How can HR best help the CEO?
How can HR best help the CEO? I think that HR’s standing in the eyes of most of the current generation of CEOs is so low that any thoughts of a key strategic role is more wishful thinking than imminent reality.
Instead, by focusing on three areas: relationships, culture and talent, but in new, more innovative ways, HR can potentially make a significant day to day impact on the CEO and other senior executives.
Presuming the average CEO has between 8 and 12 direct reports, dealing with these relationships must take up a considerable amount of time and effort. These relationships, their dynamics and productivity are likely to play a key role on the CEOs perception of their own and the organisation’s performance. Even as an organisation’s leader, it is impossible to separate your own day to day experiences and take a global view of the organisation. For example, overall performance may be good but one or two of the CEO’s relationships with direct reports may be suffering.
By providing the CEO with the information and understanding to optimise their relationships and collaboration with those closest to them tools such as our own 4G methodology apply directly to this area, it is possible to make a significant contribution to senior level communication.
To support this, there is an interesting article from McKinsey Quarterly that emphasises the need for all managers to work at their relationship management and awareness of those around them:
By giving up the quest for ROI, can HR make itself indispensible?
For too long HR has laboured under the belief that if it can somehow conjour up tangible performance figures, it’s future as a strategic influence on the organisation will be guaranteed.
A recent HR Magazine article by Chris Roebuck highlights the ongoing search for hard numbers to back up the continuing existence of the HR function:
“How many HR functions have presented a clear case to their FD on the financial value they are likely to be adding? How many have identified specific initiatives that have delivered specific value to improve service to end users or customers?”
In seeking to show value, the result is that HR practitioners have been taking a macro view of the organisation, striving to provide a similar service to the organisation as the finance department in terms of crunching numbers and applying a uniform approach to their areas of responsibility, hiring, firing, talent etc.
Without doubt, analytics are here to stay and are likely to play an increasingly important role in organisational planning and development. For example, Cathy Missildine-Martin has a blog post about a recent HR Magazine article by Dave Zielinksi that looks at the composition of Google’s HR team:
Leadership, Intangibles and Talent Review Q1 2010
Welcome to the first update for 2010. In the spirit of new beginnings, in this issue we will look at how the debate around organisational performance is widening. We’ll also look at how after 18 months of economic chaos, the fundamentals of organisational behaviour and what everyone has taken for granted about motivation and engagement could have played a key role in recent events. We’ll also touch on the following themes…
Possible prolems with the HR Management Framework for Enterprise 2.0
I’ve just read the great piece from Jon Husband at the FASTForward blog and its made me think a great deal about Enterprise 2.0 (E2) stuff and how this compares to other new technologies and methods that we’ve seen play out in the last 20/30 years.
My thinking is as follows;
- E2 can be framed both as a technology and as a cultural shift
- Its takeup is clearly very different from hard technologies e.g. email, personal computers, blackberries, databases etc.
- Adoption is also very different from technological/methodological hybrids e.g. CRM, BRP(?), ERP and JIT amongst others
- Likewise, the debate about top down and bottom up drivers of adoption is new(ish)
- E2 seeks a different culture from command and control in which to thrive
Thus;
- Given the potentially disruptive nature of E2
Shifting the People Management Worldview
Gary Hamel recently wrote about a
survey that found that only 20% of employees are truly engaged in their work — heart and soul
and yet he goes on to say that
I talk to a lot of CEOs, and every one professes a commitment to building a “high performance” organization
So why this huge, 80% discrepancy? I think Dan McCarthy get’s pretty close when he talks about helping leaders to ‘connect the dots’, writing that
the biggest reason why we can’t seem to see what’s right in front of us is that our own “worldviews”, or “paradigms” obstruct our vision
.
Other people have suggested similar things, Julian Birkinshaw at London Business School, Richard Donkin, Umair Haque and Lynda Gratton have all talked about new perspectives on management.
Why the 80% Discrepancy?
Leadership, Intangibles and Talent Review Q4 2009
Welcome to the final Quarterly Review of 2009. This issue, in addition to the usual round-up, we have an interview with Mike Haffenden. Mike co-founded the Corporate Research Forum and was formerly HR Director for Hewlett-Packard. In this issue we touch on some of the following themes;
- Thoughts on 2009
- The Assumptions behind Motivation
- Reverse Norms
- Retention
- Innovation
- The Future of HR
Articles are included from the likes of the Harvard Business Review, Henry Mintzberg, HR Magazine, Jeffrey Pfeffer, MIT Sloan Review, Nokia, SuccessFactors and the Wall Street Journal.
Thoughts on 2009
In summing up the past 12 months, clearly the recession and how best to tackle it’s effects has been the headline topic amongst HR and OD commentators. Whilst practical tips are always valuable and there have been many, some of the most interesting articles have taken a wider perspective and have questioned some of the fundamental assumptions we have about the way organisations are run. This quarter has been no exception and some of the most interesting articles are featured below.
As regular readers will know, employee engagement has been a particularly hot topic in 2009. Reading through various articles, this I believe has actually disguised the underlying theme or driver of the discussion. The pressing issue driving the engagement debate is that firms are increasingly searching for some sort of intangible alchemy. How to improve performance once all cost cutting has been made and in particular how to ensure that such cost cutting does not destroy morale amongst workers.
An interview with Mike Haffenden, co-founder of the Corporate Research Forum and former HR Director of Hewlett-Packard
The following interview was held between Bruce Lewin and Mike Haffenden in December 2009. Mike co-foundded the Corporate Research Forum and was formerly HR Director for Hewlett-Packard. The discussion focussed on a review of 2009 and its themes for HR, along with exploring more broad topics for the function and profession as a whole.
Bruce: So how has 2009 been for you? Is there anything you would reflect on or mention going forward?
Mike: I think it’s been very difficult for everybody. The problems with the economy, the problems with small businesses, the problems with large businesses, the lack of clear leadership and major uncertainty, and reluctance for anyone to really jump on the fundamental problem, which is job creation.
So clearly the government have to start thinking about this, how to create wealth, how to create jobs and if it’s not going to be finance, what’s it going to be?
Bruce: Have you found the agenda changing over the year to reflect the economic environment or has it been more specialist HR themes that have dominated?
When will the Artists take over from the Technicians?
Two ideas to consider…
- Focusing on the ‘unstructured, intangible and typically unmeasured’ will lead to the greatest increase in profits and problem solving over the coming years.
- Benefiting from working on the ‘unstructured’ will only be fully realised when it is possible to see this in the context of new technologies, processes and practices. In other words, the emergence of a new paradigm or theoretical approach.
‘Unstructured, Intangible and Typically Unmeasured’
Gartner and others have suggested that
as much as 60% of an organization’s processes are unstructured – and probably also unmonitored, unmanaged, unknown and unruly
In a similar vein, John Hagel of Deloitte writes that
In a rapidly changing world, the knowledge that matters the most is tacit knowledge… Accessing this kind of knowledge requires long-term trust based relationships and a deep understanding of context
Opportunities for HR and People Management in 2010 and beyond…
Looking at 2010 and beyond, HR and people management activities will only increase their value, recognition and influence through the application of new technologies or methodologies.
The first factor which determines the success of this is the ability of something to enhance the economic contribution of people management activities.
The second factor is the ability of the new approach to change people’s day to day activities for the better.
Put another way, the acid test of any new method or technology is its ability to convey a sense of intuitive value within minutes, deliver something meaningful in a few hours and ensure that these benefits are sustained over the quarters and years.
Leadership, Intangibles and Talent Review Q3 2009
Welcome to 2009’s third quarterly review, as with previous issues, engagement continues to be at the forefront of people’s thoughts. Behind the engagement debate however there seems to be a growing call for a wider reappraisal of the fundamental way corporations are organised and for me personally, this is the most interesting aspect of this quarter’s articles. Other themes include;
- Shifting the Organisational Pyramid
- The McLeod Review on Employee Engagement
- The Leader/Manager Debate
- Line Managers who Lead
- The Intrinsic Motivation of Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose
- The Irrationality of Human Behaviour
- Tomorrow’s HR Professionals – A Multi-Disciplinary Background
Articles are included from the likes of Harvard Business School, Henry Mintzberg, HR Magazine, McKinsey, the McLeod Review, the Partnership Institute, Personnel Today, Strategy + Business and TED.
Shifting the Organisational Pyramid
The general consensus of commentators from a broad spectrum of disciplines is that the traditional organisational pyramid is not fit for purpose. See below to find out more. We are also seeing a notable increase in articles and blog posts focusing on recruitment in the upturn. Whether this is wishful thinking or a genuine sign of improving economic times remains to be seen.
On a continuing theme from previous updates, there can be no doubt that this year’s hot topic is employee engagement, whilst an acknowledgement of it’s importance is widespread, there remains considerable uncertainty around putting an effective engagement strategy into place. Furthermore as the discussion develops, it is becoming increasingly hard to separate engagement from other organisational issues such as; leadership, talent management and innovation.
The McLeod Review on Employee Engagement
July saw the release of the UK government backed McLeod Review looking into the impact of poor employee engagement in the UK. Undoubtedly this is a strong endorsement of the positive effect of engagement on performance. However, there has been criticism from some for the lack of new insight or practical suggestions. I think that this is slightly missing the point and the report is far from the “recycled rubbish” claimed by Nicholas Higgins. In a similar vein, Personnel Today explicitly criticises the lack of practical suggestions. In my view, the job of this report is to make CEOs sit up and take note and raise what is traditionally seen to be a “soft issue” up the corporate agenda. The report is also meant to raise the issue of engagement for businesses of all sizes, again I think this is something that it achieves. As a first step in an ongoing process, this report gives HR directors the evidence to support the case for taking a serious look at engagement.
Although short on new ideas there is no doubt that the Mcleod Review brings together lots of data and evidence supporting the argument for an increased commitment to engagement. A good summary by John Ingham can be found here. There is nothing revolutionary in the report and it is easy to see why some in the industry are frustrated by it’s lack of specifics. However as a document making the quantitative case for increased investment in engagement it is pretty solid and for those not directly involved in HR and its related disciplines, it is a good introduction.
Despite the shortcomings, the conclusions reached by McLeod are likely to resonate with many. In short, McLeod is calling for a more sophisticated approach to people management. The report openly argues that due to amongst other things changing demographics and technology, engagement is not something organisations can approach with a one size fits all mentality. True engagement is focused on the needs of each individual. Furthermore, if organisations buy into this assertion, the role of line managers has to evolve away from the traditional administration/assigning tasks role to a more collaborative/coaching type approach, as McLeod states;
“Many people we spoke to identified managers’ approaches and behaviours as key factors in disengagement – as one respondent said, they sometimes act as “a great impermeable damp-proof course.” Jeff Kelly, of the Partnership Institute, told us at a round table discussion for this review: “There is a territorial problem and a comfort zone problem. Many feel comfortable with managing staff on an adversarial basis and don’t want to give it up.”
My feeling is that what is being called for in the McLeod Review goes much further than encouraging organisations to adopt a formal engagement programme. If organisations are to fully realise the benefits outlined in the report it is going to require a complete rethink in the way corporations manage and engage their people.
Curiously enough there have been a number of other articles published this quarter that I feel more explicitly reflect the findings of the McLeod Review. Interestingly, these articles are all written by people from a variety of backgrounds or disciplines yet the underlying message is very similar.
To kick things off, Henry Mintzberg has created a buzz with a look at the perennial manager/leader debate. This was also a topic covered in the previous issue. In this article Mintzberg is critical of the traditional role of corporate leaders who he brands as aloof and disconnected from the workforce, therefore having little idea of what is actually happening in the organisation. It is this disconnection that hampers so many organisational initiatives. In Mintzberg’s view, corporate America is overled and undermanaged.
True leadership is something that may only be required on an ad hoc basis, in particular during times of uncertainty or dealing with specific challenges or unknowns. These are the challenges which we most associate and value strong leadership with such as charisma, determination and vision. Effective management on the other hand is something that requires a more mundane yet equally valuable approach.
“As Stanford University emeritus professor James G. March put it: “Leadership involves plumbing as well as poetry.” Instead of distinguishing leaders from managers, we should encourage all managers to be leaders. And we should define “leadership” as management practiced well.”
At the heart of Mintzberg’s criticism is that the traditional corporate pyramid encourages and supports this disconnection between leaders and the rest of the organisation. Jamie Notter has an good summary of the Mintzberg article and picks up on his assertion that organisations need to review the usefulness of the prevailing hierarchical model of organisational design.
The notion of line managers who lead is explored in this recent McKinsey article. An idea that is coming from a similar direction to Mintzberg, instead of training managers in process and administration, they can improve productivity by empowering the people around them. In this way managers can be seen as catalysts to creativity, innovation and devolved decision-making. In particular managers need to address the issues that are of particular relevance to them and their people. This can be anything from dealing with interpersonal issues to customer relationships. The article goes on to say;
“To unlock a team’s abilities, a manager at any level must spend a significant amount of time on two activities: helping the team understand the company’s direction and its implications for team members and coaching for performance.”
This prompts the question, is the traditional top down business model fit for purpose in the 21st Century? To highlight this confusion between management and leadership, one particular criticism outlined by Mintzberg in another article is what he refers to as leading through information or “deeming” as he terms it. This is where leaders deem that certain targets need achieving, such as sales need to rise by 10% or we need to cut 15% of staff. By any definition this is not leadership and as such is unlikely to engage or motivate employess apart from through fear.
Dismantling the organisational pyramid is also the topic of a Strategy + Business article. Ostensibly discussing talent management, the theme is the same as Mintzberg’s argument and calls for a fundamental reassessment of how organisations engage with their employees. The article argues that the traditional career progression structured through an organisational pyramid structure is outdated and not fit for current and future demographics. Instead organisations need to take a more sophisticated and flexible approach to career development based on the individual.
The Intrinsic Motivation of Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose
Further evidence to support a radical reappraisal in the way organisations structure themselves is outlined by Dan Pink who delivered an entertaining TED talk, well worth the 20 minutes if you have the time. In it he discusses the failure of bonuses and incentives to improve performance. Contrary to popularly held beliefs in the corporate world at least, the basis of Pink’s talk is that traditional monetary incentives fail to boost performance in all but the most mundane or mechanical tasks. Citing a number of scientific sources, Pink states that the traditional reward structure used by organisations is not an effective means of motivation. Clearly this view undermines many of the assumptions that organisations implicitly make about motivation and performance. In getting rid of the traditional carrot and stick approach, Pink focuses on three areas of what he terms “intrinsic motivation” of autonomy, mastery and purpose.
In discussing the role of autonomy, Pink is another to go against the orthodoxy and directly criticise the traditional organisational pyramid which concentrates decision-making in the upper echelons. By removing self-direction, organisations are undermining the ability of employees to fully engage with their work. At the same time feelings of unfairness are likely to grow. Clearly, Pink is suggesting that organisations need a fundamental rethink in the way that they motivate their employees. As Pink repeatedly summarises;
“there’s a mismatch between what science knows and what business does.”
The Irrationality of Human Behaviour
As if that isn’t enough, we are continuing to see an increase in articles focusing on the “irrationality” of human behaviour. In a posting on the Harvard Business School site Jim Heskett kicks off a decent discussion about a recent HBR article by Dan Ariely. Again, this has significant implications for our approach to management theory and assumptions about human behaviour.
“Reactions to our efforts as managers reflect what each individual receives in relation to what he or she perceives and expects. Because this is highly subjective, the argument goes, generalizations (many of them currently taught in conventional courses) about how to manage are practically useless. Instead, managers should encourage employees to set their own goals, appraise their own achievements, and reach their own conclusions about how to improve. Managers should also spend more of their time inspiring (through stories) and devising engaging activities from which employees may, to some extent, choose.”
Are you starting to see a theme here yet?
Whilst there is no shortage of new ideas being put forward, within the HR specific press, the focus has been more inward and arguably more pessimistic over recent months.
Tomorrow’s HR Professionals – A Multi-Disciplinary Background
In particular, HR Magazine in the UK has run a series of articles that have a generally pessimistic view of the furture for HR. The debate seems to have moved on from the rallying cry for HR to be provided with a seat at the top table to a questioning of whether the function can actually make a strategic contribution. For example, David Woods cites a Logica survey with the headline figure claiming that 70% of HR Directors feel that they do not have sufficient information to avoid a widening skills gap. Given new technology and information available to HR professionals, is there any excuse for this?
Elsewhere , Maurice Duffy muses on the future of HR. In a strongly worded article, he articulates a potential future for HR where it is able to contribute significantly to organisational effectiveness. Unfortunately, Duffy is sceptical whether the majority of current HR practitioners are capable of delivering this vision. As Duffy states;
“My view is that HR is populated with too many self-seeking, blame-shifting blockers and manipulators who kill the enlightened view and restrict and choke organisational progression. You know them – the pen- pushing administrators and positioners, who tell the business what it cannot do, build processes and systems that inhibit or dilute any sensible simplicity that is a key requisite in the current world where change, speed and innovation are the new business imperatives.”
On a similar note, Rhonda Eckert has a blog post asking whether HR is in danger of becoming extinct? She echoes Murray in her assertion that tomorrow’s HR professionals are going to come from a multi-disciplinary background. Maybe not the end of HR but possibly signifying a shift in the experience or requirements for HR professionals.
Likewise, Jan Kingsley at ASPEL talks about the fragmentation of learning and its possible resolution, saying;
“L&D is becoming more specialised with people developing specific competencies and skills in discrete areas, for example, becoming specialists in coaching, facilitation or learning design. This is being driven in part by customer and client expectations, but also the use of technologies which makes the whole issue of learning much more complex. Navigating this maze of information and techniques and overcoming their inherent complexities will be a major factor in making L&D much more effective.”
While debates on the specific themes will no doubt continue, the possibilities for HR and leadership going forward are intriguing and imply a number of changes. While the recession has almost forced people to reflect on their organizations and practice, the seeds of the future may well be taking route already.
Leadership, Intangibles and Talent Review Q1 2009
“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein
Welcome to the second quarterly roundup of the latest thinking and developments around leadership, HR, innovation, talent management and organisational development. I have tried to pick out the most interesting or thought provoking of the high volume of articles, surveys, blogs and webcasts. In this issue, articles and examples have been included from the likes of Capital One, CFO.com, Cisco, McKinsey, Microsoft, Harvard Business School and Towers Perrin.
Are People Truly Predictable?
We were recently featured in a piece on the HR Matters site. We spoke about our work with 4G and how it can aid understanding and problem solving efforts. Here’s a quick introduction.
HR Executive Article – Boom or Bust for HR?
Anne Freedman at HR Executive very kindly published our “Boom or Bust for HR?” article back in January. Thanks Anne!
The introduction is below.
Is 2009 the year the HR function finally enters its ascendancy as organizations place greater emphasis on talent management and putting strategic HR activities at the heart of the business? Or is HR destined to remain a transaction-based cost center as leaders still struggle to rise to the challenge?
Productivity, pharmacology and work-life balance
Nick Carr takes a wonderfully tangential view on pharmacology and productivity.
I recently commented on the Nature editorial that made a case for “the responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy.”
We spend so much time smoothing things out…
We lose the opportunity for change, or for texture or creativity…
(at least according to Seth Godin)
Here’s the full piece…
