Monday, March 27, 2006
Talent Management
In HR we run into situations where we feel we have to balance the needs of the organization and the individual. In fact, this is an unnecessary conflict. It is a by-product of our existing structures. Avoiding such conflicts is considered a matter of aligning individuals with organizations, and that’s a good start. But people and organizations change and when alignment is off we fire the people. In the end, we're forced to choose and organizations win.
What’s missing is the realization that people want to be used more effectively. They want to be challenged, and want to be engaged. Companies want them to be engaged too, and go to great lengths to define what it is they want us engaged in. But there is no conflict between an individual wanting to be challenged and a company’s desire to increase productivity. They are the same animal, seen from different sides.
While we see clarity in defining skills and tasks relevant to each job, we don’t attempt to quantify the totality of skills a person brings to an organization (and might like to use). We don’t examine that talent set and ask how it might be deployed beyond a narrow job description. Defining an appropriate challenge for anyone would seemingly necessitate an examination of their abilities, but we parse out the skills relevant to specific tasks only. Then we ask them to repeat their behaviours until they become disengaged, quit, or get fired. But it begins by ignoring that untapped human capital that isn’t considered relevent to the job at hand. Its very short-sighted, and not being addressed at all. Instead, we’re automating performance management systems using the very same methodology and hoping we get a different result. Good luck with that.
What’s missing is the realization that people want to be used more effectively. They want to be challenged, and want to be engaged. Companies want them to be engaged too, and go to great lengths to define what it is they want us engaged in. But there is no conflict between an individual wanting to be challenged and a company’s desire to increase productivity. They are the same animal, seen from different sides.
While we see clarity in defining skills and tasks relevant to each job, we don’t attempt to quantify the totality of skills a person brings to an organization (and might like to use). We don’t examine that talent set and ask how it might be deployed beyond a narrow job description. Defining an appropriate challenge for anyone would seemingly necessitate an examination of their abilities, but we parse out the skills relevant to specific tasks only. Then we ask them to repeat their behaviours until they become disengaged, quit, or get fired. But it begins by ignoring that untapped human capital that isn’t considered relevent to the job at hand. Its very short-sighted, and not being addressed at all. Instead, we’re automating performance management systems using the very same methodology and hoping we get a different result. Good luck with that.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Diversity And Business Success
A recent invitation to a seminar included the line: “Thought leaders will agree that diversity is a pillar of corporate strength - the business case for diversity is just too strong to ignore. Corporations that are supported by a diverse employee base usually find themselves at the top of their industry.”
Like so much marketing, the juxtaposition of strong diversity program and industry leadership implies diversity is the cause of success. This linkage is one of debatable significance. The language suggests causation; it is more likely that the relationship between diversity and success is correlated. This isn’t nitpicking, its important. The HR community is notorious for putting forth faulty arguments disguised as “business cases” to further an agenda.
I don’t see how a company can prove that their diversified employee base is instrumental to their success. While diversity may contribute to success, it is not necessarily key to that success - any more than any other characteristic of the firm (e.g. the firm’s product lines, patents, market position, fiscal policy, etc.). To demonstrate diversity as the cause of success would require isolating the benefits of diversity from marketing, sales, product development, etc., which is impossible. As a result, the “business case” for diversity is easy to ignore.
On the other hand, the correlation between diversity and business success is much easier to support. Companies with strong diversity initiatives often have success in other areas. In effect, excellence in diversity can imply excellence in other areas. There are many examples of companies with strengths in diversity and great management, or a range of market achievements. In these cases, a strong diversity program may be the hallmark of a good company, not the cause of it. Does diversity contribute to their strength? Undoubtedly. Is it the cause of their strength? This is much harder to verify, and therefore unlikely. The issue is whether diversity correlates with success or causes it. Knowing the difference helps form a persuasive argument instead of undermining our credibility as business-savvy professionals.
Don't argue a "business case" that diversity drives business success. You simply cannot prove it. Doing so undercuts our credibility; it shows how weak our understanding of business really is. The business case is that if a firm aspires to excellence, it needs a solid diversity program. This appeals to management’s goals and aspirations without presuming a direct impact the bottom line. While such contributions do exist, they are ancillary benefits and a by-product of diversity not the direct result. If you’re going to make a pitch for strengthening diversity point out the correlation between excellence in diversity and excellence as a company. That should grab their attention without undermining your credibility.
Like so much marketing, the juxtaposition of strong diversity program and industry leadership implies diversity is the cause of success. This linkage is one of debatable significance. The language suggests causation; it is more likely that the relationship between diversity and success is correlated. This isn’t nitpicking, its important. The HR community is notorious for putting forth faulty arguments disguised as “business cases” to further an agenda.
I don’t see how a company can prove that their diversified employee base is instrumental to their success. While diversity may contribute to success, it is not necessarily key to that success - any more than any other characteristic of the firm (e.g. the firm’s product lines, patents, market position, fiscal policy, etc.). To demonstrate diversity as the cause of success would require isolating the benefits of diversity from marketing, sales, product development, etc., which is impossible. As a result, the “business case” for diversity is easy to ignore.
On the other hand, the correlation between diversity and business success is much easier to support. Companies with strong diversity initiatives often have success in other areas. In effect, excellence in diversity can imply excellence in other areas. There are many examples of companies with strengths in diversity and great management, or a range of market achievements. In these cases, a strong diversity program may be the hallmark of a good company, not the cause of it. Does diversity contribute to their strength? Undoubtedly. Is it the cause of their strength? This is much harder to verify, and therefore unlikely. The issue is whether diversity correlates with success or causes it. Knowing the difference helps form a persuasive argument instead of undermining our credibility as business-savvy professionals.
Don't argue a "business case" that diversity drives business success. You simply cannot prove it. Doing so undercuts our credibility; it shows how weak our understanding of business really is. The business case is that if a firm aspires to excellence, it needs a solid diversity program. This appeals to management’s goals and aspirations without presuming a direct impact the bottom line. While such contributions do exist, they are ancillary benefits and a by-product of diversity not the direct result. If you’re going to make a pitch for strengthening diversity point out the correlation between excellence in diversity and excellence as a company. That should grab their attention without undermining your credibility.
