Happy New Year!
Thanks to Coby, a video with some interesting reflections on economic circumstances from 2006 and 2007 … sweet for Peter Schiff, sour for everyone else?
Malcolm Gladwell has been over to London, talking about his new book, The Outliers. I haven’t read the book and I’ve only scanned the reviews, but the talent management component of the message seems to be that;
Outliers focuses more on the social and cultural context of individuals to explain their extraordinary success… Gladwell explains how success in the 21st century is less about sheer intelligence and more about collaboration and hard work
According to Stephen Green, chairman of HSBC Holdings;
Values go beyond ‘what you can get away with’ and that values are, in the end, critical to value – to sustainable value, that is
Green goes on to say;
Nick McCormick very kindly suggested a podcast with himself on management tips. We had a good chat about some thoughts on leadership and spent about 10 minutes talking about;
- Self Awareness
- Relationships
- Systems
- Culture
Michael Spect points us to an article and interview he did with Kate Carruthers. I’ve added some extracts from the piece below;
A fragmented approach to the elements comprising workforce development led to lack of integration and inability to align the workforce to current and future business demands.
Gary Cokins highlights some recent Dutch research that suggests;
overall enterprise performance is improved by defining accountability for sales turnover and profit and loss simultaneously over multiple dimensions (e.g., by product, region, account, market segment, industry). This “multidimensional” concept means that for each dimension, a separate manager is held accountable –and with consequences of reward or punishment
Summary
Commentators are currently polarised around the future of the HR function. Some suggest that the function is about to enter a boom period as after several years of cajoling, organisations are placing far greater significance on talent management and putting strategic HR activities at the heart of the business. On the other hand others believe that HR is still struggling to rise to the challenge and is destined to remain a transaction based cost centre for the foreseeable future. As with most things, in the truth probably resides somewhere in the middle. This article explores the evidence for both perspectives and suggests that solving apparently intangible human capital problems that is the best way for HR to profit from the current circumstances.
The Case for Boom
In examining the factors contributing to the possible ‘boom’ scenario, there are at least four underlying developments which contribute to this[1].
The Talent Management Agenda
The most significant development is recent research conducted by Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) and McKinsey which suggests that talent management is now a major priority for business leaders. PwC report that 89% of 1,150 CEOs agree that the people agenda is a top priority and a further 67% believe this is where their time is best spent. Meanwhile, McKinsey state that “By far the most significant trend - cited by 47 percent of the executives - is the intensifying battle for talented people. Shifting centres of economic activity and increasing technological connectivity were the next most important trends, each with 34 percent.” Such data paints a clear picture that executives are now firmly focused on talent management as a key, if not the top priority.
The Growth of Talent Management Software
The second development is the growth of the talent management software market, suggesting that leaders are paying more than lip service to the “our people are our greatest asset” mantra. Gartner defines such software by saying that “most large companies have implemented an integrated set of administrative human capital management applications. Now, these companies are turning their attention to strategic talent management applications to get more value from their investments in people.” As reported by the Yankee Group, this market has a CAGR[2] of 26%, making the market worth $4.0bn by 2009. The forecast also seems to be holding good with Gartner analyst Jim Holincheck reporting more enquiries for talent management software this year compared to last, along with a record growth rate for 2007 of 20%.
Rising HR Salaries
Likely to be of greatest interest to practitioners is the increase in salary and interim rates for HR professionals. Reed Human Resources reports an 11% rise in salaries during 2007 and a 30% increase in the size of the interim market. In similar fashion, agency Josline Rowe reports a rise in interim day rates from £350 to £500. As with the software market, such growth rates suggest that the intentions reported by PwC and McKinsey are being translated into the market and show a genuine commitment to act[3] and recognition of the value that HR can contribute.
While Bob Sutton knows GM very well (research, speaker, existing contacts there), he can’t stop himself from feeling compelled to speak his mind. Here are some extracts from his piece;
I am ambivalent about whether the auto industry should receive the 25 billion dollars… I worry that it will be a waste because the industry has lost so much money and so many jobs in recent years that these firms are in a death spiral that is impossible to stop… I also believe it will be a waste because the leaders of these firms (at least GM, which I know best) are so backward and misguided that the thought of giving these bozos any of my tax money turns my stomach – which is pretty much the same point made by observers ranging from ultra-capitalist Mitt Romney to near-socialist documentary filmmaker Michael Moore.
While this isn’t a Carry On film, Oliver Marks says that
In lots of large corporations, innovation and integration are unnatural acts. Silos block cross functional cooperation and resistance stifles new ideas and concepts.
A piece in HBR then “explores how some companies are overcoming these boundaries by proposing and establishing two new types of cross-organizational teams.”
Philip Preissing talks about some fascinating research from Microsoft in which the outcome of software projects reflects and is very heavily influenced by the organisational structure in which they were conceived and developed. Building in part on Conway’s Law, a study of Window’s Vista said;
Kim Warren has a wonderful expose of the current state of Starbucks and how they have ended up where they are now. The summary is that having focused very successfully on building a highly engaged and productive workforce which served to drive spectacular results, they’ve moved away from this formula with a reasonably predictable outcome.
I’ll let Kim take up the reigns;
Seth Godin picks up on the long established, death by a thousand cuts currently infiltrating the US newspaper industry. What is interesting about this piece is not so much the blow by blow account of the declining circulation and advertising figures, but the missed opportunities for leadership and innovation.
If anything, Seth’s piece highlights once again the strengths of an organisation’s values, as opposed to its processes or resources.
Michael McKinney points to a piece in the FT, ‘Lunch with Tom Peters‘. I haven’t read the full interview, but a choice extract made me stop and think.
George Ambler explores the language around strategy, analysis, decision making and action. There are plenty of salient points including ‘Analysis Paralysis‘ and ‘The Paradox of Choice‘. George wraps things up by saying
The underlying principle is that: Simplicity allows people to act. A set of clear rules and principles to guide action towards the vision provide the necessary simplicity require to move people from vision to action…
Johnnie points out a piece by Penny, both of whom talk about collaboration in its various forms. Penny sets the scene with the idea that;
By recognising the nature of the interactions, we can better understand the restrictions of, and relationship between, the associated behaviours. We can then focus more sharply on initiatives which (i) improve controls and efficiency, or (ii) add value through creativity and innovation, or more ambitiously (iii) both!
Nick Carr has been writing plenty on computing and the move towards a new approach called cloud computing. A recent piece from Nick seeks to compare Google with Microsoft and their respective attempts to win business customers for their respective ‘cloud’ offerings e.g. wordprocessing and spreadsheet on the internet and in the browser, as opposed to the desktop.
‘But I thought google did search and ads, not word processing and spreadsheets..?’ Exactly!
Psychometrics says Paul Wilmott! Surely not!
I doubt whether it will catch on, sadly, but I’ve also been advocating for years that there should be a process of psychometric testing, along the line of Myers-Briggs, for fund managers. This is actually not uncommon in other business scenarios involving large loans, buyouts, etc. and ought to be standard practice for any position of serious responsibility.
Katherine Jones points us to two gaps in the HR and talent space, via research from Hewitt and the Human Capital Institute.
- 88% of businesses hold executives responsible for results, while only 10% hold the same group accountable for developing their direct reports
- 26% (of 700 organisations) believe that their managers have the capability to grow people ‘considerably’ while only 5% of organisations believe their managers show this ability consistently
What happens when human values and financial values are seriously misaligned at the operational level? Keysha Cooper once of Washington Mutual reveals all to the New York Times.
“If a loan came from a top loan officer, they didn’t care what the situation was, you had to make that loan work,” she says. “You were like a bad person if you declined a loan.”
Miki Saxon tells us that she’s no fan of the cult of individual leadership. Likewise we’d also agree with the following when Miki says;
‘Leader’ and ‘leadership’ lost their meaning when the media latched on and started using them as shorthand for what the guy at the front (leader) thinks should be done to move forward (leadership).
(while revelling in the subjectivity of the language around leadership!)
(C) 2008 Ulrich Kerler & Marcus Schiesser Report an issue | Feedback | Privacy Policy | TOS