Something that values explanation, values engagement of people, values getting things done with people not in-spite of people. Maybe there’s some more learning to be had yet from this recession.

Bring on the revolution… raise our expectations of leaders and follow only those worth following !