Is the Concept of Retirement Changing for Good?

In an article by Richard Ford in The Times he highlights how “baby boomers are spearheading a social revolution that will force companies to recognise the benefits of a gradual withdrawal from the world of work, rather than a sudden cut-off retirement date.”

 

Ros Altmann, a former director-general of Saga ( a firm that focuses on the over 50’s), said that the change was being driven by people living longer and healthier lives, along with poor pension prospects for those heading towards retirement age.

 

Also many of us will have witnessed the sad decline and even death of individuals who appeared healthy on the outside, who just couldn’t cope with retirement and who within a short-time of retiring suffered health problems or worse.

 

An article over ten years ago that looked at the lives of people over 100 years old found that all of those they interviewed still did some kind of work – admittedly not full time, but all of them were ‘active’ to some degree.

 

“There is a social revolution under way, which is being led by the baby boomers, who have redefined everything in their lives, particularly around the world of work. They are now going to redefine retirement,” Ms Altmann said.

 

Her comments come as a report published on 4th August 2014 highlights how age no longer defines the hobbies and lifestyle of the over 50 ‘super-boomers’. It says that with their fitter bodies, more active minds, higher levels of entrepreneurship and fewer worries about what people think of them than previous generations of over 50’s, they are increasingly the face of fashion, design and beauty.

 

One third of the British population is now over 50 – the ‘super-boomers’ who are the wealthiest, healthiest and most active people in that age group in history. By 2030 the number of people aged 60 will reach 20 million, according to official figures.

 

A report by The Future Laboratory, commissioned by the Huawei technology company, highlighted how a ‘second life’ awaits the over-50’s, during which they will start second or even third careers, including setting up craft-based businesses. Tom Savigar, chief strategy officer of The Future Laboratory, said of the over-50’s; “retirement offers them the chance to rev up rather than slow down, to start a new business or career, to invest and seek adventure – all with confidence, experience and attitude.”

 

Yet we mustn’t forget that as the divide between the wealthy and the poor seems to increase in every country around the world – this divide will exist within the over 50 age group too. There will be those 50 year olds who have had full and successful careers who have the means to ‘rev up’ rather than slow down and look at opportunities to ‘invest’ in craft-based businesses. But we must be realistic and recognise that there will be a large proportion of this over 50 age group that will suffer – they will not be able to afford to live a decent life – not being able to afford fuel bills to keep them warm in winter, and even lack the finances to feed themselves properly.

 

The suffering that exists today within the elderly population will just increase – and what I’m not seeing anywhere is the plan for dealing with this group of people. Many will suffer through no fault of their own, where pensions – that were once secure vehicles to ensure you had a good retirement – are no longer secure.

 

So many will have to work after retirement simply because they need the income to survive and this group will compete with other job hunters unless organisations can find a win-win scenario to develop dual operating structures that allow retires to work for them.

 

The retirement landscape is definitely changing and in a big way – and though academics and researchers have recognised and written about this phenomenon, it’s not clear that organisations (or governments) are making any changes to their ‘modus operandi’ to cater for this change.   

 

So it seems likely that the ‘baby boomers’ themselves will have to spearhead the change in the retirement landscape – and it’s a change that is coming very, very quickly.

 

References:

 

Ford, R. (2014). Over-50 ‘superboomers’ rewrite the retirement rules. The Times. 4th August, p.9-10.

 

 

How Effective is 360 Degree Feedback?

Eric Jackson wrote in Forbes in 2012 that “when it’s done well, 360 programs allow all your team members to improve in key areas that might be limiting their upward career path or actually causing major conflict within a team. When it’s done poorly, 360 programs create mistrust, anger, conflict and can leave a team with lower morale than when you started the exercise.”

 

In case you haven’t gone through the process, here’s how it works. Your boss, your direct reports, and your peers give you feedback on ‘something’ – which may include performance, behaviours, strengths, weaknesses and/or highlight developmental needs and/or opportunities. Therefore, you get feedback from everyone around you, those that like you, those that don’t, but supposedly from those who know you well - hence, you’re hearing it from 360 degrees around you.

 

When it comes to asking for feedback a few basic criteria are important for it to work. Firstly and most importantly the organisation have to be very clear in respect of ‘what feedback’ they are assessing and why? Because 360 has become a bit of a buzz word, some ‘organisations’ just ask for feedback from the 360 degree participants without clearly understanding what they are assessing? How clearly they are asking for the assessment? And worse still how they are going to constructively utilise the feedback once it’s gathered.

 

Secondly, organisations need to be sure that the feedback they get is integral, i.e. honest. This is a huge assumption in many organisations to create a process that only works when all those giving feedback are going to give it with total honesty and objectivity.

 

Thirdly, over what period of time are you asking for feedback and do your questions allow the respondent to differentiate between feedback on a ‘topic’ over the short term and feedback over the same topic over a longer period – and give the respondents the opportunity to explain why there may be differences in responses at different points of time.

 

As with most business principles – done well and accurately 360 degree feedback is an excellent mechanism for personal, team and organisational development that can add real value to all involved.

 

A study on the patterns of rater accuracy shows that the length of time that a rater has known the individual being evaluated has the most significant effect on the accuracy of a 360-degree review. The study shows that subjects in the group ‘known for one to three years’ are the most accurate, followed by those ‘known for less than one year,’ followed by those ‘known for three to five years’ and the least accurate being those ‘known for more than five years.’ The study concludes that the most accurate ratings come from those who have known the individual being reviewed long enough to get past the first impression, but not so long that they begin to generalize favourably.

 

Eric Jackson highlights 7 reasons why 360 degree feedback fails;

 

1. The Boss doesn’t get involved or discounts the program’s importance;

2. The 360 tool/questions are too vague;

3. People offer comments that are personal in nature rather than constructive;

4. No plan is set following receiving the feedback;

5. If there is a follow-up post-360 plan, it happens only once;

6. Lack of confidentiality;

7. Forgetting the strengths and only focusing on weaknesses.

 

Although you will find different commentators with different views on 360 degree feedback ranging from the positive to the negative, the simple undeniable fact is that as a basic theory it makes sound sense to get feedback from all those who work closely with you – so that you can get feedback that can help you develop.

 

In the ultimate organisation – a formal process won’t be necessary since constructive feedback will be taking place on a day to day basis, i.e you’ll know exactly what those around you think of your behaviour and competencies as they’ll be telling you.

 

In other organisations that don’t have that transparent and honest culture, then 360 degree feedback can still be useful but only if you appreciate the pitfalls mentioned above and are prepared to both recognise them publicly and minimise the potential negative errors, by working to have a culture that optimises the outputs from assessments like this.

 

References:

 

Jackson, E. (2012). The 7 Reasons Why 360 Feedback Programs Fail. Forbes. [On-line: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/08/17/the-7-reasons-why-360-degree-feedback-programs-fail/]

 

How Do You Turn Technologists into Leaders?

Charles Skipper and Lansford Bell wrote back in 2008 that “there is a realization that the leadership development process takes years to produce results (Rubin et al.2002). In too many cases good technical people have been promoted to senior positions requiring people-oriented leadership and management skills that they were ill prepared to provide. Rubin reported on a survey that indicated only 18 percent of the construction industry executives surveyed had any formal personnel management or leadership training,” (p.77).

 

Now many may argue that a survey in the construction industry isn’t a fair representation of the leadership development that technologists get within other industry groups. But one thing that appears true over the decades, maybe even centuries is that technologists do their jobs because they enjoy working with ‘widgets’ and aren’t naturally keen to be working with other people – i.e. the main traits of effective leadership aren’t behaviours or tasks they actually relish.

 

Robert Fulmer and Bryon Hanson wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 2010 that "helping tech professionals see the value in leadership can be difficult. Technologically oriented people often get more personal satisfaction out of designing and building new products and services than they do out of managing people. As a result, they may be reluctant to give up hands-on involvement in day-to-day projects. To fix this, tech companies need to create a corporate culture in which leadership is rewarded and respected as much as technical expertise.

 

Self-image also plays a role in a leader's effectiveness. Managers who see themselves primarily as technical experts are less likely to spend time developing subordinates than those who see leadership as their main role. In addition, most people will listen differently to feedback from a person they view as a team leader as opposed to someone they view as a technical colleague.”

 

Many smart organisations have two development streams for their technical staff; one that allows technological experts to develop into leadership roles should that be their career aspiration (or at least a development and succession planning that gives them the opportunity); and a second stream that allows technical experts to stay in their technical roles, but without losing out on the respective grading and salary increases that they deserve.

 

Because technical employees are analytical by nature Robert Fulmer and Byron Hanson mention that “our research suggests that one of the best ways to compel tech leaders to improve their leadership skills is to measure things such as the thoroughness with which they try to advance the careers of their subordinates. Measurement may be as simple as calculating the percentage of a manager's direct reports with completed performance reviews or succession plans. Or it may include more sophisticated analysis of employee surveys aimed at comparing the environments created by various leaders in a firm.”

 

Developing technologists into leaders involves employee engagement from the day they join your organisation and in some respect starts before that during the interview process when you ideally get a grasp for their career aspirations (both in the short and long term) and the elements of business that excite them.

 

Then it’s a matter of engaging with your techie audience and one way to do that is to ensure you already have well-grounded technologists who have become highly effective leaders in your organisation and who can coach and mentor selected techies as they have the respect of the employees throughout the organisation.

 

Not everyone wants to lead – but in the technology sphere, leadership and what it entails can be really badly misunderstood – where leadership is perceived as a hands-off, administrative role rather than a dynamic, strategic and innovative role that can give any self-respecting techie all the excitement they crave – and help take the organisation and its employees to new heights in respect of innovation and growth.

 

 

References:

 

Fulmer, R.M. and Hanson, B. (2010). Do Techies Make Good Leaders? They can, but developing their skills definitely poses challenges. [On-line: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704548604575097531072898668]

 

Skipper, C.O. and Bell, L. (2008). Leadership Development and Succession Planning. Leadership & Management in Engineering. Vol. 8 Issue 2, p.77-84.

 

Have You Worked for a Corporate Psychopath?

Commentators on business ethics have noted that corporate scandals have assumed epidemic proportions and that once great companies have been brought down by the misdeeds of their leaders. These commentators raise the intriguing question of how resourceful organizations end up with impostors as leaders in the first place (Singh, 2008). One writer on leadership goes as far as to say that modern society is suffering from a plague of poor leadership in both the private and public sectors of the economy (Allio, 2007). An understanding of Corporate Psychopaths helps to answer the question of how resourceful organizations end up with impostors as leaders, (p.121)

 

If Corporate Psychopaths end up in corporate leadership positions, this would be expected to cause very poor levels of ethical decision making within corporations. Recently, psychologists have come to understand that a type of psychopath exists who is not prone to violent, criminal behaviour and who therefore operates relatively undetected and successfully in society (Levenson, 1993; Paul Babiak, 1995; Cooke et al., 2004b; Board and Fritzon, 2005). They have been called successful psychopaths because they successfully evade contact with legal authorities. (p.122)

 

Writers on business ethics have long been interested in the influence of ruthless leaders such as Machiavellian managers (Singhapakdi, 1993; Schepers, 2003; Buttery and Richter, 2005). It is evident that Corporate Psychopaths and Machiavellian managers share many common characteristics and some important differences such as psychopaths having no conscience (McHoskey et al., 1998; Paulhus and Williams, 2002; Jakobwitz and Egan, 2005). However, psychopathy is a much more developed and currently researched construct than Machiavellianism and indeed is one of the most commonly studied constructs in psychology. For these reasons, management researchers need to become more aware of it. (p.122).

 

In terms of leadership research, bad leaders are said to be callously disregarding of the needs and wishes of other employees, and are prepared to lie, bully and cheat and to disregard or cause harm to the welfare of others (Perkel, 2005). All these traits are commonly associated with psychopathy. This is one reason why research into Corporate Psychopaths is important; it is a part of understanding bad corporate leadership and where it comes from. (p.123).

 

In terms of successful psychopaths, including Corporate Psychopaths, researchers suggest that non-criminal psychopaths may have the same neuropsychological dysfunctions as criminal psychopaths do, resulting in a similar lack of empathy, for example. However, it has also been suggested that a superior executive function in these non-criminal psychopaths may serve as a protective factor, decreasing their risk of being involved in illicit behaviour (Mahmut et al., 2007). This superior executive functioning would be promoted by a good socio-economic family background, good education and high intelligence and so this idea is supported by research showing that high psychopathy traits are strongly associated with the opposite of these factors, i.e. factors such as low socioeconomic status and poor early parental supervision (Farrington, 2005). (p.123).

 

Corporations are reported to want to recruit employees who are energetic, charming and fast-moving. Psychopaths can appear to be like this and can present themselves in a good light because of their ability to tell interesting stories about themselves. Corporate Psychopaths are thus recruited into organizations because they make a distinctly positive impression when first met (Cleckley, 1988). They appear to be alert, friendly and easy to get along with and talk to. They look like they are of good ability, emotionally well-adjusted and reasonable, and these traits make them attractive to those in charge of hiring staff within organizations. Other researchers confirm that psychopaths can present themselves as likeable and personally attractive (Mahaffey and Marcus, 2006). Corporate Psychopaths make those who interact with them think that the feelings of friendship and loyalty they evoke in others are reciprocated. It does not occur to people that this may not be the case and this makes it easy for Corporate Psychopaths to be accepted.

 

The personal charm of Corporate Psychopaths means that they come across well at job promotion interviews and can inspire senior managers to have confidence in them. They can thus both enter and do well in organizations and corporations (Ray and Ray, 1982). Being accomplished liars (Kirkman, 2005) helps them in obtaining the jobs they want. Once inside an organization, Corporate Psychopaths can reportedly survive for a long time (Loizos, 2005) before being discovered during which time they can establish defences for themselves to protect their positions. (p.124).

 

Corporate Psychopaths then manipulate their way up the corporate ladder, using pawns and shedding patrons as these people become superseded and no longer needed. According to Hare, the formation of two factions then typically develops in the organization. One fraction being of the network of supporters, pawns and patrons of the Corporate Psychopath and the other fraction being made up of their detractors and those pawns who realize they have been used and abused or those who otherwise realize that the organization is in danger (Babiak and Hare, 2006b). A confrontation between the rival fractions results from this, during which the detractors are typically outmanoeuvred and ultimately removed. After this happens, the Corporate Psychopath ascends to power unopposed (Babiak and Hare, 2006, p.125).

 

It has been argued that Corporate Psychopaths are more motivated and better equipped to rise to high corporate positions than other managers are. They are motivated because they are more single minded in their craving for power, money and prestige that senior managerial positions bring. They are better equipped because they are ruthless, unemotional and without empathy (Chapman et al, 2003; Maibom, 2005), and are fully prepared to lie. They also have fewer other time commitments and constraints because of a lower number of emotional attachments to other people than normal people have (Maibom, 2005). These attributes may facilitate their entrenchments within an organization, after which their ability to gain more power through informal mechanisms and through increased popularity enables a consolidation of power and further rises up the hierarchy, (p.126).

 

So it's worth keep your eyes open for these types of leaders. 

 

References:

 

Boddy, Clive R. P.; Ladyshewsky, Richard; Galvin, Peter. (2010) Leaders without ethics in global business: Corporate psychopaths. Journal of Public Affairs. Vol. 10 Issue 3, p121-138.

What Have Looks Got To Do With Business?

There are seemingly loads of articles and research that clearly shows that ‘attractive’ men and women earn more than those deemed less attractive.

In a book entitled ‘The Beauty Bias: The Injustice of Appearance in Life and Law’ by Deborah Rhode; she mentions how “physically attractive women and men earn more than average-looking ones, and very plain people earn less. In the labour market as a whole (though not, for example, in astrophysics), looks have a bigger impact on earnings than education, though intelligence - mercifully enough - is valued more highly still.” (cited in The Economist, 27th August, 2011).

Deborah Rhode highlights how “not everything comes easier: good-looking women seeking high-flying jobs in particularly male fields may be stymied by the “bimbo effect” until they prove their competence and commitment. But the importance of beauty in the labour market is far more pervasive than one might think. The same is true in other markets. Women have traditionally traded looks for economic support in marriage. A Chinese study confirms that the husbands of unappealing women earn about 10% less than those of their dishier counterparts. Attractive people also have an easier time getting a loan than plain folks, even as they are less likely to pay it back. They receive milder prison sentences and higher damages in simulated legal proceedings. In America more people say they have felt discriminated against for their appearance than because of their age, race or ethnicity. Pretty people, it seems, have all the luck.”

In another article in 2011 Alan Hall wrote in the Mail On-Line that “good-looking people worried about higher education shouldn't worry. Beauty is every bit as good as a BA when it comes to getting on, a new study says. Researchers at the Leuphana University of Lüneburg in northern Germany have found wages, promotions and perks at work are linked to a person's attractiveness. While looks have long been thought essential for women to climb the corporate ladder, they say, they are even more important for men.”

This is backed by further research, for example, in an article in Forbes Magazine in 2011 Susan Adams comments on research by Daniel Hamermesh that found below-average-looking men earn 17% less than those considered good-looking, while below-average-looking females earn 12% less than their attractive counterparts.

All this research from 2011 is still alive and well today, with an article published in the Mail On-Line on 10 March 2013, where they state that “Men blessed with the good looks to match George Clooney can reap the benefits in the workplace, says a study. Handsome men can command 22 per cent more in earnings than colleagues doing the same job because of their looks. But men with 'below-average' looks will pay the price for their appearance, earning 26 per cent less than an average-looking man in the same job. They were also 15 per cent more likely to be unemployed than more attractive men.”

Of course one may think this is unfair as we don’t choose how we are born and start to look around us at others in our peer group to see if their career path might be influenced by anything other than their performance – but it’s not the peer group you should be looking at – it’s the leadership. It’s a damning condemnation of today’s leadership if they are so shallow that they are influenced by looks when it comes to offering jobs; promotions and other perks.

Maybe this kind of research gives an indication as to why there is such a large pool of immature leadership in today’s global world and if we really want to see improvements in leadership throughout the globe, then this should be a kick-start to those involved in leadership development and leadership appointments to question the success criteria that drives their decision making.  

References

Adams. S. (2011). Does Beauty Really Pay. [On-line http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanaadams/2011/08/03/does-beauty-really-pay]. Accessed 2nd June 2013.

Hall, A. (2011). Looks are as important as brains to career success, a recent study shows. The Mail On-line. 21st December 2011. [On-line: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077056/Looks-important-brains-career-success-says-new-study.html]

Rhode, D. (2011). The Beauty Bias: The Injustice of Appearance in Life and Law. Oxford University Press; USA. [cited in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/node/21526782]

 

What ‘Political’ Games Are Played In Your Organisation?

Are you concerned by the thought that the success you achieve in your career might not only be dependent on how good you are; how well you perform; and the results you generate but also by how well you are able to ‘play the corporate game’?

Dorie Clark in an article in the HBR, November 2012, suggests that as part of your career plan you should draw a power map, using circles that show who has the most influence over your career and, in turn, the people who have the most influence over them. Then figure out what you can offer the influential people - expertise, assistance on a project, help with networking; and ways to cultivate unique knowledge or skills they’d find valuable.

Places where your career progression is as much to do with who you know; as it is to do with what you know, include the consulting industry, the accounting and legal profession and sadly the armed forces.

To give an example one global consulting firm, considered one of the ‘top players’ in the industry, recently had a change of leadership at the very top and what followed was like a ‘coup’ in some despot country. All those people left in senior positions who had been part of the ‘old regime’, presumably allies of the outgoing CEO, were replaced by cronies of the incoming CEO – and a new ‘power’ base was formed. Where those that had sided with and placed their ‘bets’ on the right ‘horse’ were rubbing their hands with glee – while the vanquished started to look elsewhere for their future careers – and of course it’s in this ‘misty fog’ of the new order – that ‘the old guard’ run off and start break-away organisations, intent on competing with and ‘destroying’ the new usurper to ‘their throne’.

Now I won’t discuss here how these types of organisations are meant to set the example for other mere mortal organisations to follow and hence should have a ‘mature’ view of organisational development and talent management. But what is scary is that these organisations are rife with internal political squabbling, to the extent that internal ‘tribes’ are formed within these organisations, where employees place their future development, advancement and financial reward behind those they perceive as the ‘potential’ future leaders. And if you spend long enough in these organisations you can see the tribes – where they look like a troop of monkeys, where the leader strides ahead with his ‘family’ following closely behind.

Of course as with all tribes you will encounter, over time, traitors and defectors; and even within the ‘tribes’ you can have ‘challenges’ for positional power.

For those joining these politically driven organisations – the new incumbent isn’t aware of the ‘political’ machinations taking place at first – often because they are simply caught up in the day-to-day hustle and bustle of the business, and find themselves learning so fast that they often only realised they have been groomed and taken under the wing of a ‘pretender’ to the ultimate throne one or two years after joining – when the pace of their development starts to slow down and they have a chance to look around them at what is happening. Up to then it’s just been an exhilarating, if somewhat tiring, journey of self-discovery and access to material wealth that they only dreamed of – where they are often exposed to managers who live in a ‘colonial type’ bubble and who, for example, ask to have their hire cars replaced when the ashtrays become full.

Not all organisations are political and tribal; and few are as bad as the industries and professions mentioned above, but ‘company politics’ exists to some extent in most organisations.

Clark mentions that “it’s still a slam to be labelled ‘political’ in the business world. But it shouldn’t be. Thinking like a campaign strategist will help you set clear goals, develop new skills, and build relationships with the people who matter to your professional life. Creating a career campaign plan ensures that, every day, you’re taking small but important steps to better position yourself for a winning future.”

I think the thing that Clark misses is that ‘political’ has a wide range of meaning from the manipulative narcissistic games of a dictatorial leader, like Mark Taylor, the Dean at Warwick Business School, who leaves a path of unhappy personnel and operational destruction in their wake; to the planned ‘management’ coups that takeover and place their ‘people’ in positions of power; to the genuine organisations that are focused on sustainable growth and continuous improvement and are very dynamic when it comes to organisational development and talent management, having a culture that never loses sight of putting the company and its people first.

References

Clark, D. (2012). A Campaign Strategy for Your Career. Harvard Business Review.

How Do You Manage ‘Summit Syndrome’?

The summit syndrome afflicts extreme overachievers who thrive on challenge. They can be found in abundance in tightly wired organizations—in the premier investment banks and consulting firms; in start-ups; in semiconductor, computer, and software development companies; and in the elite units of multiproduct corporations. These supercharged individuals exult in winning, mastering new skills, acquiring knowledge, and surpassing previous benchmarks of excellence. They are addicted to their own adrenaline. But the rush from pushing beyond their limits tends to dissipate once the new territory has been mastered; an identity built around the galvanizing effects of meeting and conquering daunting challenges loses its purchase as such people near the summit of a job’s learning curve. They can’t or find it extremely difficult to motor along on flat terrain. An S-curve aptly describes the rapid ascent to proficiency and the gradual loss of career momentum that occurs when such individuals master a job. It’s near the top where the troubles begin. (George D. Parsons and Richard T. Pascale, HBR, 2007).

The problem with this syndrome is that is hard enough to identify and manage in a ‘normal’ business environment – so when you add a global financial crisis to the mix, you are creating a potential environment for many high achievers to succumb to summit syndrome and for the organisation and the individual to completely miss the signs.

George Parsons and Richard Pascale highlight in their brilliant 2007 article that “paradoxically, disorientation at the summit is more profound for the more proficient. Those with the smoothest glide to success in a challenging job tend to experience the greatest degree of confusion. Costs to the individual can go way beyond dropped balls at work or other slips in performance. Inner turmoil can build to the point where it hurts health and family. The search for stimulation may lead to extramarital misadventures or other self-destructive behaviour. Distraction and confusion can result in bad career decisions, causing people to leave the fast track and end up drifting from one job to another. They can join the ranks of those highly promising men and women who somehow never managed to achieve the positions or goals that colleagues and friends always assumed they would one day claim.”

Within the syndrome successful overachievers can start to blame themselves for a perceived crisis their organisations are in, when no crisis actually exists. The personal internal struggle with their genuine perception of their business ability, proved through past performance, starts to conflict with the reality facing them and they can find the turmoil too much to take.

Parsons and Pascale highlight how in a ‘normal’ business environment, “the summit syndrome unfolds in three phases, each with its own distinct indicators. The first is approaching the crest of a job, when a person, having mastered most of the challenges of the role, is nearing peak proficiency. This is a time when some may push harder to recapture the adrenaline rush of the climb. The second phase is plateauing, when the summit has been reached and virtually all of the challenges have been conquered. While the less ambitious person is apt to coast at this point, the overachiever bears down even harder to produce ever more stellar results. The third phase is descending. It is the terminal stage of the syndrome, when a leader’s job performance begins to slip noticeably, triggering an accelerating slide. As the person’s superstar status fades, he jumps ship, accepts a demotion, or takes a lateral transfer.”

This process for recognizing and treating the summit syndrome can dissipate the disorientation that often strikes overachievers as they approach or reach the crest of a job. It can dispel the confusion and create a new context for a balanced, challenging, and fulfilling working life. Once they can see and accept that their condition is not unique, that a periodic reorientation is a natural and regenerative part of the inner work of leadership, overachievers can look ahead with far greater discernment. Generally speaking, better mental maps foster wiser choices. Ultimately, some may decide to seek a different context in which to grow and excel in their current organizations. Others may reflect, and then seek greener pastures. Summit work separates signals from noise.

Organisations need to look after their talent and not simple take historical performance as a guarantee of future success. Also individuals need to become aware of the signs of ‘success syndrome’ and not be too proud and stubborn not to act on them. The natural instincts of the over-achiever are paradoxically to assume that this couldn’t possibly happen to them – until of course it does – and even then they might fight the concept. It then needs a ‘good friend’ to bring them down to earth, help them analyse their own ‘personal’ strategy, looking at where they are now; how they got their; and where they are going in the future; then re-defining your personal career strategy with your eyes wide open and any pride and ego safely stored away.

As Parsons and Pascale conclude, “all parties—senior managers, human resource departments, and high performers themselves—must remember that a successful career is not a straight line to the top; it is a series of S-curves, each of which begins with a major promotion or job redefinition. Confusion and loss of bearings come with the territory, but they do not have to derail promising careers. Anticipating the summit syndrome, recognizing its onset, and dealing with it in its earliest stages can revitalize careers and propel talented leaders to greater heights.”

References

Parsons, G.D. and Pascale, R.T. (2007). Crisis at the Summit. Harvard Business Review. March.

Are Organisations Ignoring Key HR Risks?

A report by Ernest and Young back in 2008 found that human resource issues ranked among the top five business issues impacting a corporation's results, yet 41 percent of executives surveyed admitted to reviewing these risks on an ad hoc basis or never. E&Y surveyed senior finance, accounting, risk, and HR executives at 150 Fortune 1000 companies about their perceptions of HR risks and the recognition these risks are given within a global organization.

 

The top five individual HR risk areas seen as having a high impact and likelihood of occurrence within an organization are:

 

• Talent management and succession planning (65 percent for impact, 42 percent for occurrence).

• Ethics/tone at the top (64 percent for impact, 23 percent for occurrence).

• Regulatory compliance (51 percent for impact, 21 percent for occurrence).

• Pay and performance alignment (45 percent for impact, 27 percent for occurrence).

• Employee training and development (41 percent for impact, 24 percent for occurrence).

 

Even with the global financial crisis, where you’d think organisations would quickly want to implement practices and policies that would re-focus the organisations strategy and performance for practical sustainable growth in the coming years, I would suggest that these five key human resource risk areas are still not getting the attention they deserve.

 

Succession planning is probably one of the most talked about, yet least implemented business practices in today’s corporate world. For some reason boards, CEO’s and executive teams seem to agree, during a debate, the importance of succession planning and how vital it is to have ‘people’ in waiting, especially for key roles – yet when it comes to implementing ‘proper’ succession planning systems that are all encompassing that link to an integrated human resource strategy, they seem to fall flat.

 

What’s fascinating about the criteria is that they rightly see ethics and ‘the tone at the top’ as a key human resource issue, where these drivers are often assumed to be the responsibility of the CEO and as such are not ‘challenged’ as part of the day-to-day activities at the top.

 

In fact what’s sad about ‘the tone at the top’ as a key risk is that you’ll find where the ‘tone’ is a risk, it’s often because the CEO doesn’t want to discuss it and those that try can find themselves marginalised within the executive team. Recent scandals, including the libor scandal at Barclays, would most likely prove this point.

 

Regulatory compliance still seems to get too little attention and there seems to be a perception within big corporates that they are not to be dictated too (by anyone, about anything) – even when the regulation is there, not only to protect, but also to improve performance.

 

Pay and performance is debated today, as it has been over the last three decades and more, where equality is still the biggest deviation for pay; and poor appraisal systems and techniques are the biggest cause of dissatisfaction and demotivation in relation to performance. Where it still seems that recognition for good performance is the exception rather than the rule.

 

The market for employee training and development has become saturated, partly due to the advert of social media and social networking, and also due to too many suppliers offering what they think organisations need, rather than actively forming collaborative relationships with clients to offer them what they need. That, combined with internal budget cuts, has seen training and development take a back seat – yet again. Thirty years ago business guru’s like Michael Porter, Peter Drucker, etc were telling us then that the last budget to get cut in a crisis should be the training and development budget – not the first. But we seem to be slow learners.

 

So maybe organisations should think about reviewing these five key criteria more formally and more often – you may be pleasantly surprised by the improvements in organisational and operational performance if you do.

 

References:

 

Steffee, S. (2008). HR Risks Are Largely Ignored. Internal Auditor; Vol. 65 Issue 6, p.14-15.

 

Appraising the Performance Appraisal

Managed well, the performance appraisal can be a highly motivational event, reviewing performance and setting objectives for the period ahead, within a climate of mutual respect and active two-way communication – handled poorly it can be a very de-motivational event, sapping the energy and innovation out of the employee and negatively impacting the corporate culture and organisational performance. Unfortunately, even within the 21st century many highly effective human resource business principles still don’t get the attention they deserve and amongst them is the performance appraisal. Beatrice van der Heijden (2004), states that, “as performance evaluation systems are among the most important and applied human resource components of an organization, it is essential to investigate their qualities critically”, (p.493).

Organisations often forget that the performance appraisal links directly to; their corporate strategy and organisational performance; the development of the human resource at all levels within the organisation (including the link to succession planning); and has a direct impact on motivation and the corporate culture; and “it is important to differentiate between the application as a decision-making instrument and the application as a developmental tool. In the latter case the aim is to provide constructive feedback in a climate in which one's growth is fostered and there is room for improving one's weaknesses without immediate negative consequences”, (van der Hiejden, 2004, p.494).

A well developed appraisal system will always include a self-appraisal element, allowing employees to appraise themselves prior to the formal appraisal interview. This has been proved to be an extremely powerful approach to appraising performance and as Gary Roberts (2003) states “self-appraisals provide employees with the opportunity to systematically assess their performance. Studies indicate that self-appraisal increases employee participation and readiness for the appraisal interview, enhances overall satisfaction, increases perceived appraisal fairness and can reduce defensive behaviour if used for development purposes”, (p. 91).

Some basic guidelines for an effective performance appraisal include;

1) The performance appraisal should focus on agreed objectives for the period being assessed;

2) These objectives link to the strategic objectives of the organisation; and are defined through the employees accountabilities and key performance indicators;

3) Performance appraisals are most effective when there is a process of self-evaluation where; the employee appraises their own performance against their objectives; recommend the objectives to be appraised for the next assessment period; and identify what specific training and development they need to improve their performance for the period ahead;

4) Those conducting appraisals are ‘thoroughly’ trained in the appraisal system and appraisal skills (too many people are allowed to conduct appraisals without understanding the principles and skills required to conduct them fairly);

5) The appraisal system supports training and development; and the succession planning process;

6) Developed and implemented correctly the performance appraisal is a powerful tool for the development of the human resource, at all levels, and through linking performance, to objectives, to the corporate strategy, has a directly impact on the organisations future growth.

The performance appraisal is not a substitute for regular employee feedback and is a formal, well planned, periodic review; where there should be no surprises in respect of performance feedback. Issues around performance (from excellent to poor) must be recognised, managed and communicated to the person when it happens (and not months later).

So, it might be worth spending some time reviewing your current appraisal system and the skills of those involved; to identify areas where you can improve the process and in doing so improve the development and motivation of your human resource; and the performance and growth of your organisation.

References

Roberts, G. E. (2003). Employee Performance Appraisal System Participation: A Technique that Works. Public Personnel Management, Vol. 32, Issue 1, p.89-98.

van der Heijden, B. (2004). The value of subjectivity: problems and prospects for 360-degree appraisal systems. International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 15, Issue 3, p.493-511

Succession Planning & HR Strategy

Many organisations take their most vital resource for granted – their Human Resource. Not enough attention is given to this essential resource and organisations often fail to link human resources to corporate strategy. An effective human resource strategy will align itself with the corporate strategy; and be a core contributor to ensuring continuous improvement and sustainable growth.

In a 2008 survey by Ernest & Young, executives from 150 Fortune 1000 companies agreed that human resource issues ranked among the top five business issues impacting on an organisations performance and their results. Yet, staggeringly, 41% of executives surveyed admitted to only reviewing these human resource related risks on, at best, an ad hoc basis and in some cases not at all, (Steffee, S, 2008, p.14)

The survey identified the top five human resource ‘risk’ areas that have a significant impact on organisational performance as being;

Talent Management and Succession Planning
Ethics
Regulatory Compliance
Pay and Performance Alignment
Employee Training and Development

One of the key principles of human resource development (and organisational performance) is succession planning – this key business component, if utilised correctly, can add significant value to an organisations future growth and can be a significant competitive advantage – but only if implemented correctly. Unfortunately, as with many business principles, it isn’t succession planning that has failed organisations, but organisations that have failed to understand and implement succession planning correctly.

Gaffney (2005) highlights two key points, firstly that career development and succession planning go hand in hand; and secondly, that a synergy between career development and succession planning helps create happier and more productive employees, (p.7).

Matching career aspirations with succession requirements is the ultimate goal for any employee and their organisation – but it has to be developed and managed properly from the outset. Organisations need to have an open and honest culture and employees need to be fully aware of their strengths and weaknesses and not have unrealistic expectations.

For succession planning to be successful, your organisation will need to have the following in place;

1. A well thought out corporate strategy, implementation plan and corporate vision;

2. A HR strategy and a manpower plan that link directly to the corporate strategy;

3. Communication and transparency, vertically and horizontally; such that the ‘whole’ organisation understands the future strategy; and employees are aware how they contribute to the organisations success, the implications for their current role and their future opportunities;

4. A qualitative and quantitative method for skills and talent management;

5. An effective method for identifying and communicating with all employees about career aspirations and succession opportunities/requirements;

6. Strategic leaders who fully understand the impact the human resource has on organisational performance and who fully support the HR function;

7. A mechanism for regular strategic review and succession feedback;

8. An organisation that is flexible to change; and

9. An organisational culture that embraces best practices and thrives on innovation, at all levels.

Finally it’s worth remembering a quote from Andrew and Valerie Stewart, who remind us that, “the relationship between performance and potential is not a simple one. The best performers are not necessarily those of high potential.
Promotion solely on the basis of past performance inevitably leads to promotion to the person’s level of incompetence.”

References

Gaffney, S. (2005). Career Development as a Retention and Succession Planning Tool. Journal of Quality & Participation, Vol. 28, Issue 3, p.7-10.

Steffee, S. (2008). HR Risks Are Largely Ignored. Internal Auditor, Vol. 65, Issue 6, p.14-15.