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  Obvious I know, but alas so many employers are using out of date profiles for their talent search, or at best looking for the same sort of people they did last year.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.

For the last week I have been working with a large group of internal consultants expanding their understanding of the nature of change management and the role of consultants.  The participants of the programme, which is an accredited programme awarding certificates in consulting fundamentals, were already practitioners of change. However in their public service setting they were mainly concerned with and focused on the optimization of logistics and supply chain matters.  In their evolution they has used a number of sophisticated optimization tools, spread sheet and analytical engine based techniques to deliver improved efficiency and performance.  Unfortunately the success of this approach has made many of them, and their organization’s managers blind-sighted to many of the other approaches and alternative tools available to manage the successful change.

What  was most surprising to me was the lack of emphasis placed on the softer skills of consulting and change,  the relationship building and influencing skills.  The week was revealing in many ways… the depth of confidence and belief in the methods that the participants displayed,  the restricted range of approaches they used,  the organization constraints placed upon them ( by an organization clearly in need of change)  and the lack of engagement with the client that many of them expressed. It seemed the clients needs were secondary to getting work done.

As we progressed through the module of study and education,  there were many occasions where the sound of pennies dropping was akin to standing next to a slot machine paying out the  jackpot !

Relationships and influence are everything in change management ! No tool, regardless of provenance or power will work where there is no trust and credibility.  People chose to change, people chose to follow, people chose who to trust and these choices  are all based on relationship and influencing skills.

So what is my point in this post? If you work in change leadership, as an internal consultant or manager of projects then think about what you concentrate on when leading change, if its tools and processes then you need to change the way you change.  Influence is everything – any system can be made effective if the people who use it want it to work well. You role in leading change is creating the conditions for people to want to do a great job and get great outcomes, without influence you are playing the game with the dice loaded against you.

Implementation is not hard, its just about consistency and stamina. If you have applied the 3E approach and have clarity of vision, shared and understood in terms of a concrete challenge, and you have the right people involved and committed to action then implementation is a grind but straight forward. The role of the leaders in implementation is one of a provider of resources and a information. Monitoring of the right measures is crucial as is communication of that to the right people in the right way. Having feedback on performance is crucial to maintaining momentum, and energy. Why do you think running machines with monitors are so popular and stop watch lap times so motivating for runners? Human’s need to know how we are doing, and that is one role of the  leader in execution of change – scores on the doors for people.

All implementation will hit problems. There is not a battle plan in the world that will survive contact with the enemy. In change leadership the same applies in terms of implementation, just add people to make it obsolete. However, having a plan to start with is important. It’s the box to think outside of, it’s the route to deviate from, and it’s the budget to exceed or beat. No plan is the solution, just part of the process.

Leaders need to be tenacious, resilient and at the same time humble enough to admit when things are tough. Stick with it and tell people how they are doing,  implementing change in a nut shell.

No sector is seems is not effected by the current economic downturn, recession or crisis – you choose the term you dislike most.  However the rush to reduce, re-size and remodel is to me a symptom of panic and pressure to act rather than the product of rational thought and considered action. Big  corporate have the pressure of the shareholder to think about so need to make a profit at all costs – what is not so obvious to some is that their shareholder are in many cases their employees pension funds so meeting one criteria for success fails another.

What should we do as a alternative ? because we all know criticism is easy but generating alternatives is not.  Well I don’t know many organizations that hire dumb people out of choice – even the White House has got that one now .  Given the scale of the challenge, given the limited off the shelf options for a business in recession, why not take some risks – more risk with the people you have ’s  ideas.

Take the scenario of a small business who employee 40- 50 people in distribution and logistics.  When there is less work and costs of employment are constant the option off the shelf is to reduce the staff. Lower staff number to match the reduction in work available and match the reduced cost base.  Clear and logical and expected from the management.  So lets say 10 people loose their jobs to meet the downturn, harsh but fair.  Or is it ! What would happen if the same 40 – 50 people where given the task of income generation, cost reduction, business remodeling, sales generation,  business marketing, asset reuse, space leasing, alternative income raising and growth rather than death by a thousand cuts.  I think they might as a collective with the right leadership generate ideas and plans and product and ways of using their existing asset that the management , because of their training, would not see in a million years.

Is this the rant of a delusional mind  – possibly but if you look for them ( and I do) there are examples of businesses doing remarkable things ( from the ideas of their workforce) when the business is under pressure.  If you want to read about some incredible employee ideas for success read Maverick, by Ricardo Semler.  You will see quite quickly that  re organizing, re structuring, re engineering are the reactions of an anorexic mind – feed it with ideas from your people and grow healthy as an organization.

I work on a programme for one of the large European telecoms groups, dealing with cross border management.  The delegates get two modules of input, one specifically dealing with the issues related to culture in a national sense, so one countries approach to life and work vs another, and the second module, the one I work on is about leading people and change in a cross border context.

What is interesting for me to see,  is how people who have to manage across borders struggle to recognize what it is that needs to be focused on. Without doubt managing people in remote offices from a central point is difficult, and demands more skill and forethought than an intact co -located team.  However, cultural differences are no more an issue than say, experience differences in two team members, or even personality differences. Culture is one lens for looking at diversity and not a separate and somehow special category of management science.  At least that’s is how I have always experienced it.  So a Japanese manager who really does not like to listen and does not value the opinion of his  staff, is not necessarily doing this because his culture says he is more senior and does not have to act on upward feedback and a senior manager should know his subject more than his juniors – it could be that he just ( as a fully paid up member of the human race) does not like to listen!!   Not all Americans are  go getting sales people who can talk the leg of a mule  – some are and others are quiet, considerate and thoughtful introverts.

So why the post? Well the way you consider a problem, the lens you view it through determines the clarity of what you see – so seeing culture, culture , culture as the problem means you will look for cultural solutions or  cultural explanations for behavior.  Now in some cases this might be right, but also the lens of personality type might be the right one, or the lens of skills and experience, or the lens of  pressure and stress, or the lens of corporate norms etc etc.  If we excuse behavior because it’s the cultural norm for a national group, then we are not helping the cause of developing better leaders.

If we can only see things from one perspective we can only apply a limited set of possible solutions.  Leadership is not something that can be compressed into a nice easily labeled box.  It is a multi faceted issue requiring some additional lenses to see it clearly.

I am all for training and workshops to expand the understanding of leadership, and the experience of those that we lead.  What I think we need to do is ensure we do not become myopic and only see what we want to see.

I have had  a number of personal experiences of being managed badly, but that’s not surprising in the long career I have survived ! What do I mean by being managed badly – well to me it’s being under used, rather than overworked.

I remember seeing a comment on my personnel file as I left a company after 20 years of varied service in a series of fantastic roles. It said ” mark has an unorthodox approach to authority and is one of the most difficult but talented people i have managed”.  I can live with that as a company epitaph.

I have had bosses who want the ideas but don’t want to share the credit when they are implemented. For a short time this can be endured, but it always leads to dissatisfaction in the long term.  I have had bosses who are not as smart as I am, and doing things that are plain wrong, but won’t or can’t hear alternatives. This is again a problem in the longer term, as you are working on things that are fundamentally wrong – and your advice has not been taken or heard.

As employees we need to be heard, not always agreed with but also not always dismissed as disloyal. What is the point in having staff and not using their collective or individual skills to get a good result.The  positive deviants we rave about in the book are not going to be easy to manage, if they were they would not be so valuable to the organization.

Why the post on managing upwards? – well it seems there are a lot of people I meet in conferences  that are in similar positions to myself in my early career. They want to do well, show initiative and challenge things in a positive way but their efforts are either hijacked or rebuffed.  In some cases this can just  be mildly annoying in others the trigger to leave the organization.  So what can you do in a situation where the boss is not getting the best from you and maybe taking more than is fair?

Perception is reality – and reality is what you can get away with.  This stolen quote is a fantastic summary of how I feel about being managed by others.  I am arrogant enough to know when I am right and when I have a skill or experience that is useful to the organization. I am also humble enough to know I cannot change other people at will to be more like a boss I would admire.  So I change the perception of the relationship – I manage them, in my mind, and they work for me.  This change in perception, if you are smart, can change the whole working relationship. I play the game by my rules – getting the pet projects I want into the agenda of the boss, whether they credit me or not.  In  this way I know who is in control, and let’s face it if they had really good ideas we would probably support them, but in the absence of their own, let them have ours free. But also let’s not forget – they need us to help implement.

Also, use the experience to build your own CV and create a valuable proposition for others to seek your employment.  People leave people – you don’t leave businesses – no one ever left MicroSoft or Nestle – they left poor bosses or people who didn’t manage the talent in front of them.

Managing the boss is a art – but one that anyone can learn.  Be clear about the commitments you are going to deliver and extract a price for delivery that is meaningful and worthwhile to you.  Search this blog or read the books section on commitments and you will realize the power of negotiation when you have all the ideas.

Remember – the person who knows how will always have a job. The person who knows why will always be his boss.

Now you know why being smart is a good thing and that not being able to manage you is the bosses problem not yours.

How often have we heard the cliche ” we need to do some thinking outside of the box” when we are being “inspired” by our well meaning bosses – mistaking management jingoism for leadership.

In order to risk being creative we need two things,  confidence in our position to be radical, innovative and challenging, and also some structure to deviate from – pure blue sky thinking is really just that, dreaming, nightmare stuff. Companies need to have some idea of the context of their industry first, the position they are in now – before they start to T.O.T.B   Leaders don’t ignore where we are now – extolling only a vision, without reference to where we are now. Context is important – it shapes our starting point, it helps place us on the map in the first place, so we can navigate to somewhere else. In order to think outside the box we need two things – a box in the first place, and the space and confidence to think !!

Take a look at the evolution of thinking in business. Back in the 1920’s when management and business was becoming the subject of rigorous study the interface of man and machine was the focus. History has taught us that efficient management can reduce costs and has made operations in business lean and repeatable. We have Fredrick Winslow Taylor to thank for this in terms of ideas and Henry Ford, Arthur Sloan and McDonald’s to thank for the case studies in operational excellence. The essence of this approach to “scientific management “ is/was to take all the skill out of the operation and reduce the process to the simplest possible level of action. Result; people are treated like Oxen. At the time it was considered the epitome of business intelligence and lauded as progressive management. We now know better. The interface of man and man should be the real focus – leader and led.

The problem with repeatable processes, and anything that can be reduced to a documented process, is ultimately it’s also repeatable by someone else. Result: limited competitive advantage, short-term savings for short-term advantage – necessary but not sufficient. In business terms a good try but no

cigar for the winner.

We are now emerging into a new era where the demand on the organisation from talented knowledge workers is greater than at any other time in the history of mankind. Bright people, and let’s at least acknowledge that we are smart enough to hire bright people, ask better questions. They want to be engaged with their employer. There was a time when a job was a necessity. If you were good enough to employ people this was reason enough to gain their loyalty. Commitment was automatic. People were self-motivated. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on where you stand, this does not compute now for the majority of knowledge workers or the corporate competents, as some would label them. For this group of talented individuals they want or more accurately demand a better deal. The psychological contract, that unspoken deal we all make with our employer, is getting more complex and more demanding to fulfil. Engaging them, really differentiating the employee value proposition to a level of the individual, is the way to get talent committed to your cause. 1-2-1 leadership is the case for Engagement.

It’s a global phenomenon not just a product of the west or the affluent northern hemisphere. Intelligent people need to know why and how they deliver their input to the greater organization. Whether you are from India, Indiana or Indonesia, talented employees want more than a just a pay packet. They want to be led, inspired to give their best and not just what you pay for. Discretionary effort is a worldwide untapped energy resource – there is no energy shortage, we are just looking in the wrong places.

Compliance is not enough to keep the best and brightest in your organisation. You need a compelling employment value proposition. Talented people have freedom of choice and you need to ensure for the best players in the game, that they chose to be on your team. Oxen you could beat into compliance, or at least reward with a suitable carrot. Taylorism was built on that simple principle. Times change, people change, expectations change, and management is no longer enough. What these demanding times require is exceptional leadership. 3^E Leadership captures the essence of what times now demand of us.

]]> http://markwilcox.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/evolution-in-business-or-are-we-oxen/feed/ 0 markwilcox http://markwilcox.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/debating-the-great-unknown-change-is-always-going-to-be-there/ http://markwilcox.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/debating-the-great-unknown-change-is-always-going-to-be-there/#comments Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:52:37 +0000 markwilcox http://markwilcox.wordpress.com/?p=92 ]]>

Is it because we cannot fully plan change that we are so hesitant about leading it? What ever our plans we will hit unexpected bumps in the road of implementation and maybe it’s this that makes change seem so scary to some people. We believe you cannot not change – you can only reduce it or produce it – therefore in our opinion the best way to control change in organizations is to embrace it and create it.

 In this edition of People Management we share our thoughts on the book and change leadership.

http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/PM/Articles/thegreatunknown.htm

As we approach the publishing date, which is now the 7th of March in the UK, we are starting to focus on ways to support the books launch. On the 16th of April Jonas and myself will present a master class at the CIPD HRD week conference in London. This year the event also hosts the WFPMA World Congress so we should be seeing guests from sister organistations across the globe.

Our master class will focus on Re Energizing the Corporation, how leaders make change happen, as you would expect. However, we will try to deal with the question of how to develop both leaders that are worth following and organizations worth working for. In essence these are the critical issues to learn, if you want to lead change.

Some leaders you enjoy working for, not because it’s easy, as often they are challenging, but because they have a vision and clarity of purpose that is energizing. Companies can generate this too. Think back to the organizations you have worked with, in or as a partner, that really buzz….. not many I’m sure but when you’re in one you know it. As we say in the book, which is rather like pointing out the bleeding obvious, change is everywhere and cannot be stopped, so embrace it, produce it don’t reduce it….. learn to lead change – create a leadership worth following and a buisness worth being in.

See you all in London in April …

When our climb up the slippery career pole has been successful the last thing on our minds is succession. Getting to the top is hard, and the view is to be savoured…isn’t it? The problem is that without thinking ahead about who is going to fill your place, you cannot realistically be promoted any further – or if you have the top job already in the organizatoin, leave with grace for a bigger role in another organization.

Succession is something that we should consider sometime at the start of our tenure in a role as a leader. If you have it in mind, at least on the agenda of things to think about, then you can mentally and in real time test out potential talent in your team for future roles – yours or other promotions. If they don’t meet expectations, then all is not lost, try someone else out, with low risks. If you leave it all until the month or two before you leave you may chose with haste and have time to regret your actions.

 If you recruit or attract internally a talented team then getting them noticed and promotion their competence is something that a leader should always do. Your own reputation will be enhanced as you become known internally as a talent magnet, and someone who can and does provide talent development for the bigger organization. If you select and develop your team well then your successor should and could come from your own team. If you are really good at developing capability then your team will become successors for leaders with less abiltiy to develop thier own successors – all in all not a bad place to be. Think great I ‘ve got a new challenge, a great new job, …. who could I develop to do it when I leave.

A lot of the work I do involves working with top teams. The boards, executive teams, management committees of large  and medium sized organizations. It seems to me that when we are engaging with the most senior team in the organization all the same rules of leadership should apply, albeit with a more sophisticated membership. What I find however, is that when operating at this level, many CEO’s or MD’s seem to expect different behaviour, different motivation needs and different recognition needs from their team. Just because someone has had a successful career and made the top team does not make them any less human or any less influenced by good leadership. To the contrary, if you can harness the skills and experience of a senior team with well crafted envisioning processes, to get their input to your dreams, if you can engage them fully into the challenges of the organization , then actually execution will have a very high probability of success.

So what is it about senior teams that encourages even the best of us to somehow overlook these basic human needs and treat them differently? Do we assume that at this level everyone is a self starter and self motivated individual? Look around you not everyone in the senior ranks of organizations are fully motivated ! Not all stock share schemes have the same incentive value. So think about what if…what if all the team were on board and rowing with you – instead of trailing their oar in the water. At the senior team level the significance of having everyone on stroke, on target, on message, on board …what ever analogy you like …. is incredibly powerful.

 So look up at your leaders – or if you are a leader in the top team – sideways. Is everyone on song? Do you harmonize or sing out of key ? What does it take to lead a team of leaders? Much of it is back to basics, but with higher expectations of the success that comes from an engaged team. Remember – ‘people is people!’   Status is just  the result of the title we assign people, they all have motivation needs and a real need to understand why. Even Vice Presidents deserve to be led well.

Over the last couple of days I have been working with a client  where there has been a new senior executive appointed. At some point in the near future he and his team will work together for a few days at an off site retreat to build a vision and  an execution plan to deliver it. So far so good. What is interesting in the diagnostic interviews with each of the team members is how much they are affronted, feel left out, and are reporting being dis engaged by the new leaders production of a vision for the next three years. Now what is even more interesting is that they are mostly in agreement with the direction and definition of the challenge and development of the business.  In fact in many cases they compliment the new leader on his power of analysis and insight into his new business realm.

 Once again the issue is not what, but why and why me. His team will come round, and probably will deliver what the business requires to grow and prosper. What is clear again is that if he had first engaged his capable team in defining the challenges, developing the picture of perfection and designing the plan, then his begrudging admiration would be more likely to be seen as real engagement.

All is not lost and we will together  Envision, Engage and Execute. Beware the leader who place speed of thought before power of inclusion. Commitment = Involvement.

  Given our counsil is to concentrate on the critical few who determine the direction and future of the business, then it seems unusual to also talk about a talent pipeline. But it’s a stream of talent that organizations need, not just a small pool at the top. We believe that talent is connected with leadership in most organizational definitions, and in ours, but that leadership does not miraculously appear just when the time is right. Talent needs to be grown in your organization, so the seeds need to be found and planted, nurtured, transplanted and fertilized at the right times in order to be strong examples  when its time to harvest.  

If you segment the  your talent pool in your organization , your developing leadership stream, then you can apply the right tactic at the right time, and thin out, transplant more in, add nutrients, or prune, as necessary to ensure healthy growth. This is not easy if all your efforts are applied at the senior level or just on the mid level high potentials.  In organizations we have worked with there seems to be at least four levels to consider. Entry level, usually graduate level talent, some form of high potentials, usually early management career post, executive successors, usually already high performance and experienced and ready for a big role, and then the ones most forget about the incumbents in the executive suite. You have not stopped being talent or stopped needing development or coaching just because you’ve reached the top of the hill. Think about your organization, does it have levels of talent, or just one definition? Does it think about developing leaders from entry or leave it to chance and serendipity?  Segmenting is not a magic wand, but it does focus you on the pipeline and not just the tap!! 

 The next tick in the box is to have some consistent processes, or approaches to all of the talent pools or segments, in this case, ( click on the picture to see it larger) you can see the three parallel processes are assessment, performance management and some form of coaching. In this way you can build a pipeline for the leadership of the buisness. No drips, just full flow leadership.

How can organizations get ahead of the curve when it comes to having leadership talent? It critical to the healthy growth of any organization to have a bench, a reserve, a talent pool of budding future  CEO’s and division MD level talent. Going outside for talent subjects you to the vagaries of the market, at best just plain expensive, at worst a gamble on right fit that might ultimately damage your business. Remember what a bad signing can do to a successful soccer team – demoralise the squad they displace and create anger in the supporters – talent grown internally always gets the crowd support. Of course you could be lucky, and have the backing of Abramovich, so lessen the risk of paying too low in the market !! We wish.

We seem to find that the most successful of organizations grow their own, to a greater extent than their competitors. Not wanting to demoralize performers in the business by constant search and recruitment from outside, they find the time and spend the money , develop their own. However, it’s a long view that is needed. Getting a pipeline of potential in place requires faith in the future. For most of the bright young things that join you from college the time line before they hit the boardroom is at least 15years for the best, and 20 for the less ambitious. A sort of academy approach, but not just development programmes, more a development experience.

What an organization cannot do is effectively outsource it talent pools to the head hunters. Remember the problem with mercenaries is their allegiance is bought, not some bond based on shared values and loyalty. What they can sell to you they can sell to anyone else as well, wheres’ the competitive advantage in that.

Leaders in organizations that thrive in the future must spent time and money investing in the long term – talent pipelines not just pools. It’s not a one time investment, it’s not a one pool solution. Talent, leadership potentials, need to be in your organization at all levels gaining experience, building networks and doing business in the way that grows confidence.

Think of Crottenville the legendary boot camp for executive talent in GE. Jack Welch’s investment in time there allowed them to have a rack of possible replacements, groomed for the top ready to step in when he went. Nestle has been doing the same with it’s Reive Reine campus for decades. When it comes to the long terms both have invested in the talent pipeline, and both will promote from within for years to come without problems.

Growing talent is a long term investment, but one with a return that outstrips the short term gains from cashing in the development budget ten fold !!