All things Talent Management

Leadership and Learning Agility

2011-06-01T05:59:00.000-07:00

Increasingly we are hearing from organisations that are moving away from highly bespoke, tailored models of leadership effectiveness within their organisations to using generic, cross-sector criteria for assessing their top people, finding talent and developing their pool of leaders.

One recurring theme among these generic models is learning agility. This is not a new concept; in their 1985 paper “Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge”, Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus identified ‘the development of self’ as a key dimension associated with success, finding that the majority of successful leaders “are highly proficient in learning from experience’. Sternberg, Wagner, Williams and Horvath (1995) set learning agility out as being distinct from basic intelligence and linked it to concepts such as ‘street smart’, ‘savvy’ and ‘common sense’. However, we may now be seeing the emergence of learning agility as a key, underpinning leadership competency which has the potential to influence the way we select and develop leaders in much the same way as the EQ revolution did. Lominger, the developers of research-based assessment and development tools that can be customised to fit any organisation’s culture or operating style, have Learning Agility as a core concept within their frameworks and have defined it as being “able and willing to derive meaning from all kinds of experience” (Eichinger & Lombardo, 2004).

What does learning agility look like? What behaviours might the ‘learning agile’ leader demonstrate? We think it encompasses the following things:

• The ability to reflect on experience; to learn from one’s own and others’ successes and failures and to use this learning in the future
• The willingness to seek out challenging experiences, opportunities to develop and try out new behaviours and strategies
• Showing an openness to feedback; actively seeking feedback from multiple sources, assimilating and using it to improve future performance
• The ability to perform well in first-time, challenging conditions
• The ability to derive learning from a range of different situations, opportunities and sources
• The ability to apply new strategies, concepts, behaviours and knowledge to novel problems; not sticking to just one ‘success recipe’ that may be inappropriate for the context.

So, if we are saying that these qualities are essential for leadership effectiveness, how can we 1) select leaders who have this quality, 2) can we develop it and 3) if the answer to 2 is “yes”, how do we do that?

There are a number of ways in which we have seen learning agility measured as a competency:

• Use the behavioural markers of learning agility to conduct a 360 degree review
• Give an individual an exercise (e.g., a problem solving activity). Let them do it, give them feedback and then administer a parallel exercise and look at how their approach differs - through observation and by interviewing them afterwards on their rationale behind doing particular things
• Conduct a critical incident-based interview which focuses on how the individual has learned key concepts, skills, abilities, knowledge and behaviour, and how they adapt their approach to different situations
• Use a psychometric test such as the Cognitive Process Profile, which consists of simulated problem-solving exercises and monitors candidates on their ability to explore, link, structure, transform, remember, learn and clarify information. This test also provides an indication of the cognitive level at which the individual is currently performing, and the level to which they might be able to develop to, given appropriate opportunities. It gives feedback on an individual’s ability to explore and use new information, analyse, structure, solve problems and their capacity to learn from the process and incorporate that learning into subsequent problems.

Can learning agility be developed? The underlying principles on which the CPP was developed would suggest so. Some practitioners take the view that it cannot be taught, but can be developed in those who have the innate trait. But aren’t all human beings capable of learning? If we accept that we engage in a huge amount of learning throughout our entire lives, then why can’t we learn to be more agile in our learning? Whilst we are not saying that some individuals are naturally more agile than others, we think there are some ways in which we think that learning agility could be encouraged and developed:

• Leaders could be helped, through coaching, to adopt the practices employed by effective learners (e.g., taking time after key events to reflect on one’s own performance and to note lessons for the future, to become more aware of one’s own learning preferences and to actively engage in all four stages within Kolb’s learning cycle, etc)
• Supporting individuals in deliberately seeking out experiences which would stretch them out of their comfort zone
• Ensuring personal development or career plans include a range of different learning opportunities, which tap into different learning styles or modes
• Engaging in team or peer reviews to analyse the efficacy of decisions made, gathering a range of views on how different people would approach the same situation and to collectively explore alternative strategies.

It could be also argued that being an agile learner must be a pre-requisite for developing other key leadership skills and that it is also important that senior managers role model learning agility in order to create a culture of continuous learning and personal growth. It’s also something that an individual can demonstrate in any role, regardless of the stage the individual is at in their career. So if learning agility is closely linked to leadership success, then it’s probably something we could focus on as a marker of potential for the highest-level leadership positions, which makes it a highly useful concept.....

Is your organisation ready for 360? Think again...

2011-03-30T02:14:00.000-07:00

There is no doubt that a well implemented 360-degree review and feedback process will make a significant and cost-effective contribution to your organisation. But, is now the time? We share what we consider to be the main considerations for maximising the effectiveness of 360 feedback programmes. If you come up short on any of these, do think carefully about the timing.

1. Ask yourself – is it still a step too far?

360 should be approached as an evolutionary way to capture feedback. If there is no historical approach to feedback being a fundamental and accepted part of the culture it may encounter significant obstacles. It may be that a formalised review processes and one to one feedback needs to be introduced to lay the foundations for the full 360 and help to realise the value it can add to an open, honest culture with a genuine desire to improve performance. Perhaps a pilot in a certain part of the business (usually the top) might be a better starting point?

2. Can I create a ‘What’s in it for them’?

When positioning the 360 with the end-user it is imperative that a clear purpose is defined. Is the overall outcome designed to support Management Development, Coaching, Career Development or Performance Management? Are you introducing new competencies, ways of working or bonus schemes? It may be some or all of these. By exploring with the users it will help to sell the “what’s in it for me” gaining buy-in and provide clarity to how the organisation will use the results.

3. Can I deal with ‘emotional’ objections?

Explain how the 360 will be administered, who will ensure it happens, who will collate the results and how, when will they receive the feedback and who from? Ensure that the process is transparent and all can see what the desired outcomes are. It is useful to show at this stage that the 360 process will be revisited to allow individuals to see how they have improved based on feedback captured over time.

4. Can I create a ‘What’s in it for the Management population’?

Is there an overarching strategy or goal that the organisation is working towards? 360 can be extremely effective when clear links can be seen between the outcomes and the future vision of an organisation. Are there values or a core mission statement that the behaviours link to?

5. Can I enlist their support as opposed to just agreement?

Identify the key stakeholders to act as “Champions” supporting the pilot of the process and promoting its worth and usefulness as a management tool. These may be a Senior Management Group or well respected members of specific business areas. This group would then define and promote the organisational need for the 360 i.e. to identify current skills against those required for future growth and develop training plans to assist this.

6. Are the questionnaires fit for purpose and considered relevant?

Where possible ensure that the questions reflect the desired competencies. If the organisation does not use competencies ensure that the language used is common across the organisation, appropriate to the respondents and can clearly elicit the desired responses. It is useful to discuss the design of the questions and format with a pilot group of differing levels to ensure your format will deliver what is required and provide one clear consistent message of its worth. Do see our other resources on this subject.

7. Are these outputs aligned with other core Talent Management processes?

Wherever possible align the feedback to the Personal Development and Career Planning process within the organisation (you do have those don't you?!). Formalising action plans based on the feedback and reviewing quarterly shows commitment to the users. It also ensures the feedback is revisited and discussed regularly keeping the process alive and helping to embed it into the organisations culture. The choice should be given to the individuals to discuss the action plans with their manager or a mentor. Sharing by choice in this way can then help to naturally encourage a feedback rich team who seek to adopt the process into every day operations.

8. Are those tasked with delivering and receiving the feedback ready, willing and able?

Be specific when and how the feedback will be delivered. Ensure that the individuals are briefed on the stages on feedback - shock, anger, rejection, and acceptance. This helps them to mentally prepare for the sessions and understand their emotions are natural and expected. In our experience individuals can move more quickly to acceptance (and therefore action) when they understand the stages and the reasons for their feelings. Thus helping the feedback to be digested and understood more fully. Ensure each individual understands that by being a willing participant in a 360 feedback process, they own the feedback. By accepting to be involved, make sure any ground rules are laid out in advance and that choosing to decline is 'ok'. It is only they that can act upon the feedback and use it to provide deeper self insight. Also explain that what they receive is in no way altered or edited - it is the views of their chosen respondents as provided on the forms.

2011-01-08T08:51:00.000-08:00

How fine should the fine print in competency frameworks be?

Much of the work we do with clients involves, at some level, job analysis or competency frameworks. Working with large numbers of these you do begin to see patterns and consistent themes, but we do also see a great variation in the depth, breadth and structure of competency models. When developing a framework to underpin your talent management efforts, it can be fiendishly difficult to strike a balance between something that will apply to most and making it too generalised to be useful. The potential application and therefore level of detail and specificity required in a framework is therefore something well worth debating before you embark on a competency development project.

Research by James Meachin and Stephan Lucks (recently reported in the BPS’s Assessment and Development Matters, Vol. 2 No. 3, 2010) explored the optimal level of ‘granularity’ for competency frameworks when used as predictor measures and assessment criteria. Research into the effectiveness of various personality constructs to predict job performance suggests that some of the broad measures, such as the Big Five, have limited predictive validity, but that this might be improved when you correlate job performance with some of the finer-grain sub-traits, such as ‘dependability’. This would suggest that better predictions of job performance are made by fine-grain, or more specific, behavioural criteria.

Based on the literature, Meachin and Lucks hypothesised that assessment centre ratings which were based on a fine-grain competency framework would produce better correlations between conceptually-matched job performance measures (line manager ratings). In other words, they’d result in a more accurate prediction of high performance on the job. Interestingly, what they actually found is that the predictor measures showed stronger correlations with line manager performance ratings as they became broader, not narrower. Aggregating the competency scores into a general, overall measure of performance seemed to be a more reliable way of predicting high-performing individuals than picking on their performance in specific competency areas.

For practitioners, this is useful information. In order to create robust assessment processes, which differentiate between higher and lower performing candidates, a job analysis or competency framework has to provide depth and a level of detail which makes explicit the behaviours and competencies which are important to success or which demonstrate effectiveness. Undoubtedly, in the arena of assessment for development purposes, the value is in the detail – in helping people understand the specific aspects of their performance or behaviour which makes them more or less effective. But in recruitment, by being overly reliant on the detail and by honing in on one or two areas which may be deemed to be crucial to the job, we could be missing the bigger potential picture.

So, perhaps the optimal situation is to have a detailed, granular competency framework, which sets out the specific behavioural indicators across a number of competencies (no less than 6, and no more than 12?). By collecting assessment data against your framework (through performance appraisal, assessment processes, or 360 degree feedback), you should then perform a factor analysis on your competencies to determine whether there are any higher-order (or coarse-grained) factors underlying it (this may result in a general, overall performance construct or perhaps two or three clusters of competencies). Aggregating competency scores in line with these underlying factors and making decisions based on these broader measures is likely to improve the reliability of the framework, and ensure that you’re not letting potentially good candidates slip through the net.

Why do some 360 degree feedback programmes have more impact than others?

2010-09-27T01:31:00.000-07:00

In the most recent Assessment & Development Matters (Volume 2, Number 3, Autumn 2010) from the British Psychological Society, Phil Morison presents his qualitative research (conducted in collaboration with Brighton University Business School) into participants’ perceptions of the 360 experience. He set out to develop a predictive model in order to help organisations gain a better understanding of the factors that lead to successful and worthwhile 360 programmes.

This is a theme with which we at Head Light Communications are familiar; we’ve written previously on the subject of making the most of your investment in 360 and Morison’s study supports many of our views in this area. He used 11 organisations as case studies and interviewed 84 participants, exploring individual experiences of receiving 360 degree feedback in different environments. From his interview data, he identified the factors which determined a difference in the perceptions regarding the 360 degree process, finding many of these to be cultural. However, some pertained to the attitudes and personality of the feedback recipient, and Morison used the work of London and Smither (Human Resource Management review, 2001) to provide a framework for exploring reactions to 360. London and Smither cited two key factors:

The ‘feedback culture’ of the organisation
The ‘feedback orientation’ of the individual

In repeated exercises, within a range of organisations, we have found that the culture of the organisation plays a significant part in the degree to which 360 feedback is accepted and acted upon by recipients. Undoubtedly, personal characteristics play a part but Morison found instances of people who had been initially resistant but who had nevertheless kept to their development plans. Culture and individual differences, then, perhaps do not cover the range of factors that influence the effectiveness of a 360 process. We have also found that management skills are critical – to what degree does the individual get support, an in-depth feedback discussion and meaningful ongoing reviews? And whilst it may not be the largest determining factor, the design of the process itself is important – if you get this wrong, but have all the other things in place, it could undermine the process from the beginning.

Morison’s study supports our view that it is the interaction between a number of these factors that determine ‘success or failure’ of a 360 programme. The main factors emerging from his research as being the critical determinants of success were:

1. The design and management of the feedback process; Morison, like us, sees this as a ‘hygiene factor’. It’s important to get it right, since it will be cited as a derailer if things go wrong. This would include ensuring that the questions are clear and easy to understand, that the process was intuitive and easy to use, that the feedback is relevant to the individual’s job and that the questionnaire is psychometrically sound. However, it’s not enough, on its own, to ensure that a 360 programme is successful.

2. Organisational Justice Perception; individuals need to believe in and accept the organisation’s motives for using 360 degree feedback. If there are doubts as to how the data will be used, people are less likely to engage positively in the process.

3. Perceived Organisational Support; the follow-up to 360 is critical. Follow-up support activities would include integrating the data into coaching, having an in-depth one-to-one feedback discussion with an experienced feedback facilitator (our work with our clients would also strongly support this as being a key enabling factor) and reviewing progress against focused personal development plans.

4. Leader-Member Exchange; this looks at the interaction between manager and subordinate. If the manager is responsible for following-up a 360 with feedback and action planning, then it is important that they have a positive and constructive relationship with the individual.

5. Feedback Intervention Theory; Morison says that 360 feedback needs to focus on specific behaviours and raise the motivation to change by identifying performance gaps. In our work on 360, we ensure that these gaps are made clear in our reports, but we also see the identification of clear strengths as being important – it’s too easy to focus on the critical feedback and overlook the more positive aspects. Our PAPU-NANU feedback model helps people to understand both their strengths and their performance gaps.

Morison concludes by saying that, if you have all these things in place and working together, the single most influential factor is the availability and quality of dialogue between the employee and the person facilitating the feedback. He presents a model showing the interaction between these factors and a simple checklist – questions to ask yourself and the organisation when introducing and communicating a 360 degree programme:

Is the 360 tool easy and clear?
How significant is the feedback programme (“so what??”)
Is it fair? Do participants get a say in it at any point?
What help will they get?
Is it easy for recipients to talk to their managers about their feedback?
Does it fit with what people would expect to be asked about in their roles?
What will the feedback actually tell people? Will they be able to act on it?

It’s a useful list.......

Top Ten Tips - Creating Competence Frameworks

2010-09-24T04:12:00.000-07:00

To help Human Resources practitioners improve the outcomes from talent management processes, we have distilled our top ten tips for the development and implementation of a robust, well designed and valid competence framework.

Developing such a competency framework can be a costly and lengthy process, especially if you are creating a bespoke model that is genuinely focused on high performance within your organisation. We offer here ten lessons as tips for your own work in this area. This is based on our extensive work and research with public and private sector organisations, large and small.

1. Do it back to front!

2. It’s a competency framework, not a job description....

3. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

4. ‘Yes’ to one thing, but not the other…

5. From 7 to 11

6. It’s supposed to change....

7. I dare you to ask them!

8. Can you see what it is yet?

9. “If only you knew the power of the Dark Side, Luke”

10. Position Vacant: Only Super Man or Wonder Woman need apply

For the detail behind each of these headings, see our article here.

A Competence Framework can ‘come alive’ when applied to the business in the context of talent management processes such as performance management, succession planning, high potential identification and development planning.

Your competence framework, combined with our Talent® suite of software products can help you do just that.

Talent Management specialists wanted

2010-05-24T13:16:00.001-07:00

We've enjoyed strong growth over the past year and we now have opportunities for full and part-time Talent Mangement specialists to support the people-implementation of our leading talent management software.

Contact us via our Information Request page.

Is there a connection between Employee Engagement and Talent Management?

2010-05-11T04:38:00.000-07:00

In this blog we draw on research conducted by the Institute of Employment Studies (IES) in both 2003 & 2007 (Drivers of Engagement) and 2008 (Human Capital Measurement), Henley Management College’s own study in 2005 and our own work in this field.

What is employee engagement?

Employee engagement has risen in popularity over the past few years. Some enthusiastic pundits have made categorical statements that a more engaged employee leads to better business results and anecdotally there is evidence that this is so – intuitively this would of course make sense. However, there is also evidence that there is little or no correlation whatsoever with business performance – a recent study by Henley Management College concluded that in their research in the corporate world, no such relationship exists.

We have also seen commentary relating to engagement that focuses on the notion of how to get that ‘extra discretionary effort’, i.e. to create employees that are willing to put in more work for altruistic reasons. We think that this focus on singularly attempting to get more out of people is both cynical and short-termist. Having said all this, a more productive, motivated, happy and ‘easier to get on with colleague’ is better than one who isn’t and engagement studies have sought to attempt to analyse and decode what makes this ‘better’ employee.

Consequently, employee engagement has developed into a complex and multi-dimensional concept that has gone much further than the simple notions of motivation, the psychological contract and employee satisfaction, yet it draws on elements of each of these ideas. It also has much in common with the extensively researched concepts of commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). With these last two, there are some important differences – engagement is a two-way process: organisations engage people (intentionally or otherwise) through their systems and processes and they in turn choose the level of reciprocal engagement.

Do read our article in our last newsletter ‘Are your Talent Management Processes Fair?

http://www.head-light.co.uk/Articles/Fair_Talent_Management.pdf

So what does an engaged employee ‘look like’? From an HR perspective, the typical behaviours demonstrated by the engaged employee are:

A belief in the organisation and its purpose
A desire to work to make things better
An understanding of business context and the ‘bigger picture’
Being respectful of, and helpful to, colleagues
A willingness to ‘go the extra mile’ , and
Keeping up to date with developments in their field.

If only it was so straightforward that we could ask employees these questions directly and get reliable candid responses!

This is where Occupational Psychologists can add real value and develop (and validate) engagement-oriented behavioural indicators, not dissimilar from those used in 360 reviews. Subtlety and deftness can be achieved with careful wording that ask the important questions in the right way and a combination of positive and negative statements together with some discretion as who to ask for feedback, makes for an insightful diagnostic.

Ask us for some examples.

Appraisals - what do enployees think of them?

2010-05-10T07:19:00.000-07:00

Why is the appraisal process a perennial problem in many organisations today? Despite best efforts, it either falls into disrepair or is undermined almost as soon as it’s introduced. Has it been noted how each year the process seems to have more paperwork and more to do? Employees and their managers struggle on with it but is there any real return on their investment in time and money? Is the Leadership Team (and HR) getting the information that they need to make decisions quickly in these turbulent times?

Let’s review a typical example of how the appraisal process is viewed.

It’s appraisal time again and line managers are not looking forward to having to spend the time completing the paper work and employees generally aren’t looking forward to the dreaded appraisal meeting itself. Unresolved issues that have been under the surface most of the year are going to be dragged out and documented and the usual unbearable ‘schmoosing’ upward to management will start if it hasn’t already behind closed doors. Everyone will get given a ‘rating’ or score that they don’t understand and by some 360 process that is shrouded in secrecy. Some say that the score is used for bonus; some say a bad score will put you ‘into the departure lounge’. It’s not good that John (a colleague) and I haven’t been seeing eye to eye lately and if he’s going to be giving me some sort of a score, he’ll put the knife in. Best I do too then. I’m not sure the forms we use really apply to my role and my Manager doesn’t really understand the realities of the job I do, so we end up with these circular or inconclusive discussions that inevitably require me to sign off on some vague actions we all know won’t happen. After all of this, it gets filed away and only used again if they want to stop me suing them if I get sacked or made redundant. The output of all of this seems pointless at best and everyone would rather not do it, but we have no choice on how, when and whether it’s done.

If it’s not working, why are we doing it like this? Discuss...

Trends

2009-10-06T03:43:00.000-07:00

Where do you see Talent Management going in the future?
Is your company prepared and ready to deliver the right talent and skills, when and where needed?
What is your business doing about the baby boomers who will soon been retiring?
Tell us about your experiences and your plans - share your thoughts and concerns.

Assessing Values as part of the Appraisal Process

2009-08-12T23:36:00.000-07:00

Having just seen a post from a 360 service provider suggesting that there should be a separate section on the assessment of Values in an appraisal, I felt compelled to offer our thoughts on this.

Frankly, we don't agree with the idea of a separate section that prompts a manager and their employee to talk about 'values' so explicitly - how crass! It prompts rather theoretical discussions about personal values and people find this overly invasive and fear being exposed - hardly conducive to a productive appraisal meeting and could easily derail the process completely. Magnify that by how many people 'go through this process' and it could be a potential disaster.

We do however think that values, and more explicitly how values manifest themselves in the context of the work someone performs, is an area of assessment in an appraisal or 360 review. The skill is in developing the right questions or combination of questions that tease out how these values play out in the work place and the impact they have on the individuals colleagues, and this is the approach we always take.

I suspect that a 'simple values section' is the hinting at right direction but it is the wrong implementation and a short cut to doing the job properly.

If your provider simply says, 'we'll add a values section on at the end', ask them why the values aren't entwined into the rest of the assessment or questionnaire.

After all, that's how values appear and are observed in the work place.

If your service provider 'doesn't get it' or can't or won't do this, then our genuine advice is to walk away before any damage is done.

Your HR processes exposed – What do they say about your culture?

2009-07-21T00:52:00.000-07:00

Have you considered how the HR processes in your business ‘condition’ your employees? Do you take a close look at the impact that they have on the psychological contract? Do you consider the extent to which management practices support your employer brand? Do your processes such as appraisal reflect how your business is, or was or is trying to be? Is it possible that how employees ‘feel’ about one process impacts their perception of and participation in others?

Let’s consider an example using the appraisal process.

It’s appraisal time again and line managers are not looking forward to having to spend the time completing the paper work and employees generally aren’t looking forward to the dreaded appraisal meeting itself. Unresolved issues that have been under the surface most of the year are going to be dragged out and documented and the usual unbearable ‘schmoosing’ upward to management will start if it hasn’t already behind closed doors. Everyone will get given a ‘rating’ or score that they don’t understand and by some process that is shrouded in secrecy. Some say that the score is used for bonus, some say a bad score will put you ‘into the departure lounge’. It’s not good that John (a colleague) and I haven’t been seeing eye to eye lately and if he’s going to be giving me some sort of a score, he’ll put the knife in. Best I do too then. I’m not sure the forms we use really apply to my role and my Manager doesn’t really understand the realities of the job I do, so we end up with these either circular or inconclusive discussions that inevitably require me to sign off on some vague action we all know won’t happen. After all of this, it gets filed away and only used again if they want to stop me suing them if I get sacked or made redundant. The output of all of this seems pointless at best and everyone would rather not do it, but we have no choice on how, when and whether it’s done.

Clearly, there’s something wrong with this performance appraisal and management process. We all know it as we see these problems, but often the root causes might appear elusive or beyond our ability to address. We hear this sentiment expressed regularly by the HR professionals we work with and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence in literature, blogs and articles. Do you ask about the appraisal process in your Exit interviews?

Just by looking at the example we can see issues of process, purpose, secrecy, relevance and consequently buy-in. Also what does this type of feedback say about how the organisation is run and what type of culture exists here? Similarly, with this process firmly in place and established as an organisational ritual, how are other, possibly better considered, constructed and more impactful HR processes and initiatives received? To a new recruit, candidate or even someone considering their next move in the organisation, does the above suggest an open, trusting, respectful or progressive working environment?

The buck stops here, as usual

As HR professionals, we have a huge opportunity (and some would say responsibility) to ensure that the processes we introduce and advocate all contribute to the positive development of organisational culture.

Read on

Key Behavioural Indicators for Mental Toughness

2009-04-20T06:14:00.000-07:00

Our article earlier this year included a description of mental toughness, an essential characteristic in these challenging times.

(We might argue that those who possess these abilitites are well positioned for any organisational challenge, but that would be a pet subject and not that of Head Light Communications!)

Generic metal toughness and resilience diagnostics are widely available and they measure just that particular characteristic, often solely quantitatively. Many competence frameworks also include indicators that have a relation to the concept of mental toughness, often in the context of the competency itself. This is admirable but the overall rating for the competency obscures the specific mental toughness aspect, unless the specific questions are investigated.

With the importance of mental toughness in today’s (and in all likelihood tomorrow’s) business environment, the assessment of the specific competency of Positive Organisational Behaviour, Personal Resilience (or some other such name as to be meaningful and acceptable in your own organisation) would be a pragmatic response to the turbulence of the economic environment. This can be achieved via the extension of a routine assessment such as a performance appraisal or a 360-degree review and doing so would be neither overplaying its importance nor clouding its measurement with other data. This would also provide a specific measure of this ability within the context of the role.

When designing the assessment for this competency, which would include indicators of personal resilience to be assessed against, do also include free text questions so as to provide for the gathering of evidence to reinforce this behaviour. Similarly, expressions of ‘toughness’ may not have been welcomed by those on the receiving end of them and by providing them with an opportunity to cite examples, helps them and the person being rated to explain the feedback. Finally, with these resilience indicators, expressing the indicator in a negative sense (by using a contra-indicator) is more likely to elicit a more accurate rating, as is being selective as to who (i.e. which review group) is asked to rate which indicator. (Note: not all 360 or appraisal software can do this – needless to say, Talent 180 and Talent 360 can!)

Below we offer, for your review and adaptation a selection of indicators for a Personal Resilience competency that you could use in your own assessments:

Title: Personal Resilience

Description: The demonstration of perseverance and conviction directed towards the achievement of goals despite pressure or adversity. An individual who shows resilience would adapt their behaviour according to the circumstances, proactively coping with obstacles and recovering quickly after experiencing setbacks. Engaging in strategic planning and forward thinking, anticipating outcomes and developing contingencies are also behaviours demonstrated by people who are effective in this area. Resilient individuals tend to manage pressure effectively, maintaining a positive focus, acting assertively and making sure that benefits are gained from all situations.

Positive Indicators:

• Focuses on performance outcomes despite uncertain or difficult circumstances
• Encourages others to take a positive approach to change
• Uses experience or knowledge to manage and mitigate against risks
• Takes on challenges with a ‘can-do’ attitude
• Maintains a positive attitude during times of uncertainty
• Concentrates only on things they can control or influence
• Reviews successes to understand the factors that contributed to them
• Acts quickly to capitalise on opportunities for business growth or improvements
• Remains calm during stressful or challenging situations
• Seeks to improve their own performance by both soliciting and acting on feedback
• Projects a credible, positive self-image.

Contra-indicators:

• Dwells on setbacks or things that have gone wrong
• Allows short term or minor failures to obscure longer-term goals
• Reduces efforts in the face of disappointment or rejection
• Rarely takes opportunities to build confidence by celebrating success.

Head Light Communications can assist you in the deployment of the Personal Resilience Competency and the full range of competency assessment and development programmes using our Talent® technology and supporting consultancy services.

Promoting a feedback-friendly culture

2008-12-30T03:17:00.000-08:00

We have refined this handy 3-point checklist for developing the culture in your organisation to support the giving and receiving of feedback. Not easy we know, but implemented gradually over time with support from the top and you could make some inroads into this difficult problem. You could of course also ask us to help!

1. Improve and ensure the quality of feedback

Train supervisors and others about how to provide useful feedback
Create clear standards concerning valued behaviours that are relevant to organisational goals
Provide clear performance measurements
Provide reports tying individual performance to bottom line departmental or organisational metrics
Provide time to review and clarify feedback results with others such as one's supervisors

2. Emphasise the importance of feedback in the organisation

Expect top-level managers to serve as role models about how to seek, receive, and use feedback
Ensure that everyone actually receives feedback (i.e. its not voluntary or the sole preserve of a select few)
Involve employees in the development of behaviour and performance standards
Ensure that performance improvements following feedback are recognised and rewarded

3. Provide support for using feedback

Provide skilled facilitators to help recipients interpret formal (i.e. 360) feedback and set development plans and goals
Train and reward supervisors for coaching
Encourage feedback recipients to discuss their feedback with colleagues to help clarify it and to reach shared agreement concerning behaviour expectations and changes
provide feedback recipients with the freedom to act on the feedback to give them a sense of control
Provide formal and inofrmal opportunities to learn

Do ask us how we include many of the above items within our 360 feedback programmes as standard to ensure a successful 360 review project.

Someone please explain this madness to me!

2008-11-04T08:33:00.000-08:00

A sample 360 report has come across my desk recently. It's not one generated by our Talent360 software and its source shall remain anonymous.

What's got me 'putting pen to paper' is this idea that in addition to asking raters in a 360 review to rate someone's behaviour against a particular indicator, it also asks them to rate how important it is to the role. So let's get this straight, a direct report rates their manager on a number of behaviours, such as communication style, team working, support etc, OK so far, and then gets to offer their opinion on how important it is to their manager's role? I'm all for getting feedback on what makes a good leader or manager but its not done in the context of a 360 on an individual that then appears in their feedback report.

Firstly, what qualifies the direct report to determine and trade-off which of these indicators are more important to performance in the other person's role? Secondly, the views expressed are not necessarily going to create a consistent picture of what is important - my direct reports might have a different view than yours when it comes to importance of a behaviour in a role. So where does that leave us?

Similarly, if a behavioural indicator is rated as important by one group of raters (such as peers) but not by the manager group, where does that leave the poor individual with these conflicting messages in their feedback report.

We think this is completely bonkers and a great example of what could be done not what should be done.

If an indicator is considered to be important to high performance in a role, then this should be validated by those who hire, promote or performance manage thse folks, not the poachers turned gamekeepers! (If input from staff is required to find out their views, then management culture and employee engagement surveys are the way to go.)

With Talent360, an indicator can be marked as 'key' and therefore the scores (whatever they might be) should be taken in the context of an important characteristic and acted on accordingly.

I'd be delighted to hear a rational case to support the 'rater determines how important' argument, but not in jest please as I'll end up tearing out what little hair I have left!

2008-10-30T06:46:00.000-07:00

Employee engagement - a brief background

Employee engagement has risen in popularity over the past few years. Some enthusiastic pundits have made categorical statements that a more engaged employee leads to better business results and anecdotally there is evidence that this is so – intuitively this would of course make sense. However, there is also evidence that there is little or no correlation whatsoever with business performance – a recent study by Henley Management College concluded that in their research in the corporate world, no such relationship exists.

We have also seen commentary relating to engagement that focuses on the notion of how to get that ‘extra discretionary effort’, i.e. to create employees that are willing to put in more work for altruistic reasons. We think that this focus on singularly attempting to get more out of people is both cynical and short-termist. Having said all this, a more productive, motivated, happy and ‘easier to get on with colleague’ is better than one who isn’t and engagement studies have sought to attempt to analyse and decode what makes this ‘better’ employee. Consequently, employee engagement has developed into a complex and multi-dimensional concept that has gone much further than the simple notions of motivation, the psychological contract and employee satisfaction, yet it draws on elements of each of
these ideas. It also has much in common with the extensively researched concepts of commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). With these last two, there are some important differences – engagement is a two-way process: organisations engage people (intentionally or otherwise) through their systems and processes and they in turn choose the level of reciprocal engagement. Do read our article in our last newsletter ‘Are your Talent Management Processes Fair?

http://www.head-light.co.uk/Articles/Fair_Talent_Management.pdf

So what does an engaged employee ‘look like’? From an HR perspective, the typical behaviours demonstrated by the engaged employee are:
• A belief in the organisation and its purpose
• A desire to work to make things better
• An understanding of business context and the ‘bigger picture’
• Being respectful of, and helpful to, colleagues
• A willingness to ‘go the extra mile’ , and
• Keeping up to date with developments in their field.

Marketing and Internal Communications functions have pioneered the ‘employer brand’ idea, but this is just a part of the picture. As the concept of reciprocal and multi-dimensional engagement has developed, it has moved on from simple Employee Satisfaction or Employer Brand questionnaires and into the realms of personal alignment with organisational values and mission statements. This exploration of employee feelings, emotions and psychological associations requires a subtlety and deftness when asking for feedback in these areas - asking straight questions on the above list of areas directly would clearly not generate any useful results as they are too blunt and unsophisticated an instrument.

How do you find out if employees are engaged?

Engagement is typically measured via the use of a very specific employee survey, now predominantly delivered and scored electronically. To call it a questionnaire or survey would be technically correct, though greatly undervaluing what it could provide in terms of output and insight. An Engagement Diagnostic gathers relevant, structured feedback, both qualitative and quantitative in the areas that matter most (more on this in another blog), in language and terms that are unambiguous and universally understood. This is where Occupational Psychologists can add real value and develop (and validate) engagement oriented behavioural indicators, not dissimilar from those used in 360 reviews. Subtlety and deftness can be achieved with careful wording that ask the important questions in the right way and a combination of positive and negative statements together with some discretion as who to ask for feedback, makes for an insightful diagnostic.

Many organisations report success using the many well respected generic tools, though to our way of thinking, and supported by the findings from the Institute of Employment Studies, a tailored questionnaire reflects the behaviours in your own business context, profession and industry providing the essential organisational fit required to take purposeful action across the business as a result. There is a straight trade-off – is it more important to have an imperfect diagnostic, whose results that can be compared against similar and dissimilar organisations for benchmarking purposes? Or is it more important to have a sharp, insightful instrument whose results can be used to improve engagement levels and business performance in your own company?

We’ll let you decide.

Our next blog, will develop these ideas to help you identify the type of engagement diagnostic that will provide feedback you can act on.