Recently we looked at two different approaches to developing talent:  paying premiums in compensation packages and investing in a strong internal culture. 

Yesterday  John Mack, Chairman and CEO of Morgan Stanley told his shareholders that he has to pay employees well to keep top talent and grow the business, but he doesn’t see the ability to sustain that into the future.  (more…)

What kind of companies tend to keep top talent?  Those that pay a lot or are leaders in their field?  What about those who have an engaging culture?  Let’s take a moment to look at both of those possible answers and see what part culture plays in attracting, developing and retaining top talent. (more…)

The aikido dojo I train in had a significant event over the weekend.  Five of our members took a test, and I was one of them.

I won’t go into all the background here about aikido (*see the footnote below if you’re interested).  Since we don’t have competitions or tournaments in aikido, testing (and the training that leads up to that) is one of the times when we are able to assess what we have learned and how much more there is to learn.  Besides demonstrating specific techniques that are called out early on, the last part of the test involves multiple attackers coming at you from all directions and you have to effectively deal with each attack without injuring yourself or anyone else.  It is a true test of poise under pressure.

(more…)

I had a colleage ask me today about talent management and my experience with how employees respond to talent management efforts at work.  Here’s some of what I shared with her.

From the employee side, there is a natural concern about fairness and favoritism; will Talent Management (TM) be administered fairly and give everyone an equal chance to succeed?  Will it be a cover for leaders who are championing/grooming/promoting their own favorites?

Also, most TM efforts or programs have some kind of measurement included with them.  Some of those include personal profiles or talent assessments.  Some people have a natural fear about how those will be viewed or used by management.  Other measurements are more tied to performance management or productivity or contribution to the company.  Some employees don’t like the additional scrutiny that comes with measurement–period.

Honestly, a lot of “talent management” efforts are really HR-sponsored drives that are modest in their goals/design and don’t have real staying power.  Employees have a legitimate right to question if TM is a “flavor of the year” hobby that will be eventually abandoned in 12-24 months.  That often seems to be what happens unless management is fully committed to it and is willing to make it a robust, long-lasting change in how the organization thinks about and practices talent management.

Of course, I encourage leaders who are committed to developing top talent to exercise some empathy and think first about how their efforts are going to be received by employees.  It can avoid a lot of pain and waste later on.

If you want to create change, one of the better strategies you can adopt is to get an accurate instrument and place it (along with some training on how to use it) in a prominent location where you (and other people) can’t miss it.  Real-time feedback allows you to make small changes and fine-tune your results.

MPG Instrument

I recently bought a new car and it has a sensitive gauge that tells you how many miles-per-gallon you are getting at the present time.  I’m already paying more attention to this gauge and it has helped me in changing my driving habits for the better (to be more fuel-efficient).

Apply this to people in an organization–even a small one–and it becomes obvious that equipping people with a new tool is much more likely to yield change than talking about change, management lectures or internal communication initiatiaves.  These other activities are useful too, but I’ve seen too many leaders and companies rely on them and end up with very little meaningful change.

Like any new tool, you have to learn to use it properly.  When I took training to be a pilot, I initially spent too much time looking at the instruments-I assumed that’s how you fly the plane.  My instructor had to emphasize to get my head up and look outside the airplane.  The great majority of pilots of small planes fly visually by looking out the window 90% of the time.  Only instrument-rated pilots and airline captains fly solely by reference to the instruments, which is a much more mentally taxing activity that requires extra training, practice and licensing.  So here’s my caveat: when you get an instrument for measuring real-time performance, beware the tendency to stare at it and miss the other information and contextual clues about what is going on around you.  If you can learn to do that (and it is possible), you will be much better positioned to build a high-performing organization and drive results and accountability further down to the individuals that actually do the work.

I’m not going to talk about the humorous (or horrifying) ways that human error is displayed at work.  Instead, I’m interested in the tension between organizations (with their impersonal tendencies) and the  human spirit (with its assertions of personality, commonality and innovation).

I like fresh and innovative thinkers, especially in the field of management.  Steve Byrum is one of those guys, and his book From the Neck Up:  The Recovery and Sustaining of the Human Element in Organizations (2006) is a refreshing read.  In it he looks at the work of Frederick Taylor (the father of Scientific Management) and Robert Hartman (the father of Formal Axiology) and draws some very interesting comparisons and contrasts.

Taylor was concerned about finding the one right way to do things, and the focus was on efficiency.  Under Taylorism the human element too often has gotten reduced to just a “cog in the wheel” of the system.  Human beings were best replaced by automation and robots wherever possible.  That may be oversimplifying, but it captures the essence.

Hartman was a philosopher concerned with defining what exactly “goodness” is.  His discoveries led to the founding of a new field called value science.  Hartman placed great importance on the human element in organizations.  He affirmed this through promoting the practice of profit sharing and through his consulting with several large corporations in the 1950’s and 60’s.  Hartman was interested in organizing goodness; the modern term of “adding value” (in all dimensions) has many deep resonances with Hartman’s ideas.   He saw it as possible and desirable to align people, processes and materials in a way that was effective, efficient and ultimately affirming of the people involved in the enterprise.

There are many insights in this 150 page book that would reward a few hours of reading.  The only drawback is that the book is not readily available (either in bookstores or online).  You can reach Steve Byrum directly and order a copy from the Byrum Consulting Group at (423) 886-5587.