Maintain or Transform?

When times are difficult, the knee-jerk reaction is to hunker down and try to survive. It is the natural defensive response to threat. But there is a choice. As the saying goes, the best defense is a good offense.

So, what is your company's reaction? No matter how bad things are, there is always opportunity. Think of the market as a piece of cloth with various threads woven into a pattern. Competitors, customers, the economy and regulators are cross threads running through the market's fabric. Vertical threads include the company's strategic business plan and leadership, employee capabilities, workforce plan and readiness. Over time, that fabric is tugged and stretched as threads are weakened or reinforced. Gaps in the weave open up when the cloth is subjected to violent forces. Some of those holes are problems, while others represent opportunities.

In a disturbed market like the current one, some competitors become confused. They don't know what to do when they see customers disappearing. Mid-market customers may delay discretionary purchases as layoffs proliferate, credit dries up and savings are decimated. Conversely, wealthy consumers usually weather market dips because they have investments that continue to produce income.

Regardless of the economy, people still have needs for which they must continue to spend. During the Great Depression, movies thrived because poor people could get into theaters for a dime and escape their worries for a couple of hours. Wealthy people took advantage of markdowns to get bargains on luxury goods and foreclosed real estate. The economy was rocked, but all people continued to need products and services.

Just as companies today must make decisions on maintenance versus enhancement or even transformation, the human resources function is also at a decision point. What will be the new normal for talent management in your company?

Consider what is happening with the onslaught of smartphones, tablets and social networks. The youngest employees have grown up with technology practically embedded in them. They view work and relationships quite differently than you or I. Whether or not we regard open communications as naive, to them it is a given. Add the fact that millennials' values are different from those of us over 30. In the end you have an organization that can no longer control communication. The best we can do is mitigate the risk inherent in an open communication environment. So what can HR do around talent management going forward?

Which of the following set of opposing ideas will exemplify your modus operandi? Efficient vs. effective; maintaining vs. enhancing; reacting vs. anticipating; knowing vs. preventing; describing vs. predicting; and building skills vs. transforming culture.

The first in each set is about tactical responses to the market. The second in each set is about strategic thrusts into the market. Which is the competitive option?

I don't have to tell HR professionals what to do to maintain their position. They continue to work on providing good services. They urge management to encourage everyone to work hard, do more with less, be a team player and carry on in spite of the tough times. Most employees will do that because they don't have any other choice. There are not a lot of jobs available for people who do not have leading-edge skills. In the end, if you are lucky your company will survive and find itself in about the same position as when the bottom fell out. What it won't find is itself in a position of competitive advantage.

Advantage is the end product of executing on an enlightened vision, a fresh strategy and a new culture. The transformative expedition does not require us to know the destination. It only demands that at each fork in the road we keep an open mind. The only conveyances we need for the journey are a set of logical questions and the means to impartially analyze what we encounter.

Perfection Does Not Exist

To hire quality employees, talent managers should forget the notion that any employee is perfect. To acquire the best candidates and compose a staff comprised of strong performers who are fully engaged in their work, talent managers should focus more closely on their decision-making strategies when choosing candidates.

There is a great difference between choosing an alternative and then moving forward versus declaring alternatives wrong and limping along with what's left.

Most decision processes ask people to argue vigorously for 'the right way forward.' Those arguments often contain elements of attack directed at options. The real goal of decision making, what we are calling 'choice' here, is not about being right; it's about being effective.

There is an acceptable medium between choosing one option and killing off the others. Managers should be aware of the qualities they seek for a particular position, but they should avoid a predetermined mindset to seek a flawless candidate, thus not considering other "flawed" candidates during the process. When managers make hiring decisions based on desired outcomes rather than focusing on eliminating possibilities, they will have the freedom to learn, course correct the hiring process itself and continually progress toward an optimal hire as new data and experiences on the candidate slate appear.

It's a whole lot easier to get somewhere by moving toward the target than by moving away from something else.

To make a right choice, those hiring must have a definitive hiring strategy with which to scrutinize candidates' profiles. Further, by developing and prioritizing key requirements, qualifications, characteristics and experience desired in a candidate up front, managers will be better prepared to understand their own requirements and compare them to what is available in the marketplace.

Too often hiring decisions are made sans evidence. Instead, managers' preconceived biases, beliefs and perceptions outweigh the facts. Contrary information - which could lead to a better hire - is avoided, ignored or dismissed as irrelevant. For instance, managers may overvalue a narrow range of skills or related experiences, correlating them to a predetermined definition of a perfect hire. This approach may ignore other critical traits, such as collaborative skills, cultural fit, leadership and motivational ability.

Hiring expectations and results can improve by implementing a more deliberative and evidence-based process.

It is important to be abundantly clear about not only which directions you are taking, but also which directions you are not taken. As the team considers each option, it will come up with a choice that appears most likely to result in success for any number of positive reasons, rather than negative reasoning of what is wrong with each choice.

Once leaders understand there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, imperfections can be managed, and talent managers will be more willing to develop promising candidates to meet company standards. For instance, new hires should be properly on-boarded immediately. It's not a good idea to leave candidates at their new desks to make their way as best they can right from the start. Once a hiring decision has been made, it's time to build up the employee to grow the organization.

Nature Never Lies

Recently I was reminded that basic themes seem to run through all aspects of life. Whether we are talking about managing people, playing sports, investing in the stock market or fighting a war, these principles prevail. If we want to understand the dynamics of organizational behavior, it is useful to review them.

Human nature never changes. Therefore, in a given setting - business, a game, the stock market or a battlefield - only the players, strategies, resources and technologies change. How these work out is a function of the human nature of the participants.

Internally, the reasoning and emotions of the participants drive the "game." Most often, particularly under stress, the basic elements of humanity - fear, greed, ignorance and ego - come to the forefront. The other side of human nature is balanced through values, hope, insight and creativity. In the end, reasoning seldom is unaffected by these other powerful forces.

For example, there is no correlation at any level between financial success and happiness. As Fred Herzberg pointed out in his motivation theory almost 50 years ago, money is like food: You can eat the best meal of your life, but within a few hours you are hungry again. People can achieve material goals and career ambitions, but that does not guarantee happiness. Unless they are retiring, they'll always be striving to fulfill and maintain personal goals related to money, status and power.

Unfortunately, personal goals do not always correlate with organizational goals. Conversely, when you find a person who is satisfied with their position for the rest of their career, you have found a follower, not an innovator or a leader. It may be time to retire them.

Goal achievement is more a function of will than intellect. If your people have the will to work through adversity for the good of the organization, you have an irresistible force on your side. Call it what you will - engagement or commitment, if you like - but intelligence, skill and knowledge are not enough.

The indomitable will to serve the goals of the organization is the greatest competitive advantage you can obtain. Therein lies the challenge: In a parallel case, we talk about leadership; but as Peter Drucker asked, "Leadership for what purpose?" The same can be said for engagement. How are you measuring engagement? Is it just a number on survey, or is it visibly connected to productivity?

All the great leaps forward throughout history have been the result on individual inspiration: One person who pulls together a support team of one or more believers leads to the great leaps in technology, medicine, sports, politics and business.

Despite what they say, management does not want these highly creative people; they want willing followers. If you find an unusually creative individual within your ranks, you have two choices.

One is to isolate him or her in a position where he or she can work out their inspiration without organizational interference. Then, you have to reward him or her and restart the process. The other is to hope that his or her ambition does not correlate with his or her creativity because then he or she will leave to follow his or her dream. Most organizations have not been able to keep creative people long because organizations require and reward followership.

Strategy and, eventually, success are founded on objective analysis of purpose and goals. Know who you want to be as an organization.

What do you want to be in the marketplace? What should your signature be: innovation, like Apple; high quality, like Tiffany & Co.; low cost, like Amazon.com; or world-class service like Singapore Airlines? This will dictate your market strategy. For example, if you are in retail, do you aspire to be like Walmart? This, in turn, dictates your hiring, salary, development and retention strategies.

Too often, I see companies hiring to fill jobs, not hiring for desired intangible capabilities. You can train to develop skills and knowledge, but what are the critical capabilities you truly depend on?

Think back to the above traits. For every responsibility or job, you want a specific set. You may want creativity in finance but not in accounting, right? Position by position, what do you absolutely need to be successful?

Don't Let Strengths Become Setbacks

Many of us exercise to improve our strength and overall health, but there's a break-even point. When we over-exercise,we no longer become stronger; instead, we strain our muscles, incur pain and actually decrease our performance. The same can occur with over-exercising our strengths: Performance could decrease after reaching a break-even point.

Consider the characteristics of the following three leaders:

a) Ramesh, a director of volunteer services, is a warm and giving team player.

b) Suresh, a sales manager, asserts his independence and self-reliance to produce outstanding sales results.

c) Deepti, a nursing coordinator is a passionate advocate for her profession.

It appears that any of these individuals would be a valuable contributor to the team, but the same strengths that support their successes can also act against them and turn into a professional liability.

For instance:

a) Ramesh's desire to help becomes intrusive when he involves himself in other people's work without being asked.

b) Suresh disregards teamwork and often will follow his own agenda, instead of seeking input and fostering collaboration among his colleagues.

c) Deepti is narrowly focused on her own profession and alienates colleagues from other functional areas, such as finance and human resources.

We can see from these examples that over-exercised strengths can decrease performance effectiveness. But addressing these situations constructively in the workplace is delicate. On one hand, leaders need to be able to build, grow and flex their strengths to achieve personal satisfaction and professional success. On the other hand, they also need to discern when over-exercising their strengths will decelerate their professional momentum and impede their overall success.

How can talent managers effectively support leaders in changing their approach while still maintaining confidence in their own strengths? A few simple coaching techniques can help strike the right balance:

1. Focus on how the strength has contributed to the leader's success.

Ask the leader to describe the strength. When does he or she normally exert it? How has it contributed to his or her success? In which situations does the strength have the most positive impact? How do others react to this strength? What are the outcomes after flexing the strength? After assessing the leader's perspectives, consider sharing your own observations of when the strength was demonstrated appropriately and effectively.

2. Focus on when the strength has detracted from the leader's success.

Ask the leader to describe a time when exerting the strength did not produce the intended results. What was the circumstance? Who was involved? What was his or her response? What was the ultimate outcome? After engaging the leader in dialogue, talent managers can consider sharing their own observations of when the strength was demonstrated without achieving intended or desirable results.

3. Identify the cues that emerge when the strength becomes a liability or when the break-even point is reached.

Ask the leader to compare the successful and unsuccessful scenarios. How did the circumstances or environments differ? How did the individuals involved in each circumstance respond differently? What other cues were present to reflect whether the strength was exercised effectively or not?

4. Ask the leader how he or she will become more aware of the break-even point in future situations.

How will the leader modify his or her approach when cues arise indicating that the strength is becoming a liability? What feedback or other information will the leader need to ensure he or she is flexing strengths to support successful outcomes? Who will provide this feedback and when?

Taking a thoughtful, strategic approach to this coaching interaction is critical because leaders who have exerted strengths and subsequently reaped intrinsic or external rewards in the past initially might not be receptive to this constructive feedback. They may defend their approach, blame others for being jealous of or threatened by the demonstrated strengths, or excuse their behavior by explaining that others are misinterpreting intentions.

Regardless of the excuses, effective leadership requires constant reputation management. If over-exercised strengths are damaging productivity, effectiveness or working relationships with others, then it's time to consider a modified approach. A well-planned coaching interaction can support behavioral change through mutual dialogue, empathy, a blend of positive and constructive feedback, accountability and commitment toward improvement.