Followership

"I can't wait until I'm the boss and don't have to answer to anyone."

We've all heard something similar, either in business, in the community, children, or perhaps in our own voices.  It's a consistent refrain echoing across all ages, from the very young to the very old:  one day I'll be in charge.  For all of us, that day never comes - no matter our upward trajectory in an organization.

Too much of the wrong thing

As individuals matriculate through careers, it is quite common for blind spots to develop.  Some common blind spots have to do with interpersonal relations, focus and direction, and delivering on hard-to-quantify soft skills for the good of the organization.

GE: serious about leadership

In most large organizations, leadership is affirmed as a key contributor to organizational success.  Typically there is some form of leadership model, special programs for high potentials, and perhaps rotational programs to move high performing or high potential leaders through the experiences needed to lead and perform at the next level.

Leadership models come in all shapes and sizes, and most are helpful in keeping leaders (and aspiring leaders) focused and developing.  NASA offers an excellent graphical representation of leadership behaviors arranged on a disc, moving from large dimensions in the middle to more granular areas towards the outside.  The MIT Leadership Center promotes FCF (Four Capabilities Leadership Framework), which points to four critical components of leadership:  sensemaking, relating, visioning, and inventing.  Leadership powerhouse Lominger (part of Korn/Ferry International) has developed 67 leadership competencies and publishes a book called FYI:  For Your Improvement that’s now in its 5^th edition.And then there’s GE.

Strategic Workforce Planning (by any name)

Back in 2007 I described leadership development in a speech as “ensuring we have the right people, in the right place, at the right time, and at the right cost, now and years into the future.”  When I coined the phrase, it felt like a winner– very easy to explain and understand.  I still use this description in conversation, and even in recent posts! :)

For a year or two I felt original, then found that several others must have been generating similar ideas and thoughts for years.  The U.S. Department of Interior came up with it in 2001 to describe Workforce Planning (WFP).  The County of Fairfax in Virginia presented “Strategic Workforce Planning” in 2003 – noting at the link that “planning begins with the organization’s strategic plan.”  In 2006 NOAA used the phrase in describing “workforce planning,” considered much more strategic than simply “succession planning.”  The effort was called “One NOAA,” an effort to “develop, value, and sustain a world-class workforce.”  In 2009 GFT used the phrase to describe “flexible resourcing.”

Today, Human Capital Institute, highly regarded in Human Resources circles, offers the SWP certification with this quote:  “Strategic Workforce Planning is the most sought after skill in talent management today….”

Case study: the annual review

Kaitlyn is a process engineer. She has worked for Jeremiah for quite some time, and feels like he understands her contributions to the team.

Several days ago, she had been looking forward to her annual performance review. She had saved the company $4 million in March of this past year, and remembered the praise Jeremiah had heaped on her in front of the company president. Shortly after this big win, the president asked Jeremiah to broaden her responsibilities. Kaitlyn expected a glowing review and a nice bonus check to cap off a stellar 2010.

Blockers

When I speak about talent management, I describe the work as follows:  talent management is about ensuring the right people are in the right roles at the right time.  It's easy to say - rolls right off the tongue.  However it's very complex, and not so easy to implement.

Most large firms have a formal review of talent at least once per year. A component of this conversation is to discuss individuals in three broad dimensions: performance against goals; behaviors that benefit the individual, team, and firm; and the potential to develop and contribute at a higher level in the organization.

Nontraditional talent

In a September post, "Just Like Me" I shared the following:

Quick note of warning about thin-slicing and making generalizations too much – it’s easy to miss a diamond in the rough.  In large part these theories are interpreted in a way that assumes more perfect information than reality affords.  Often, individuals don’t fully know who they are, or what they may be good at doing, or even identifying traits in other individuals and organizations.  From an employer perspective, recruiters are often looking for identical experience to fill a role when a better fit might be for someone making a developmental turn – or from a different industry that utilizes similar skills. 

This month's Talent Management magazine has an interesting article:  "Hiring Talent With Nontraditional Backgrounds."  It's a nice overview of the pitfalls and opportunities of hiring outside of what might be considered the "normal" pools of sourced talent.  Here's the kicker:  "

Individuals with diverse academic and vocational backgrounds can be a boon to business, but talent managers must do their homework to determine the proficiency and cultural fit of these 'outsiders.'"So how to find these people?

Just Like Me

Are we really all the same?

There is a great deal of interest in behavioral research over the past several years, and the energy around the topic hasn't waned. From pop psychology books to academic studies of leadership, there is renewed interest in what makes people behave the way they do. To research these differences, large samples are often taken from across several companies and disciplines – this ensures the data is statistically relevant to a larger population.

This practice alone surfaces an implicit assumption that shared behavioral traits exist within certain functions and organizations.

During a guided visit to a busy trading floor, the people there were described as pampered, very hardworking, and compensation driven. A recent stop at a financial advisory office struck me because every person dressed alike, and had shared vocal intonations, mannerisms, and gait. At a recent nonprofit gathering, the similarities in personality were absolutely striking. At a funeral I attended a few years ago, someone looked at my pin-striped suit, cuff-links, and polished shoes and said “oh, you must be a banker” - which I was.

Every day we are able to function more efficiently by thin-slicing parts of our world (nod to Gladwell's book Blink), ascribing characteristics to particular people and things based on our prior experiences with similar people and things. We know that, generally speaking, similar people have similar traits.

Think about these statements, one by one. Likely an image will form in your mind as to characteristics of the people.

• He's a boxer


• She's a ballerina


• He's an administrative assistant


• She's a president

Is it valid to think this way?

Insubordination and followership

Browsing Bloomberg the other day I found Rosabeth Moss Kanter's review of Obama's firing of General McChrystal from a management and leadership perspective.  It was a reprint from a Harvard Business Review blog.  HBR has a couple of other posts around the firing that might be interesting, including this one and this one.

Span of Control

Recently we tackled an organizational design project. This particular project, like most, included determining the appropriate organizational shape.

Organizational shape is exactly what it sounds like – if you're looking at an org chart. People talk about flat organizations, tall organizations, etc. A flat organization is one that has a lot of direct reports for every manager, and a tall one has fewer. If you're staring at an org chart, you can see the difference in the “shape” of the chart, a rough triangle with the head of the organization at the top.

The number of direct reports a manager has is that manager's span of control.

Division of labor

If you've worked with a performance improvement consultant (nod to Geary Rummler, founder of the Performance Design Lab, may he rest in peace) or anyone in the organizational design field, you've probably taken a very close look at how work gets done in the organization.  Here's a term you might come across in one of those conversations:  division of labor.

Talent Assessments

Walking down the sidewalk this afternoon in a bustling city, I overheard a group of professionals having an interesting conversation. A woman in the group was talking about a personality assessment she was being required to take by her manager. She was appalled.

“Why do I have to take a personality assessment? It's the work that I do that's important, not how I do it!” She went on to share her concerns that this was probably the first step towards her termination, and that she's been a top performer relative to her peers. There was a lot of nodding & sympathy all around.

Instructional Design

Great and enduring leaders are also great and enduring teachers. In organizations, the function is usually called learning, training, development, or some combination of the three. In short, the idea is to equip the team with the knowledge to make both the team and the individual successful.

Delivering quality training is more than simply telling the team to “do what I do and you'll pick it up.” It requires a thoughtful design process that develops the content necessary to make the team successful.

On-boarding well

If you've ever been on a cruise, you know it takes more than a couple of minutes to actually make it from port to actually getting on the ship. It's a long process of the crew making sure you're supposed to be on the ship, you learning what you can and can't do while on board, finding your cabin, learning what do do in an emergency, and so on.

The process of introducing someone new to a team is called “on-boarding.” Sometimes it's written without the hyphen (“onboarding”), and I firmly believe the only reason the powers that be keep the hyphen is to avoid a spell check flag in office documents. :)

Leadership Skills Continuum

Business Finance magazine has an November/December article called "The Leadership Skills Continuum."  Jeffrey Thomson from the Institute of Management Accountants writes that different leadership skills need to be developed along the career life cycle.

Article link

Thomson identifies five specific career points, and the skills to develop at each:

1. entry level


2. young professional


3. seasoned practitioner


4. senior management

He also calls out the three soft skills entry-level associates need to learn:

1. emotional intelligence (see this earlier post)


2. effective communication


3. time management

These three skills can be improved at almost every point in an organization, from the new hires all the way to the executive suite.  It's helpful to remember that these soft skills will go a long way in making you more successful in your career and in life.

Succession planning

A large firm recently announced its new CEO at a standing-room only event.  The current CEO - retiring at year's end - addressed the assembled crowd.  He began with a quick vignette of the incoming chief, then uttered these words:"You know, a CEO's legacy is the next CEO, so I want him to do real well."

Each person has a professional legacy to build, and the most visible component of the legacy is the person that steps into the role next.  For some roles, like the CEO of a large firm, there are several teams of individuals working to ensure continuity in the role.  In others, like a small business owner or line manager, the only person ensuring continuity is the person currently filling the role.