Archive | Work RSS feed for this section

Hidden Talents Part 1: Talent, Retention, And The New Realities

by on June 9, 2008 in Work

Before diving into the idea of hidden talent, we should take a step back and examine the current understanding of talent. Before 1997, the concept of talent was pretty much exclusive to the entertainment industry. That changed when McKinsey published their seminal study called The War for Talent. Whether or not you buy into whether there’s continues to be a war or not (particularly with our current sensitivities toward actual war), I think we can agree with the central thesis: that a post-industrial era company’s most vital asset is not bricks, widgets, or equipment; it lies in the intangible qualities of the company’s people.

Yet, if that’s true then why do so many organizations typically do a lackluster job at attracting, managing, and engaging talent? The answer lies in the persistent use of old school human resource practices and industrial age thinking about employees.

The Struggle to Attract and Keep Talent
The interesting trend is that recruitment continues to outpace retention when it comes to attention and innovation. But then, that shouldn’t come as a surprise. Getting something (or someone) new has always been sexier than trying to keep them. I learned that in a past-life working in nonprofit association membership management. When I compiled my monthly member data reports, my Boards and Executive Directors always asked first about the growth statistics. “How many new members did we get? Which recruitment effort worked the best? Etc, etc, etc.”

However, for all of this attention and innovation, employee recruitment often continues to be disconnected from the issues of retention. Think of the typical sales cycle within most companies: marketing creates a branding image and sales continues to build on this image to close the deal. What happens if this carefully crafted image turns out to be more myth than reality? You have some very pissed off customers on your hands (think: JetBlue, Microsoft Vista, General Motors for some recent examples of unrealistic branding). The very same thing happens in organizations. New talented employees are lured in by slick employer branding only to find that the reality of working there is quite different. Again, pissed off employees who are feeling disenchanted and devalued.

And this feeling isn’t exclusive to newer hires. If organizational changes are made that negatively disrupt that initial branding or a more recent employment experience (think job description changes or management shake ups), then you can expect a similar type of disengagement. The fact is that if left unengaged, your people will be shopping their themselves and their talents even in not so good economic times. Michael Gregoire, President and CEO of Taleo Corporation recently wrote:

Today’s workforce is in control. Employees want to understand how they are connected to the company. They want to know how they can progress. They want to work at a place that fits their lifestyle choices. As employers, we have been placed in the unenviable position of needing to market our companies to our employees each and every day. If we neglect to engage our own employees, those who are frustrated can surf hundreds of job boards to see what other opportunities await.

A Refreshed Look at Talent
While talent is often defined as a natural aptitude or skill, I take a wider view of it. It’s not just about raw intellect or strictly defined as having an Ivy League education. I see a talent as something unique to an individual. I also see it as a gift; a gift given to each of us that we can use in service to others. Some of these talents are immediately evident, particularly those that match up with our job descriptions. But we know that job descriptions, while necessary, can be limiting unless employees are given the room to explore outside of their boundaries. Each of us have been endowed with talents that not only energize us when we use them, they are an organization’s prime source of innovation, passionate enthusiasm, and competitive remarkability. In short, these hidden talents are one of the critical elements in creating a culture of high employee engagement that leads to long-term organizational success.

This week, I’ll be exploring hidden talents, why they are important, how to surface and use them in work, and ways to embed them in organizational culture. I’m looking forward to the rich dialogue we’ll cocreate together.

Hidden Talents And The Gray Zone

by on June 6, 2008 in Work

I’m starting to set aside some time to peruse some of the magazines that have been piling up on my desk. As it turns out, I’m three issues behind in my reading of Harvard Business Review so it’s fairly likely you’ll see a few blogposts in the near future related to HBR articles.

Going back to the May 2008 issue, Michel Anteby wrote a brief article in the Forethoughts section called Working in the Gray Zone. In the article, he brings an interesting perspective to one of my favorite topics – hidden talents. (I define a hidden talent as a unique skill or ability that an employee brings with them to an organization that is not part of their job description.) For Anteby the “gray zone” of the article title refers to using one’ s hidden talents for what may be considered non-essential work activities. He points out the example of a competent, productive newspaper editor who spends time at work writing her novel. I’ve personally experienced managers in the past who would verbally flay this individual if they ever caught wind of this behavior. Yet, other managers might be incredibly supportive knowing that the editor could always be counted on to deliver official work when it needed to be done.

Anteby asks why individuals might be attracted to using company time and resources for personal projects. I like his answer and it adds a nuance to my thinking about hidden talents. While most workers are supplied with a job description, that’s often not enough. Many of us feel a strong pull toward fulfilling our own sense of “occupational identity” that is much more robust and unique to our own particular talents. And more often than not, they are tied to our current work in some way which is why smart managers don’t just tolerate trips to the gray zone, they encourage them.

Anteby writes:

It’s worth thinking about bringing gray zones out into the open by finding official ways for employees to engage their occupational identities…Finding a perfect official match might not always be possible, but employees will be more engaged and productive when their true skills are recognized by their employers.

Next week, I’ll be writing a long-planned series on how to uncover and utilize the hidden talents of your employees. So plan to come on back…I promise you’ll find some answers to how to better engage your people and help them bring more of themselves to their work.

Four Professional Growth Issues For Managers (And How To Address Them)

by on May 22, 2008 in Work

Managers, when it comes to your employees where does professional development rank in your list of priorities?

A. It’s vitally important and I discuss it frequently
B. It’s important but don’t talk about it much
C. It’s not important – or – there are more important things to focus on

If you answered ‘A’ above…congratulations! Keep on doing what you’re doing. However, for all you folks who answered ‘B’ or ‘C’, let’s have a friendly chat, okay? I won’t lay a guilt trip on you (okay…try not to) and I promise by the end you’ll come away with a new appreciation for why growing your employees is important.

When I work with managers, I often hear four common reasons for why professional development gets pushed to the backburner:

Good Ol’ Fashion Fear of Change
Perhaps the greatest fear expressed is that if you grow someone, you’ll grow them right off your team or out of your organization. That might just be true. When people grow as professionals, they do change…and change can bring fear. In this case, it’s the fear of changes in the environment. There might also be a fear that if the employee leaves you just paid for growth that will benefit another organization and not your own.

So, what if you grow an employee and they leave? As Jamie Notter once pointed out, think of it this way: what if you don’t grow them and they stay?

What you can do: It’s time to confront this fear and realize that professionals must hone themselves or else they become dull and rather useless. If the employee stays, they’ll be far more useful to your organization’s purpose. Yet if the employee leaves, you can still take pride in the fact that you helped them move on to something important. And here’s an often ignored bonus: you now have a potentially new social link to another organization in order to share ideas and experiences.

Not Enough Time or Resources
This usually follows with, “When things settle down and get less crazy, then I’ll be able to give more focus to professional development.” Here’s the problem with that statement: it’s never going to get less crazy than it is now. If anything, it’s just going to get crazier.

What you can do: Stop finding reasons for not making disciplined time or resources available around professional development for your people. If time is the reason, create ways for your employees to make time (e.g., move some lower priority tasks off their plate to make room for professional development). If resources are the reason, it’s time to evaluate where you spend your money. If you don’t see professional development as an investment in your company’s future success, there may be something there to reflect on further.

We Have Bigger Problems to Solve Right Now
See above. Again, it comes down to priorities. Also, ask yourself this: Would growing the skills, experiences, and knowledge of our employees help us solve this problems more effectively?

It’s the Employee’s Responsibility
Managers, if this is your belief we need to work on changing that now. Here’s a simple question: what is your role in your organization? Take a few minutes to reflect on this. Hopefully, somewhere in your response, the word lead appeared. If you are a leader, know that a key responsibility of leaders is to produce more leaders. That takes a firm belief in the value of growing your employees.

What you can do: Assume the responsibility for growing your people. Yes, it’s the employee’s responsibility to be open and eager to achieve their own development (it’s the old horse and water thing). Yet, you must create these professional development openings and then create the space for your employees to use what they’ve learned. Going back to the first issue around the fear of employees leaving…if an employee has the ability to grow and use this new growth in their work, they’ll likely be far happier and fulfilled in what they do.

Remember managers…if your employees look good, then you’re going to look good. The manager/employee dynamic can be a mutually beneficial relationship…particularly if you take care of your employees and their need for professional development.

Need A Lie Detector? You’ve Got Bigger Problems Than That

by on May 18, 2008 in Work

From the “Sad But True” file, it appears that British businesses could soon be employing lie detectors as a way to deter healthy folks who call in sick for work. And if American Idol, The Office, and countless other Brit imports are any indication we’ll be seeing something similar in the U.S. any day now. You can already imagine where I stand on this imbecilic nonsense. My reaction is similar to Judy McLeish’s who wrote Voice Risk Analysis to Identify Those Feigning Sick – Is This a Joke?. Look…if your company thinks it has problems with employees calling in sick just to play hooky you need to take a good look at how you are engaging them. Instituting a lie detector not only misses the bigger picture, it literally pushes them out the door.

You’re Going To Need A Bigger Hammer For The Square Peg

by on May 8, 2008 in Work

Over at Mission Minded Management, Michelle Malay Carter asks whether hiring star performers can be a mistake. At the heart of the question is the danger of hiring someone who is overqualified per the job role (as well as underqualified):

Our data shows one in five people is in a role that does not tap their full capacity, i.e. they’ve been overhired in a role. In contrast, only 15% are slotted in roles that they simply do not have the mental bandwidth to handle. So our data shows that overhiring is a larger problem than underhiring. Either shoots engagement in the foot.

When I was a hiring manager, the notion of job fit was important. The last thing I wanted to do was bring in someone who had a more advanced skillset than was necessary for the work defined by the carefully crafted job description. Isn’t that how we’re all trained by HR when we interview candidates? You find square pegs for square holes. Well, what if that approach, that system is what’s broken?

A square hole may turn out to be a teeny tiny box.
If you craft a job description too tightly, how can you possibly hope for an employee to be able to move freely about? I’ve seen job descriptions that honestly ought to be called job “prescriptions.” No need to worry about a manager micromanaging an employee – the job role has it’s own built-in mechanisms to do it for them.

What you can do as a manager…Focus on setting the position’s big picture. Start with wide boundaries and let your employees co-create the work details along with you.

A square hole may need to be a round hole at times.
Be careful what you wish for. You might want an employee who meets the specific criteria laid out in the job description. Ahhh…but then the job needs to shift to meet new organizational goals. You now have a potential misfit to contend with.

What you can do as a manager…Think broadly and openly when weighing your candidates. Consider their aptitude for being flexible when work needs to shift. Consider altering the job description to better fit a candidate who offers some intriguing upsides to the organization or brings new strengths to your team.

Square pegs can become round pegs over time.
What? People learn and change? Yes, Mr. Organization it’s true. That individual who you hired last year and was perfect for the role has now exceeded the expectations and competencies of the job description. So, now what do you do? Ignore it and hope they won’t notice? Promote him or her? Start making subtle hints about how exciting working at that new business down the street might be?

What you can do as a manager…Learn about what other talents your employees bring to the party. Could be the individual sitting right outside your office has a skillset that could lead to a breakthrough in how your team does things. Ask what types of things your folks like to learn. Just don’t assume that your square pegs are always going to be square.

Regardless of what this all may sound like, I’m not knocking the ‘concept’ behind work roles. Each employee must know what their core work is and what’s expected of them. Boundaries are essential to engagement. But the art of employee engagement is knowing how to build constructive boundaries that tap into each person’s unique qualities and help them bring them into their work. A round peg in a square hole may be complaining because he or she wants the freedom to bring more of themselves to the organization. And it’s to the organization’s detriment not to find out how to meet this desire.

(And if you’re interested in learning more behind Michelle’s post which inspired this one, head over to Mission Minded Management…the thought and care she uses in thinking about these issues never fails to amaze me.)