Ben Eubanks, from Upstart HR did a quick audio review of a book called "Red Flags: How to Spot Frenemies, Underminers, and Toxic People in Your Life" on a recent HR Happy Hour Podcast and did so through the lens of a HR practitioner (although this is not an HR book).
Ben raises some interesting thoughts and got me pondering. I'l quote some of his review below.
1.
"We all know the advice we shouldn't go shopping when you're hungry so why are we looking for employees to solve problems only when we really get desperate?"
Interesting point. Being in HR I've seen plenty of cases where managers are trying to fill gaps in their team and lose track of time. It can be very easy to overlook how much time a recruitment process can take up. One has to consider evaluating business needs, advertising, shortlisting, synchronising with panel members and applicants for interviews, debriefing and discussions on suitability and negotiation with the preferred applicant. After all that you may have to wait another 4 weeks before they can walk in the door ready to work.
I appreciate sometimes we are sprung with a termination or resignation and time is never a luxury however it got me thinking; how many managers have crisis plans for their team if they suddenly lose a critical FTE or two?
2.
If you want to know about someone at a deeper level the book discusses the FLAG acronym and Ben considers these a useful tool to help build questions around in recruitment.
Focus - What do they focus on?
Lifestyle - What are their lifestyle choices?
Association - What are the types of associations they make with other people?
Goals - Consider the goals people have.
For me these are the elements that can separate a good candidate from a star candidate. People that tick these boxes well are the candidates that take a professional and personal pride in building their brand and will be able to sell themselves articulately beyond the confines of the role. Who do they network with? How do they build their skills? How have they built their career progression around adding value to organisations?
I would imagine elements of this could be drawn out through psychometric screening and others through interviewing and seeing who can bring the 'answer plus' responses.
3.
"The worst people aren't the ones that look bad right away. We naturally shrink back from those kind of people. The worst ones are the ones that look great just before they attack you behind your back."
Not sure if I agree with Ben's take on this one. In the personal, social context in which this was written I can see the point however in the workplace context (unless your talking about the 'corporate psychopath') I would argue employees with fundamental flaws tend to filter themselves out easily with good recruitment processes.
I'll take it then that this quote is pointing to poor recruitment practice. I.e not having behavioral questions, not identifying STAR answers, not following up on matters of concern and not investing the time needed to actually identify a great candidate.
I'll put extra emphasis on the last point there. I've run into recruiting managers that are happy to spend a surprisingly small amount of time on selecting the best candidate. I'm talking a single 45 minute interview, no phone discussion and no second round.
I like to point to the example of a business plan to highlight my concern with this approach. Lets assume someone wanted to propose a project that would cost approximately $300,000 and run for 4 years. I would expect a robust plan, discussion and evaluation of tenders before making the call. No right minded manager would sign off after 45 mins of thought.
However when it comes to employing someone on a 75k salary, who may well stay with the organisation for 4 years, the view the value of the recruitment process for some can be dramatically less. And lets not forget, unlike a faulty product, you can't just ask for a refund!
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Thursday, June 11, 2015
How can HR facilitate innovation?
I listened to an interesting podcast recently from the CYA Report team - "How HR is Killing Innovation with Hitendra Patel" Sure the title is a bit sensationalist, I personally don't think HR is killing innovation but poor HR certainly can.
Hitendra Patel is Managing Director for IXL Centre, an innovation consulting firm among other interesting positions such as Professor of growth and innovation at Hult International Business School.
There are a few thoughts and quotes from Hitendra that I'll draw out and discuss. It sounded like Hitendra was calling in via phone rather than in studio which made it difficult to catch each word however i'll do my best to capture Hitendra's statements when quoting him (apologies if this isn't a direct word-for-word).
Staff who diverge tend to bring new ideas from outside the organisation into a discussion and are quite comfortable (and even enjoy), conversations taking creative twists and turns as ideas are explored. This could be sparked from an article they read, a new website they discovered or a fresh experience they had over the weekend.
Staff who converge tend to enjoy structure and focus. This can be formulating lists, plans and clearly executable action items on next steps. You might see them frustrated with meetings that lose focus or take too long and may actively cut them short to bring things back on track.
It's about building an organisational culture that allows both traits to co-exist and add value to the organisation in their own way; the people who create the dots and the people who connect them. Hitendra rightly points out we have a habit of hiring people just like ourselves and so it's important to make a conscious effort to consider if the organisation has a healthy balance to stimulate innovation (and make it stick!).
Experimentation cycle
This cycle is where an individual innovates and tries multiple different approaches. Think of a scientist or engineer who might not know exactly where the answer lies and so will test several options at the same time to see where they lead. This will inevitably lead to failures but that's the point of the experimentation cycle.
Hitendra talks about how many organisations stifle innovation by punishing failure, rather than seeing it as part of the experimentation (i.e. learning) process.
Iteration cycle
This is when a wining idea or process is found and resources are then spent on a continuous improvement initiative. This is a standard process within organisations as they look to streamline processes, refine procedures etc. However an iteration cycle without an experimentation cycle can open the risk of people barking up the wrong tree to begin with.
This was an interesting point because in my experience position descriptions tend to have a surprisingly small impact on actual work performed. All too often I have encountered PD's covered in proverbial cobwebs reflecting a time and place sometimes years back. I'll assume then that here Hitendra is more so referring to an organisational culture that builds strictly defined position limits.
People need room to move, grow and change. To look beyond their day job and ask 'What's next?' 'What if?'. As mentioned above, if employees always do tomorrow exactly what they did yesterday they're not going to innovate. There's a useful metaphor mentioned in the interview where Hitendra talks about basketball players - given their experience they don't have to expend all their mental energy dribbling the ball (representing their day job). They instead focus on who they will pass the ball to, where they will play the court, the next decision they will need to make - future focused.
Hitendra Patel is Managing Director for IXL Centre, an innovation consulting firm among other interesting positions such as Professor of growth and innovation at Hult International Business School.
There are a few thoughts and quotes from Hitendra that I'll draw out and discuss. It sounded like Hitendra was calling in via phone rather than in studio which made it difficult to catch each word however i'll do my best to capture Hitendra's statements when quoting him (apologies if this isn't a direct word-for-word).
Organisations tend to have people who fall into two categories; employees who diverge in their thoughts and employees who converge in their thoughts.
Staff who diverge tend to bring new ideas from outside the organisation into a discussion and are quite comfortable (and even enjoy), conversations taking creative twists and turns as ideas are explored. This could be sparked from an article they read, a new website they discovered or a fresh experience they had over the weekend.
Staff who converge tend to enjoy structure and focus. This can be formulating lists, plans and clearly executable action items on next steps. You might see them frustrated with meetings that lose focus or take too long and may actively cut them short to bring things back on track.
"We need the person who diverges, because those sort of people look beyond the boundaries of the organisatoin for dots, new dots, new ideas and eventually you'll need more dots than the dots that exist in your company but you'll eventually have to connect the dots.
The person who converges doesn't like that space as much and will compress it but the person who converges is necessary because sometimes we do have to shut up and move forward and this can bring discipline to the process. Put those two people in the same room and we will have a fight but we have to teach each other how we will work with each other to collaborate." - Hitendra Patel
It's about building an organisational culture that allows both traits to co-exist and add value to the organisation in their own way; the people who create the dots and the people who connect them. Hitendra rightly points out we have a habit of hiring people just like ourselves and so it's important to make a conscious effort to consider if the organisation has a healthy balance to stimulate innovation (and make it stick!).
Innovation is about an experimentation cycle and iteration cycle
Experimentation cycle
This cycle is where an individual innovates and tries multiple different approaches. Think of a scientist or engineer who might not know exactly where the answer lies and so will test several options at the same time to see where they lead. This will inevitably lead to failures but that's the point of the experimentation cycle.
Hitendra talks about how many organisations stifle innovation by punishing failure, rather than seeing it as part of the experimentation (i.e. learning) process.
Iteration cycle
This is when a wining idea or process is found and resources are then spent on a continuous improvement initiative. This is a standard process within organisations as they look to streamline processes, refine procedures etc. However an iteration cycle without an experimentation cycle can open the risk of people barking up the wrong tree to begin with.
"When we look at most other functional jobs within companies, sales marketing, operations - we only give people one chance to do their work. We don't design in multiple cycles of experimentation and when you don't do that your staff are only going to take low risk and only do things that are 'right' or what you have done yesterday because you have not designed in opportunities for learning." - Hitendra Patel
Overly prescriptive position descriptions stifle innovation
People need room to move, grow and change. To look beyond their day job and ask 'What's next?' 'What if?'. As mentioned above, if employees always do tomorrow exactly what they did yesterday they're not going to innovate. There's a useful metaphor mentioned in the interview where Hitendra talks about basketball players - given their experience they don't have to expend all their mental energy dribbling the ball (representing their day job). They instead focus on who they will pass the ball to, where they will play the court, the next decision they will need to make - future focused.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
The Star Model
Today's post is dedicated to Jay Galbraith, an American organisational theorist who lives on through his Star Model framework for organisational design.
When things go wrong (or right!) it can be easy to point directly at a particular structure or process for responsibility however there is merit in considering how those elements exist inside the organisational system as a whole. Perhaps there is more than one element out of alignment or there may be other elements influencing the outcome that on the surface were overlooked. Make sure you take a moment to assess if your energies are being focuses in the right place (or places).
The quotes above were from a whitepaper on the Jay Galbraith website that provides a great, high level summary of the Star Model. Also below is a short video on the model, as well as Kates Kesler's Five Milestone Design process.
The Star Model
In reading up on the Star Model one of the main elements I connect with most is it's appreciation that you can't just pick up your desired culture off a shelf and insert it into an organisation. I believe culture is an emergent property of the organisation in which it resides and so what leaders can do instead is build the strategy, structure, processes and reward systems etc which then act as the foundational framework for a culture to form.
One critical element is the type of people that reside inside the system. People are individuals and act with their own motivations, behaviour, skill sets as well as strengths and weaknesses (relative to the system). Part of picking the right person is 'culture fit' however from Jay's examples below it's clear that there is also a strong element of hard definable skills that contribute to suitability.
Flexible organizations require flexible people. Cross-functional teams require people who are generalists and who can cooperate with each other. Matrix organizations need people who can manage conflict and influence without authority. - Jay Galbraith
When things go wrong (or right!) it can be easy to point directly at a particular structure or process for responsibility however there is merit in considering how those elements exist inside the organisational system as a whole. Perhaps there is more than one element out of alignment or there may be other elements influencing the outcome that on the surface were overlooked. Make sure you take a moment to assess if your energies are being focuses in the right place (or places).
Most design efforts invest far too much time drawing the organization chart and far too little on processes and rewards. Structure is usually overemphasized because it affects status and power, and a change to it is most likely to be reported in the business press and announced throughout the company. However, in a fast-changing business environment, and in matrix organizations, structure is becoming less important, while processes, rewards, and people are becoming more important. - Jay Galbraith
The quotes above were from a whitepaper on the Jay Galbraith website that provides a great, high level summary of the Star Model. Also below is a short video on the model, as well as Kates Kesler's Five Milestone Design process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)