Jason-
I think I did not do a very good job of making my points in my last post. Most business leaders today prioritize short-term tangible benefit over long-term excellence...there are a variety of things that drive that. Most business leaders today don’t really get human capital practices so they stick to the other stuff...there are probably a variety fo things that drive that as well. The fact that many of these practices are long-term and challenging to actually measure (among other issues) become the justification for “leaders” to not fully invest.
Every single airline in this country knows what Southwest does to be successful and how it does it. Every single airline in this country continues to go a different way and continues to underperform Southwest. It is just much simpler to focus on being as profitable as possible today than it is to build an amazing organization.
But certainly you are right, there is more to the story.
You mention personal accountability and amen. Personal accountability should always be a part of the conversation, but it goes hand in hand with the organizations role in supporting that behavior. If we want employees to confront bad management then we have to make it safe to do so. This is a topic where it is common for organizations to have a big doing-saying gap. Almost every company out there says it wants people to speak up, it wants employees to tell the truth, and in almost every company the employees know that the truth is a bit more complicated. Organizations that truly want employees to be awake, alive and accountable can have it...that is our natural state as human beings. But most companies do no want that, as it requires a much different style of leadership.
You also mention the morality of work that truly matters and again amen...and give me a break. Maybe I am a bit extra cynical this morning, but if business and business leadership had a real sense of the “right” way, you and I would probably be unemployed, hungry and on the street. Any institution that exists solely for the purpose of profit, that privatizes profits and socializes costs is morally challenged from the start. Business has historically been forced to do the right things...against its will. The funny thing is that most of the right things that business has been forced to do have been beneficial to business in the long-term, and again I point back to my two original points. Business is not naturally oriented towards the long-term, that requires courageous, competent leadership and that my friend is a rare thing.
That is what I think.
-joe
Showing posts with label talent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label talent. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Thursday, May 28, 2009
What are you talking about...Talent?
So, I will continue to at least partially disagree with you.
I do agree however that HR leaders and practitioners have lost all control of their language and that works against their ability to be precise and effective. Talent, skills, competencies are all great examples. They are each different things, but they all suffer from the same underlying issue...HR folks are not clearly and precisely defining them. So, people are talking to each other but using different language and different definitions and the conversation is sloppy and wasteful, as are the efforts that follow.
I do not believe that talent is innate. I do think that you are a talented speaker, and I would assume that parts of that are innate and parts of that have been learned...in fact in your particular case I know that is true. You are a more talented speaker now than you were five years ago and that is at least partially due to things that you have learned about speaking during that time. But my definition and understanding of what talent is is of no importance here.
I think that the larger and more important point is that leaders need to address this within their organizations. If HR is going to have clarity of purpose it must have some real clarity of the underlying concepts and fundamental variables it works with. I do not think that the profession is going to come to specific and applicable definitions, but I think that this can and should be done within organizations. Before you talk seriously about talent management, your organization should have clarity on what talent means to you. Before you talk seriously about competencies, your organization should have clarity on what a competency is for you.
I see this same thing happen all the time in talking to organizational leaders about diversity. They are often incredibly confused about why diversity is important, about why they should invest and how they should invest in diversity, and 90% of that confusion is based on inaccurate and differing definitions and understandings of diversity.
This all important foundation is often missing, and the work that is built without a foundation is always in jeopardy.
-joe
I do agree however that HR leaders and practitioners have lost all control of their language and that works against their ability to be precise and effective. Talent, skills, competencies are all great examples. They are each different things, but they all suffer from the same underlying issue...HR folks are not clearly and precisely defining them. So, people are talking to each other but using different language and different definitions and the conversation is sloppy and wasteful, as are the efforts that follow.
I do not believe that talent is innate. I do think that you are a talented speaker, and I would assume that parts of that are innate and parts of that have been learned...in fact in your particular case I know that is true. You are a more talented speaker now than you were five years ago and that is at least partially due to things that you have learned about speaking during that time. But my definition and understanding of what talent is is of no importance here.
I think that the larger and more important point is that leaders need to address this within their organizations. If HR is going to have clarity of purpose it must have some real clarity of the underlying concepts and fundamental variables it works with. I do not think that the profession is going to come to specific and applicable definitions, but I think that this can and should be done within organizations. Before you talk seriously about talent management, your organization should have clarity on what talent means to you. Before you talk seriously about competencies, your organization should have clarity on what a competency is for you.
I see this same thing happen all the time in talking to organizational leaders about diversity. They are often incredibly confused about why diversity is important, about why they should invest and how they should invest in diversity, and 90% of that confusion is based on inaccurate and differing definitions and understandings of diversity.
This all important foundation is often missing, and the work that is built without a foundation is always in jeopardy.
-joe
Monday, May 18, 2009
What are you talking about?
Jason-
Since you and I spent our last several posts talking (and disagreeing) about talent and behavior, I thought it might be interesting to spend a little time considering definitions. In the fields of human resources, recruiting, talent management, and leadership and organizational development there is a great deal of conversation and thinking about talent, competence and performance. While certainly important topics I generally feel like the discussion is a little sloppy and I think that my feeling has a lot to do with definitions.
I think that:
a) we talk about these things as if we are all using the same definitions (which I think is inaccurate)
b) we talk about these things as if they were far more tangible than they actually are
So.
Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong, but either way it might be valuable to spend some time collecting definitions. I did this a little bit on Twitter last week and got some interesting responses. So, lets open it up...
HOW DO YOU DEFINE TALENT?
Since you and I spent our last several posts talking (and disagreeing) about talent and behavior, I thought it might be interesting to spend a little time considering definitions. In the fields of human resources, recruiting, talent management, and leadership and organizational development there is a great deal of conversation and thinking about talent, competence and performance. While certainly important topics I generally feel like the discussion is a little sloppy and I think that my feeling has a lot to do with definitions.
I think that:
a) we talk about these things as if we are all using the same definitions (which I think is inaccurate)
b) we talk about these things as if they were far more tangible than they actually are
So.
Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong, but either way it might be valuable to spend some time collecting definitions. I did this a little bit on Twitter last week and got some interesting responses. So, lets open it up...
HOW DO YOU DEFINE TALENT?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
This Talent Thing (aka Simon - Part 6)
Jason-
Dude.
I think that American Idol example is a perfect framework for examining the ideas of talent and behavior, but we can move on from that.
I do not believe that I changed the topic, I believe I was making a point that applied to both talent and behavior (and competency, performance, etc.).
And my point (which you are now also making through your questions) is this...
The idea that "talent" (or behavior, competency, performance, ability, etc.) is some tangible, measurable scientific thing is horribly, horribly flawed. We all talk about "talent" like it is a gallon of milk...we all know what it is, we are all talking about the same thing and we can measure it with great precision.
That is all bullshit.
This is the same kind of fantasy that we tell ourselves and each other with all of our "best practices" lies. We have a very real habit of taking something very complex and denying its complexity. We have a very real habit of taking something interdependent and ignoring its interdependence. We have a very real habit of taking things that are correlated and assigning causality. We have a very real habit of applying static, finite principles to messy, complex, unpredictable, nonlinear, beautifully flawed human beings, their relationships, interactions and social dynamics.
It does not change the fact that we need to talk about and think about and attempt to quantify talent, but we are being dishonest with ourselves and each other when we talk about talent like it is a gallon of milk. It's not.
My understanding of, expectations of, interpretations of talent are as much about me and as much about the context as they are about the idea of "talent."
When we convince ourselves that we have perfect understanding of and perfect measure of something like "talent" we set ourselves up for a dysfunction, and we make it harder to bring real value into the organization...because when we build a barb wire fence around what "talent" is, we are locking a lot of stuff out...and that stuff that we are locking out is also as much about me and about context as it is about anything.
-joe
Dude.
I think that American Idol example is a perfect framework for examining the ideas of talent and behavior, but we can move on from that.
I do not believe that I changed the topic, I believe I was making a point that applied to both talent and behavior (and competency, performance, etc.).
And my point (which you are now also making through your questions) is this...
The idea that "talent" (or behavior, competency, performance, ability, etc.) is some tangible, measurable scientific thing is horribly, horribly flawed. We all talk about "talent" like it is a gallon of milk...we all know what it is, we are all talking about the same thing and we can measure it with great precision.
That is all bullshit.
This is the same kind of fantasy that we tell ourselves and each other with all of our "best practices" lies. We have a very real habit of taking something very complex and denying its complexity. We have a very real habit of taking something interdependent and ignoring its interdependence. We have a very real habit of taking things that are correlated and assigning causality. We have a very real habit of applying static, finite principles to messy, complex, unpredictable, nonlinear, beautifully flawed human beings, their relationships, interactions and social dynamics.
It does not change the fact that we need to talk about and think about and attempt to quantify talent, but we are being dishonest with ourselves and each other when we talk about talent like it is a gallon of milk. It's not.
My understanding of, expectations of, interpretations of talent are as much about me and as much about the context as they are about the idea of "talent."
When we convince ourselves that we have perfect understanding of and perfect measure of something like "talent" we set ourselves up for a dysfunction, and we make it harder to bring real value into the organization...because when we build a barb wire fence around what "talent" is, we are locking a lot of stuff out...and that stuff that we are locking out is also as much about me and about context as it is about anything.
-joe
Monday, May 11, 2009
Simon - Part 4
Jason-
Understood. But...
You like Simon. You think that Simon is a good judge (talented). I would suggest to you that your evaluation of Simon is as much about you and about the people Simon is surrounded by and next to as it is about Simon and what he does. Part of the reason you like Simon is because he is seated next to someone you consider to be borderline incompetent. Part of the reason that some people like Paula is that they believe Simon is borderline incompetent.
My point here is not really even about the value of diversity, but about our evaluation of someone being influenced strongly by the context, and the contrast of who they are surrounded by (and our own preferences, tendencies and orientations). Some of us are drawn to Simon and would like to work with more people like him. Some of us are more drawn to Randy or Paula or the New Person.
The 7 behaviors you are looking for are pretty commonly appreciated behaviors...those are things that many if not most of us are looking for in co-workers...the difference is in our individual interpretations and the context. For you, Simon is the embodiment of those behaviors. As crazy as it may sound, there are people that consider Paula to be the perfect embodiment of the exact same behaviors. There are people that value those 7 behaviors, but would hate to work around Simon.
So, I believe that you could set out to hire people with those 7 behaviors and end up with a team much like the American Idol judges...or you could set out to hire people with those 7 behaviors (and what they look like from your perspective) and end up with a team that is much more like a group of Simon clones...and likely dysfunctional.
-joe
Understood. But...
- I would be willing to wager a large sum of money that each one of the other judges on American Idol would say that those 7 behaviors also apply to them.
- I would be willing to wager a large sum of money that we could find American Idol fans that would say that those 7 behaviors also apply to other judges...maybe in some cases more so than Simon.
You like Simon. You think that Simon is a good judge (talented). I would suggest to you that your evaluation of Simon is as much about you and about the people Simon is surrounded by and next to as it is about Simon and what he does. Part of the reason you like Simon is because he is seated next to someone you consider to be borderline incompetent. Part of the reason that some people like Paula is that they believe Simon is borderline incompetent.
My point here is not really even about the value of diversity, but about our evaluation of someone being influenced strongly by the context, and the contrast of who they are surrounded by (and our own preferences, tendencies and orientations). Some of us are drawn to Simon and would like to work with more people like him. Some of us are more drawn to Randy or Paula or the New Person.
The 7 behaviors you are looking for are pretty commonly appreciated behaviors...those are things that many if not most of us are looking for in co-workers...the difference is in our individual interpretations and the context. For you, Simon is the embodiment of those behaviors. As crazy as it may sound, there are people that consider Paula to be the perfect embodiment of the exact same behaviors. There are people that value those 7 behaviors, but would hate to work around Simon.
So, I believe that you could set out to hire people with those 7 behaviors and end up with a team much like the American Idol judges...or you could set out to hire people with those 7 behaviors (and what they look like from your perspective) and end up with a team that is much more like a group of Simon clones...and likely dysfunctional.
-joe
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Lessons - response
Jason-
Being the non-conformist that I am, I have had somewhere between 1 and 2 million different bosses already in my life. A few were very good, many were so-so and a lot of them had a lot of room for improvement. Thanks for bringing back some entertaining (and a few painful) memories.
When I was in sales, one of my sales managers was all about new business. We were a national sales team and regularly traveled to our areas and he did not want us using that travel time to visit with existing clients, it was all supposed to be about new business. I do not do sales that way. A big part of the value that I tried to provide for my clients was really good, accessible service and I visited existing clients often. I developed a monthly e-newsletter for my clients, and sometimes I provided training sessions for them and for their staff. This was just part of my approach.
My sales manager hated this, so I actually had to be very covert about working with existing clients. What we sold was based on a one year subscription and before long I had higher retention of existing clients than anyone else on the team. On one of my visits to my area, I happened to get a phone call from a large potential client that I had never been able to make any progress with. They wanted to purchase. They knew exactly what they wanted and when I asked how they had made this decision, as they had never been open to talking to me, they explianed that they had just brought in a new VP, from another local organization and she had been one of my clients. One of her first orders of business was to do business with me!
As much as I would like to paint myself as a naturally gifted sales person, I am probably an average sales person at best. But I had a way that was very natural and very comfortable for me. And it worked, I ended up setting several records on this sales team before leaving.
My sales manager wanted us to do our work a very specific way. It happened to be a way that did not feel right for me and did not seem to be good for the organization in the long run. When I got the unexpected (and large) new sale while I was on the road, he even went so far as to tell folks back at the office, that I had gone in there and closed them in one meeting. I had not closed them or even met with them, I got the sale because of the way in which I took care of my existing clients.
I think that managers, especially managers that have not had much in the way of professional and leadership development, tend to think they need to be "the decider." This is the way we are going to do things, because I said so. Unfortunately, I catch myself taking the same approach at home with the kids, so I guess we all have work to do!
I think it takes some maturity and clarity on who you are to lay out basic guidelines for employees and then get out of the way. But I think the dividends are huge.
Thanks.
-joe
Being the non-conformist that I am, I have had somewhere between 1 and 2 million different bosses already in my life. A few were very good, many were so-so and a lot of them had a lot of room for improvement. Thanks for bringing back some entertaining (and a few painful) memories.
When I was in sales, one of my sales managers was all about new business. We were a national sales team and regularly traveled to our areas and he did not want us using that travel time to visit with existing clients, it was all supposed to be about new business. I do not do sales that way. A big part of the value that I tried to provide for my clients was really good, accessible service and I visited existing clients often. I developed a monthly e-newsletter for my clients, and sometimes I provided training sessions for them and for their staff. This was just part of my approach.
My sales manager hated this, so I actually had to be very covert about working with existing clients. What we sold was based on a one year subscription and before long I had higher retention of existing clients than anyone else on the team. On one of my visits to my area, I happened to get a phone call from a large potential client that I had never been able to make any progress with. They wanted to purchase. They knew exactly what they wanted and when I asked how they had made this decision, as they had never been open to talking to me, they explianed that they had just brought in a new VP, from another local organization and she had been one of my clients. One of her first orders of business was to do business with me!
As much as I would like to paint myself as a naturally gifted sales person, I am probably an average sales person at best. But I had a way that was very natural and very comfortable for me. And it worked, I ended up setting several records on this sales team before leaving.
My sales manager wanted us to do our work a very specific way. It happened to be a way that did not feel right for me and did not seem to be good for the organization in the long run. When I got the unexpected (and large) new sale while I was on the road, he even went so far as to tell folks back at the office, that I had gone in there and closed them in one meeting. I had not closed them or even met with them, I got the sale because of the way in which I took care of my existing clients.
I think that managers, especially managers that have not had much in the way of professional and leadership development, tend to think they need to be "the decider." This is the way we are going to do things, because I said so. Unfortunately, I catch myself taking the same approach at home with the kids, so I guess we all have work to do!
I think it takes some maturity and clarity on who you are to lay out basic guidelines for employees and then get out of the way. But I think the dividends are huge.
Thanks.
-joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
