The Leadership Code

I'll confess right now I'm a Dave Ulrich fan. Aside from the fact he's consulted and done research for over half of the Fortune 200 as well as being formally recognised as an international HR thought leader multiple times, I'm just really attracted to his focus on HR being measured by the value it creates for an organisation.

Today I'd like to highlight the model presented in The Leadership Code: Five Rules to Lead By. Dave summaries his research in the video below however if you wanted to read a little more, a google search of title actually produces a few extracts from the book.

"60-70% of what any leader, anywhere has to know and do is the same basic stuff."  - Dave Ulrich 

1. Strategist - "Where are we going?"

An effective leader needs to have vision that adds value. As a leader you need to know where you are taking your team, your functional unit, your organisation. I like the term strategist because it implies thoughtfulness and purpose to achieve a long term goal and so that's why I think it's more than just vision. Dave uses the term 'practical futurist' and points out that not only does a leader need to create a future pragmatically but also ensure that their team understands that direction as well. 

2.  Executor - "How do we get there?" 

An effective leader needs to be to get things done by turning plans and strategy onto action. This is a competency that requires discipline and accountability. I'd also say this involves the ability to prioritise resources and think tactically in order achieve relevant outcomes working across business teams.

3. Talent Manager - "Who goes with us?" 

An effective leader needs be able to engage people, to motive them and make them feel like part of a team. Importantly however, the energy that a leader generates among their team needs to be directed towards building value in the organisation. An experienced talent manager can identify, build and direct skills to ensure people are performing at their peak. 

4. Human Capital Developer "Who stays when we're gone?" 

An effective leader needs be able plan for what talent needs to exist in the future. Here talent moves from achieving short term results to meeting to future strategic needs. In one sense a slightly selfless thought process that views talent beyond the individual and instead focuses on the organisation and the next generation. I'd imagine strong crossovers here with succession planning competencies. 

5. Personal Proficiency - A common, core factor. 

While Dave's research as part of the RBL group found most HR practitioners tended to naturally associate themselves with one of these quadrants, all leaders had to master a core factor - Personal Proficiency.

"It's not a role, it's a set of personal competencies that allow you to be trusted by those you lead. Personal Proficiency deals with insights about yourself; with your ability to know yourself, to learn, to have integrity, to have emotional intelligence, to exercise good judgement..." - Dave Ulrich

I'm not surprised that the personal proficiency quadrant is given a high importance in this model. This quadrant contains universal elements you would expect in a leader and I would also argue acts as a foundational personal and intellectual framework form which the other quadrants can stand. 

The Leadership Code: Five Rules to Lead By, By Dave Ulrich, Norm Smallwood, and Kate Sweetman.

Capitalising on the first 90 days - HR leadership

Today's white paper I'd like to share is one by the RBL Group, written by Dave Ulrich, Norm Smallwood and Jon Younger.

It sets out a great list of questions HR professionals should ask themselves when they step into a fresh leadership role. This paper is written from the perspective of landing the top HR job in an organisation however I feel it contains relevant information for all aspiring business partners.

You can view a copy of the paper here. These are three of the takeaways that particularly resonated with me.

1. Do you really know the business? Can you synthesise a cash flow map to understand how the organisation makes money and what the value proposition is to the customer?

This I believe is critical and (for me at least) is one of the core separators between HR simply being a process function and HR being a business enabling function. In order to add value to a business, one needs to understand the business in addition to the HR function.

With this in mind, the paper presents a practical activity in order to assess these elements together (that being the integration of business and HR functions).

Every company is doing HR work. Find out what is being done by mapping it. Summarize and synthesize the work being done with a grid of businesses (columns) by HR activities in people, performance, communication, and work (rows). Look at the grid to see where HR investments are innovative, aligned, and integrated. Try to assess the overall quality of HR work within the organization. Where are the pockets of excellence Where are the areas of concern? - The RBL Group

2.  Can you see how the business operates from multiple points of view? Have you built relationships with enough key people to construct this multidimensional view?

I found this to be an interesting point. Here the paper not only talks about the obvious stakeholders (i.e C-Suite's and senior managers) but also mentions customers, analysts and investors. While you may have a diverse perspective from within the organisation, have you had the chance to appreciate the perspectives gained externally from the organisation?


3. Have you identified your core HR priorities over the short, mid and long term?

Identify the early wins and achieve them quickly in order to build credibility with the business. Its important however to prioritise what should and can be achieved rather than just what can be achieved. I remember very fondly a HR leader I worked under who told me to remember "Don't fight the crocodiles; drain the swamp." Assess what your doing against the big picture.

An easy and common mistake is trying to be all things to all people. In study after study, leaders need to synthesize and prioritize. In your first few observations of your company you will probably find many things that could be improved. List them. Think about them. Prioritize them. If you have 10 projects and 100 units of resources, the wrong allocation is 10 units per project. You need to focus your time and HR investments on those initiatives that will be both implementable (doable within time and budget) and have impact (make a visible difference in business results). - The RBL Group

Support Person or Advocate... What's the Difference?

In my last post I touched on the difference between a support person and advocate. I find this an interesting distinction so I thought I'll explore the difference in a bit more detail here.

Fortunately we have some case law to look at from a Full Bench decision by the Fair Work Commission in Victorian Association for the Teaching of English Inc v Debra de Laps [2014] FWCFB 613 

In short, this was a case where an employee claimed a constructive dismissal because their employer refused to allow them an advocate at a disciplinary meeting.

First lets look at the Fair Work Act 2009. Section s387 outlines criteria the Commission must consider when determining if a termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and subjection (d) refers to a support person. 

(d)  any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal;

Interestingly, this is not a positive right for an employee to have a support person, rather it obligates that an employer can not unreasonably refuse a request for one to be present. So what is a reasonable refusal? Well in terms of a meeting which relates to a dismissal, it is if the employee intends to bring an advocate.

In terms of how clearly this case defined the distinction between support person and advocate; it appears that different firms have slightly different takes on the matter.

Importantly, this case has also clarified the role of a support person. By affirming an employee's right to a support person, but not an advocate, the Full Bench has distinguished between the two roles. A support person is "present to assist in any discussions", whereas an advocate "speaks on behalf of, or argues in favour of, another". Therefore, the assistance a support person provides, must not amount to speaking on behalf of the employee and an employer has a right to limit the role of the support person. - HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

The demarcation between "support person" and "advocate" has not been clearly drawn. While a support person may not be able to speak directly on behalf of an employee, they are also not confined to offering emotional support (as important as that can often be). For instance, as a general observation, they may be able to help an employee formulate what to say, provide advice and take notes of the matters being discussed. - Clayton Utz

Personally, i'm leaning towards HWL on this one - I like how their definition sets up a point where a support person's actions can amount to advocacy. 

I believe it's important good practice to inform staff that they may bring a support person, particularly if the situation appears to be heading towards what may be a dismissal. This way an employer is able to better defend a claim of harshness etc. A manager should consider if the meeting is of appropriate caliber to offer a support person however - just because a manager is holding a performance discussion doesn't necessarily mean a support person should be offered. Ideally a performance matter is dealt with and resolved informally before it escalates to disciplinary proceedings.