“There’s a world of difference between truth and facts.  Facts can obscure the truth.”

Maya Angelou

The leadership and talent management “facts” just keep coming. In fact (no pun intended), thanks to some readers, I now have even more to share with you!  

1. Hay Group, a global management consulting firm in a recent study discovered that among 75 key components “trust and confidence in top leadership” was the single most reliable predictor of employee satisfaction.

2. A recent survey of more than 300 small businesses conducted by the management consulting firm Six Disciplines Corporation found that the number one characteristic setting apart high and low performing companies was the strength of the senior leadership.  The second most common trait shared by successful small businesses was the ability to attract and retain quality talent and keep those working satisfied.

3. Data from the 2006 market study “High Potential Leadership Selection and Development” Institute of Executive Development and RHR International Question #5 revealed: “Which of the following characteristics/abilities do you think are most important for your organization’s future leaders to posses?  1) Strategic Thinking/Ability to Develop Others 50%; 2) Business Acumen/Knowledge 38%; 3) Ability to Manage Organizational Change/Relationship Building 29%; 4) Cross Cultural/Cross National Understanding 18%; and 6) Ability to manage the performance of others 17%.

4. More than half of global executives wish they could start over in a different career according to a recent 2007 survey by search firm Korn/Ferry.  People define their work as a job, career or calling—we are lucky if what we wind up doing is truly our “calling.”

5. According to RHR International, 40% to 60% of high level corporate executives brought in from outside a company will fail within 2 years based on their 2006 analysis of clients.  Those who do fail most often derail quickly sometime between 7 to 9 months in the job.

6. Last year there were 28,058 executive turnovers including board members and executives from CEO down to VP a 68% increase over 2006 according to Liberum Research analysis of North American public companies—of those 44% of the positions were filled from outside the company.

7. At large companies, chief financial officers are turning over at a rate of 22% a year according to Russell Reynolds Associates because CFOs are under extreme pressure in the regime of Sarbanes-Oxley and they are the face of the company to Wall Street.

8. In a recent Gallup Management Journal, 59% of employees in the US reported “not being engaged” and 14% were “actively disengaged” which Gallup describes as “undermining what their engaged coworkers accomplish.”

9. ISR 2007 research study reported that five of the largest Asia-Pacific economies including Australia, China, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand were included in the study of more than 3,000 “top talent”.  The study revealed that the region is full of “talent at risk” staff and Malaysia has the largest proportion (47%) of employees that define themselves as either disillusioned or actively disengaged.  Singapore ranked second with 40% followed by the other countries above 30%.

10. In recent Gallup survey, 80% of British workers reported that they lack commitment to their jobs with 25% being disengaged compared to only 12% in France. In Singapore, 17% of the talent reported being “actively disengaged” at work.

10. ISR also found that 88% of at-risk staff in China indicated they would leave their current positions while 92% of Australians and 95% of Singapore’s talent at risk planned to leave.

11. 81% of executives consider employee retention an important business priority compared to 41% in 2007 (Annual emploee turnoversurvey of more than 600 organizations TalentKeepers Inc.

12. According to a recent 2008 survey of 16,237 U.S. workers by Marietta, Ga.-based consultancy Leadership IQ, 47% of high performers are actively looking for new jobs, by posting and submitting their resumes and even going to interviews. Compare that to only 18 percent of identified low performers who say they are looking for new jobs, and 25 percent of middle performers who are actively searching, according to the findings.

All in all, emotions and attitudes might be more important than “facts”….Be well….

Technorati Tags: talent management, succession planning, coaching, executive coaching, executive development, surveys, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

“Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger.”

Franklin B. Jones

I think we need to do a “360″ on 360 feedback¹.

How would you like to be diagnosed with a new illness and have your doctor tell you that the latest wonder drug has shown in over 33% of the cases to actually worsen the condition? Well….

What would you think if I told you that earlier research (Taylor & Brown 1988) suggests a triad of “positive illusions” which include: 1) People inflate the perceptions of themselves and their skills; 2) People exaggerate their perceived control over life events; and 3) People express unrealistic optimism about their future. Interestingly, most individuals report being less prone to each of these positive illusions even after they are told about them (Pronin, Gilovich & Ross, 2004).

What would you think if I shared with you that a meta-analysis of over over 3,000 studies (607 effect sizes, 23,633 observations) on performance feedback found that although there was a significant effect for feedback interventions (d=.41), one third of all studies showed performance declines².

What would you think If I told you that although feedback does result in significant performance improvement based on a meta-analysis of 26 longitudinal studies, effect sizes are relatively small suggesting that “zebras don’t easily lose their stripes” Smither et al. (2005).

What would you think If I told you that based on twin studies 33% of the variance in holding leadership roles is due to genetic factors (Arvery, Zhang, Avolio & Kreuger, 2007) and findings from numerous studies of personality show that genetic effects account for approximately 50% of the variance in five factor domains (Bouchard & Loehlin, 2001).

What would you think if I shared with you that professor Leanne Atwater and colleagues at Arizona State University found that improvement following an upward feedback intervention only resulted for 50% of the supervisors who received it³.

What would you think if I shared with you that a recent meta-analysis of 26 longitudinal studies indicate significant but small effect sizes suggesting that is unrealistic to expect large performance improvement after people receive 360-degree feedback⁴.

What would you think if I share with you that Watson Wyatt’s 2001 Human Capital Index, an ongoing study of the linkages between HR practices and shareholder value at 750 publicly traded US companies found that 360-degree feedback programs were associated with a 10.6 percent decrease in shareholder value⁵.

What would you think if I shared with you that Self-ratings are weakly correlated with other rater perspectives⁶.

What would you think if I shared with you that bosses, direct reports and peers overlap only modestly on how they view an individual⁷.

Finally, what would you think if I told you that a recent survey by Rasmussen Reports (2006) found that “92% of those surveyed in a national poll of 1,854 U.S. workers reported they are an “excellent” or “good” boss.” Unfortunately, only 67% rated their managers favorably and 10% said their boss performed poorly.

As Bill Cosby said, “A word to the wise isn’t necessary. It’s the stupid ones who need all the advice”…..Be well….

Technorati Tags: multi-rater feedback, 360 feedback, feedback interventions, coaching, behavior change, ken nowack, nowack, kenneth nowack, evisia learning, Talent Accelerator, 360

1. Nowack, K. (2007). Why 360 Feedback Doesn’t Work. Talent Management, 4 (8), p 12 [↩]
2. Kluger, A. & DeNisi (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, meta-analysis and preliminary feedback theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-285 [↩]
3. Atwater,L., Waldman, D., & Cartier. (2000). An upward feedback field experiment. Supervisor’s cynicism, follow-up and commitment to subordinates. Personnel Psychology, 53, 275-297 [↩]
4. Smither, J., London, M., & Reilly, R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58, 33-66 [↩]
5. Pfau, B. & Kay I. (2002). Does 360 degree feedback negatively affect company performance? HR Magazine, Volume 47 (6), June 2002 [↩]
6. Nowack, K. (1992). Self-assessment and rater-assessment as a dimension of management development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3, 141-153 [↩]
7. Harris, M. & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43-62 [↩]

“Honesty may be the best policy, but it’s important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.”                    

George Carlin

A recent 2008 survey from Blessing White (The State of Employee Engagement) asked 7,500 employees on four continents about how much they trust their managers and senior managers.  The results suggested that 47% strongly disagreed, disagreed or had no opinion about their trust in senior leaders in their organization but only 15% reported the same level of indifference or mistrust with their manager.

I think we can all agree that we’d like leaders (and all talent) to possess a high degree of trustworthiness, honesty and integrity.  If only we could figure out the best way to measure and predict these traits in leaders!

A sizeable body of research has accumulated on honesty/integrity assessments and a fairly recent issue of Personnel Psychology contains the fifth in a series of comprehensive reviews on the “state of the art” of testing in this area¹.

In general, integrity and honesty tests can be “overt” (e.g., theft attitudes and admissions of wrongdoing) or “covert” (typically personality based assessments attempting to get at underlying traits and qualities that might predict dishonesty, counterproductive work behavior, etc.).

Four highlights of this wonderful update are worth noting:

1. Honesty/Integrity Assessments Do Predict Counterproductive Behavior: More research suggests that these tests do a pretty good job of predicting fraud, theft, stealing, absenteeism and even academic cheating.

2. Peers May Be Valuable at Predicting Integrity: Some recent research has found that peer reported integrity correlate with interview ratings of integrity (r = .28).

3. It’s Not too Difficult to Fake Honesty Tests but Not Much Evidence Exists that Candidates Actually Do: One interesting finding in this review is that items rated as more private and invasive are less fakable.

4. Integrity Assessments Tend to Engender More Negative Reactions Than Other Types (e.g., personality, interviews): In previous research, even graphology (handwriting analysis) had a better image but as the authors point out this often cited study might be hard to generalize since it was based on “perceptions” of which selection approach was most favorable.

Implications for Leadership and Talent Management Selection:

1. Maybe more talent management/succession ratings should consider including peer ratings specific to “integrity” of future leaders.

2. Most interview processes don’t add much to predicting future leadership success–they have poor “incremental validity” beyond personality and intelligence (OK, I know everyone uses them anyway) so maybe more time should be spend trying to measure key relationship intelligence and collaboration factors that are negatively associated with counterproductive work behaviors.

3. Double check references and focus on peer ratings for supplementing data you have on “handicapping” leadership success and future performance.

4. Most of the current generation “five factor” personality inventories don’t typically explain much variance in predicting honesty so it’s best to use both an overt personality measure (e.g., “Big 5” assessment) and covert honesty test to do a better job of predicting dishonesty and counterproductive behavior in applicants at all levels. 

5. Newer generation personality inventories can be useful to evaluate other traits and qualities useful to predict performance, retention and postive citizenship behavior².

6. Get to know candidates outside the formal application process and work setting.  The game of “mutual seduction” is pretty compelling and with the current leadership pipeline shortage everyone tells each other what they want to hear.  You learn alot about a person outside the formal selection interviews so take a walk and head to lunch to learn more about their experiences, passions and signature strengths.

If you haven’t heard, a recent study study for the Center for Academic Integrity at Duke University found 56 percent of MBA students acknowledged cheating, compared with 54 percent in engineering, 48 percent in education and 45 percent in law school.

Maybe we need to start earlier in the honesty/integrity assessment process…..Be well….

Technorati Tags: interviews, integrity, honesty, counterproductive work behaviors, dishonesty, theft, cheating, absenteeism, performance, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack, Envisia Learning, Envisia, trust, trustworthiness

1. Berry, C., Sackett, P. & Wieman, S. (2007).  A review of recent developments in integrity test research.  Personnel Psychology, 60, 271-301 [↩]
2. Nowack, K. (1997). Personality Inventories: The Next Generation. Performance in Practice, American Society of Training and Development, Winter 1996/97 [↩]

“Predictions are very difficult, especially when they are about the future”
 
Yogi Berra

Last month I conducted a leadership workshop for about 200 leaders of at a large University medical center.  At just about every break the most popular question to me was, “how can you predict who is likely to become a great leader?”

I’m sure the question was “code” for leaders in every culture struggling to unlock the “what’s in it for me” key to talent engagement.  And no, “wishing” for people to become engaged will NOT translate into a spontaneous sea of followership. 

Maybe not all of us “have the right stuff” to be leaders.  It’s a lot more popular to subscribe to “leaders are made” versus “leaders are born” but perhaps both positions are right.

Avery and colleagues, based on twin studies, estimate that about 33% of the variance in holding leadership roles is due to genetic factors¹. Findings from numerous studies of personality show that genetic effects account for approximately 50% of the variance in five factor domains².  Maybe we all have some “leadership set-points” that provide a ceiling or upper limit to our leadership capabilities.

If leaders truly understood the pre-wiring of the interests, values and motives of talent and tried to use this information to lead them more effectively they would be able to unlock some of the mystery surrounding effective leadership. 

The four career path preferences summarized below are theory based and measured in one of our assessments called the Career Profile Inventory.  Understanding the primary interests, values and motives underlying each can help all of us better understand what our “signature passions” might be.  These “paths” also provide some insight about how best to reward and recognize talent to enhance engagement and retention.

Understanding the Four Career Path Preferences
 
MANAGERIAL — This career path preference is best characterized by those interested in continually moving vertically up the organizational ladder into traditional supervisory and managerial positions with increasing spans of control, responsibility, power, and authority.

Typical career anchors and motives of these individuals include power, influence, leadership, control, task accomplishment, status, managerial competence, and directing others. Appropriate organizational rewards for these individuals might include: upward mobility, promotion, special perks, titles, and organizational symbols of success (e.g., profit sharing incentive plans, company car, stock options, financial planning, expense account, club memberships, etc.).

SPECIALIST/INDEPENDENT CONTRIBUTOR — This career path preference is best characterized by those interested in remaining in one career field or profession for much of their working life. Along the way, these specialists are able to highly refine their technical knowledge, skills and abilities. These individuals are less interested in moving up as they are in becoming the expert and having autonomy to do things their way.

Typical career anchors and motives of these individuals include technical and functional competence, expertise, skill mastery, service to others, independence, affiliation and security. Appropriate organizational rewards for these individuals might include: job enrichment, continuing education, membership in professional associations, recognition, motivational programs, organizational benefits, sabbaticals, tenure and job security.

ENTREPRENEURIAL – This career path preference is best characterized by those interested in rapid job, career, and occupational changes over short periods of time. These individuals enjoy working on diverse projects, tasks, assignments, and business ventures with measurable and visible outcomes.

Typical career anchors and motives of these individuals include: entrepreneurship, achievement, autonomy, variety, risk, challenge, change, freedom from organizational constraints, flexibility, creativity and diversity. Appropriate organizational rewards for these individuals might include flexible schedules, short-term projects, independent contracts, consulting assignments, start-up operations, job sharing, and bonuses.

GENERALIST – This career path preference is best characterized by those who gradually change jobs and career over time but utilize the foundation of previously acquired skills, knowledge and abilities. These generalists generally move either laterally or upwards increasing their breadth of knowledge and experience along the way. Individuals who follow this career path tend to prefer new challenges and assignments that will enable them to grow and develop professionally. This career path preference is particularly well suited for project and program management assignments within organizations.

Typical career anchors and motives of these individuals include professional growth and personal development, learning, coaching, developing others, and innovation. Appropriate organizational rewards for these individuals might include cross training, job rotation, project management, tuition and educational reimbursement and coaching and mentorship assignments.

Of course we find combinations of these drivers.  For example those of you high in both “specialist” and “entrepreneurial” anchors are likely to be attracted to external consulting.  Others with a combination of “managerial” and “generalist” love “fix it” assignments and short term challenges before moving on to another leadership opportunity.
So, stop teasing that specialist/independent contributor about leadership roles–they really just want to practice their craft and be left alone.  Oh, and stop trying to lead them too!  You will only frustrate yourself and drive your key talent away….Be well….

Technorati Tags: career paths, specialists, project managers, interests, entrepreneurial behavior, coaching, leadership, talent management, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

1. Avery, R.D., Zhang, Z. Avolio, B. & Kreuger, R.F. (2007).  Developmental and gentic determinants of leadership role occupancy among women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 693-706 [↩]
2. Bouchard, T.J. & Loehlin, J.C. (2001).  Genes, evolution and personality.  Behavior Genetics, 21, 243-273 [↩]

“There’s no such things as coulda, shoulda, or woulda. If you shoulda and coulda, you woulda done it.” Pat Riley

Both talent and jobs are multidimensional.  Performance and success at work is a function of three things:

1. What talent bring (i.e., what they can do)
2. What talent are motivated to do (i.e., what they want to do)
3. What talent have previously done (i.e., past performance)

In research on effective leaders, identifying and then cultivating the right talent seems to be a critical competency for effectiveness and success.  Every mistake an organization makes in hiring and promoting the wrong talent is incredibly costly.  The cost of turnover can range from 100% to 200% of a talent’s total benefit package and every mistake can dramatically affect the morale of the team and negatively impact current customers. 

High performers are attracted to other high performers and “lovable stars.”  Each mistake you make in hiring talent means you are missing out on another qualified candidate and possibly increasing turnover with your existing high potential and high performance employees.

If future performance is based on the three factors above, what types of assessments should be used to identify candidates with the greatest potential for future success and performance?

WHAT TALENT HAVE PREVIOUSLY DONE

• Resume/Work History
• Background Checks
• Structured Behavioral Interviews
• Drug Tests
• References
• Knowledge Tests

WHAT TALENT ARE MOTIVATED TO DO

• Career Interest Inventories
• Motivational Assessments
• Organizational Culture/Values Fit Assessments
• Honesty/Integrity Tests
• Signature Strengths

WHAT TALENT BRING

• Cognitive Ability/Intelligence
• Personality Assessments
• Aptitudes/Skills Assessments
• Simulations (e.g., Inbasket, role-plays)

So, know you have an evidenced based approach to talent selection. 

Which competencies actually are most predictive of success in leaders?

In a recent 2007 evaluation of 67 competencies in a financial services company by Lawrence P. Clark and Michelle Weitzman, only 6 competencies were significant predictors of individual financial performance goals:

• Drive for Results
• Decision Quality
• Hiring and Staffing
• Managing Vision and Purpose
• Developing Direct Reports
• Time Management

Certain leadership and personal competencies – including Motivating Others, Directing Others, Perseverance, Integrity/Trust, and Ethics/Values were not statistically significant in predicting success.  However, it might be argued that their absence might be highly predictive of failure. These competencies are obviously important within any corporate culture, but they did not appear to be critical for predicting high performance.

Similarly, the absence of some qualities and traits might be better at predicting failure (e.g., emotional intelligence, interpersonal competence, communication skills) but just because a leader has those does not necessarily ensure they will be a success.

Maybe now we can understand why selecting talent has often been more “art” than “science”….Be well….

Technorati Tags: pre-employment selection, assessment, interviewing, behavioral interviewing, emotional intelligence, personality inventories, work history, validation, interests, assessment centers, intelligence tests, cognitive ability measures, reference checks, peer ratings, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

80% of success is showing up” 

Woody Allen

Gosh, it’s hard to predict (good) talent these days.  Just look at these recent studies:

1. According to RHR International, 40% to 60% of high level corporate executives brought in from outside a company will fail within 2 years based on their 2006 analysis of clients.  Those who do fail most often derail quickly sometime between 7 to 9 months in the job.
2. Last year there were 28,058 executive turnovers including board members and executives from CEO down to VP a 68% increase over 2006 according to Liberum Research analysis of North American public companies—of those 44% of the positions were filled from outside the company.
3. Failure rate for hourly jobs approach 50% or more and about 20% of hiring decisions made for professional and salaried positions end in failure (Kronos, Inc.)
4. According to Robert Hogan (Vam Kurt, Hogan & Kaiser) the failure rate of managers in corporate America is 50% (this is pretty similar to divorce rates in California)

Based on several recent surveys (e.g., Abderdeen Group and Rocket-Hire), the utilization of assessment tools for pre-employment selection and promotion is approximately 60% to 70% across all industries with some projections of increased use in the next 12 months of about 14%. Of those using pre-employment assessments across job levels, the most popular approaches continue to be evaluation of work history, candidate interviews, skill and aptitude tests, and personality inventories.

Which approach to measuring key aspects of potential talent’s knowledge, experience and competence actually do a good job of predicting future success and performance? How should you go about making them legally defensible¹.

Current research on personality², emotional intelligence³ and traditional techniques⁴ provide some answers to these questions:

RANKING OF POPULAR ASSESSMENT APPROACHES TO SELECTION (VALIDITY COEFFICIENTS)

Work Sample Tests (.33 to .54)
Cognitive Ability/Intelligence Tests (.27 to .51)
Assessment Centers (.41 to .50)
Peer/Supervisory Ratings (.41 to .49)
Work History (.24 to .35)
Emotional Intelligence (.20 to .24)
Interviews (.15 to .38)
Personality Inventories (.15 to .31)
Reference Checks (.14 to .26)
Training Ratings (.13 to .15)
Self-Ratings (.10 to .15)
Education/Grade Point Average (.00 to .10)
Interests/Values (.00 to .10)
Age (.-.01 to .00)

Anyone that has some background in statistics will immediately recognize that all of these assessment approaches account for only a small amount of variance in predicting future success but these corrleations are traditionally what is found in other areas of research such as health and medicine (e.g., the correlation between taking asprin and reduced risk of death by heart attach is .02; coronary bypass surgery for stable heart disease and survival at 5 years is .08; and psychotherapy and subsequent well-being is .32). 

Although many are completely independent of each other (e.g., cognitive ability and personality) combining more than two does not seem to dramatically increase predictive validity of job performance and success.

In some cases, these assessment approaches might be stronger at predicting who is likely to fail better than who is likely to succeed….Handicap away!  Be well….

tags]pre-employment selection, assessment, interviewing, behavioral interviewing, emotional intelligence, personality inventories, work history, validation, interests, assessment centers, intelligence tests, cognitive ability measures, reference checks, peer ratings, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack[/tags]

1. Nowack, K. M. (1988). Approaches to validating assessment centers. Performance and Instruction, 27, 14-16 [↩]
2. Judge, T., Bono, J., Ilies, R., and Gerhardt, M. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780 [↩]
3. Van Rooy, D. & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 71-95 [↩]
4. Schmidt, F. and Hunter, J. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274 [↩]

“Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.”

Anonymous

I tried playing baseball when I was in college–pretty good fielder but struck out way too often.  I wonder if it was because my first name starts with the letter “K” instead of another letter? (Note: for non-baseball fans, “K” = strike out)

Maybe.  Some research supports this idea as well as children having first names starting with “A” do better academically then those with “D” of “F” as first names¹.  These authors review 5 studies–each with the same conclusion that people really like their names and initials (often referred to as the Name-Letter Effect). 

Nobody is really sure what’s up with this effect but the findings below on various performance outcomes provides some evidence that name liking impacts life success and outcomes by an implicit and unconscious process.

In their first study reviewing baseball player’s performance from 1913 to the present, those whose names began with the letter “K” struck out at a higher rate (in 18.8% of their plate appearances) than the remaining batters (17.2%), t(6395) = 3.08, p = .002.   No word on whether those on steroids did better though.

In another study, the same researchers explored the relationship between MBA student grades and the initials of their names in a data set from a private University from 1990 until 2004.  They compared students with first or last names starting with “A” or “B” with those with “C” or “D” as well as the rest of the students with names not having these initials.

Students whose names began with “C” or “D” had significantly lower grade point averages than those whose names began with “A” or “B”, (p = .001).  The authors state that “the data for students with initials in the “other” category provide a baseline that shows the effect was driven by students with the initials C and D performing worse than others, rather than by students with the initials A and B performing better than others.”

 In another study, the authors also found that students with names having initials “A” and “B” wound up at much better law schools than others (final sample with 170 law schools and 392,458 lawyers).  To measure law-school quality, they used the 2003 rankings from U.S. News & World Report but categorized them into four groups (low to high). As the quality of schools declined, so did the proportion of lawyers with initials “A” and “B” supporting the “Name-Letter Effect.” However, no word on whether a person who changes their name (e.g., the performer “formally known as….) does well in life.

My Dad’s first initial is an “A” and my Mom’s is a “B” so maybe the genetic combination of their two initials has been helpful to my life and career in some way.  I still can’t hit a curve ball but can still turn a pretty good double play….Be well….

Technorati Tags: surveys, Envisia, Envisia learning, retention, talent management, name-letter effect, unconscious pursuit of performance, academic success, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

1. Nelson, L. & Simmons, J. (2007).  Moniker Maladies: When names sabotage success.  Psychological Science, 18 (12) 1106-1112 [↩]

“Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.”

Mark Twain

Another addition of leadership and talent management “facts” from all over the world. Some intuitive and some not….what do you think?

1. CO2 Partners in a recent 2007 Internet survey of over 3,000 employees (90% middle to senior managers) found a supervisor as a source for workplace advice by 11%.  More workers relied on a peer (24%), another senior level employee (15%), a friend outside the company (14%) and mentor or coach (13%).  In response to the question of how often does your boss ask for your advice on solving a problem at work, 3.9% didn’t know, 62.6% said often/occasionally and 32.6% said seldom/never.

2. In a 2006 survey by CCH asking about the effectiveness and use of work/life programs, those rated as most widely used included: 1) EAP 73%; 2) Wellness programs 67%; 3) Leave for school functions 65%; 4) Flu shot programs 64%; 5) Alernate work arrangements 63%; 6) Telecommuting 59%; 7) Compressed work week 58%; Job sharing 51%; 9) Satellite work places 44% and 10) Childcare 44%.

3. In a recent 2007 survey by Robert Half International, 46% of executives surveyed said they rely heavily on instinct when making hiring decisions.  Another 49% follow their gut at least some of the time.

4. In a 2006 Performance Management Survey by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (formerly i4cp, formerly the Human Resource Institute) based on 1,031 respondents in diverse companies 8% said their performance management process contribute in a significant way; 45% said their PM processes contributes but more improvements are required; and 47% were not sure if the PM process makes any contribution at all.

5. In a 2007 survey by McKinsey & Company who asked senior executives of global companies to rank obstacles that prevent talent management programs from delivering business value—the eight most critical barriers included: 1) 54% senior managers don’t spend enough time on talent management; 2) 52% line managers not sufficiently committed to people development; 3) 51% silos discourage collaboration and resource sharing; 4) 50% line managers unwilling to differentiate high and low performers; 5) 47% senior leaders do not align talent management and business strategies; 6) 45% line managers ignore chronic underperformance; and 7) 39% planning or allocation do not match right people to roles.

6. In a 2005 Gallup survey on health, 54% of disengaged employees say their work has a negative affect on their health; 62% of engaged employees feel their work positively affects their physical health but among disengaged workers this drops to 22%

7. The 2007 Performance and Talent Management Trend Survey (SuccessFactors in cooperation with the Business Performance Management Forum and the Human Capital Institute) reports responses of 726 business executives and HR staff that nearly 75% of the respondents agree strongly or very strongly that talent management is a strategic priority at their company but only 57% said their companies have formal talent management plans in place.

8. Sirota Survey Intelligence in 2007 (64,304 workers) reports that employees at all ages and job levels who have been on the job less than a year report 70% satisfaction with their work.  After 2 to 5 years, job satisfaction dropped to 53%.

9. 61% of more than 1,300 executives from 71 countries believe that telecommuting decreases chances of advancing in one’s career despite that finding that over 33% of the executives notes that telecommuters are more productive (2007 Futurestep).  42% of the 1,730 executives said telecommuters were as productive as workers in traditional settings and 36% were more productive.  66% of the 1,944 executives said taking a sabbatical or extended break was “extremely” or “somewhat” beneficial to a person’s career.

10. Fatigued workers cost US employers $136.4 billion annually in health related lost productivity.  Tired workers averaged 5.6 hours weekly in lost productivity time compared to 3.3 hours from other workers (SHRM HR News)
Gosh, if these don’t fit your paradigm, just twist the facts….Be well….

Technorati Tags: talent management, succession planning, coaching, executive coaching, executive development, succession planning, leaderhship development, Envisia, Envisia Learning, surveys, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

“There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.”

Peter Drucker

Every year since 1983, Bain and Company has surveyed executives in various industries to weight and rate the level of satisfaction and use of over 100 popular tools (e.g., benchmarking, six sigma, corporate blogs).  With over 8,504 surveys they have summarized their findings over the last 15 years.

Their results are interesting and can be grouped into four categories with the following tools listed by executives on the basis of both use within their company and satisfaction with the results:

1. Low Satisfaction and Low Use: Corporate Blogs, Six Sigma, Offshoring, and Loyalty Management

2. Low Satisfaction and High Use: Balanced Scorecards, Knowledge Management, and Outsourcing

3. High Satisfaction and Low Use: Mergers and Acquisitions

4. High Satisfaction and High Use: Strategic Planning, Core Competencies, Customer Segmentation and CRM

Rated as higher usage and with only a moderate level of satisfaction: TQM, Mission and Vision Statements, Scenario and Contingency Planning, Strategic Alliances, Supply Chain Management and Benchmarking.  Of course, buying a tool at The Home Depot doesn’t ensure you use it correctly–even if it is proven to be the best one for the job!

Question: Do these tools really make a difference in company’s financial performance, customer satisfaction/service and quality?

Answer: In a recent analysis of survey results from over 200 Fortune 1000 firms from 1996 to 1999, Gibson, Porath, Benson and Lawler (2007) explored three broad organizational practices and their impact on specific outcomes((Gibson, C., Porath, C., Benson, G. & Lawler, E. (2007).  What results when firms implement practices: The differential relationship between specific practices, firm financial performance, customer service and quality.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1467-1480)).  The authors defined these three broad organizational practices as:

1. Information Sharing: These included distribution of information about firm financial results, business unit outcomes, new technology, and competitor’s performance to help employees understand the gap between current and desired level of firm performance.

2. Boundary Setting: These included establishing clear goals, responsibilities & procedures, and facilitating cohesion and coordination through the creation of mission/vision statements, strategic planning, training and firm-level policies.

3. Team Enabling: These practices promote the role of teams in organizations including organizational design with self-managing teams as well training on team building skills.

Evidenced based findings from these authors suggested that no single set of practices predicted all 3 firm level outcomes (financial, customer service and quality) suggesting that each has unique effects.  Their results suggested that:

• Information Sharing practices were positively and significantly related to financial performance 1 year following implementation of the practices
• Team Enabling practices were significantly related to quality improvement and innovation
• Boundary Setting practices were positively and significantly associated with customer satisfaction and service

Both the Bain & Company survey findings and recent research by Gibson et al., (2007) provide some wonderful clarity about what interventions and practices lead to specific organizational outcomes.  I’ve always like the slogan by Nike — but based on these findings it appears better to just do the right things right….Be well….

Technorati Tags: participative leadership, Envisia, Envisia learning, team building, information sharing, core competencies, strategic planning, balanced scorecard, six sigma, customer segmentation, mergers and acquisitions, corporate blogs, benchmarking, mission and vision statements, job stress, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

“Facts are ventriloquists dummies. Sitting on a wise man’s knee they may be made to utter words of wisdom; elsewhere, they say nothing, or talk nonsense, or indulge in sheer diabolism.”

Aldous Huxley

I have a habit of collecting some “facts” that I read in both academic non-academic journals.  I try sometimes to go back to the source for non-academic studies but can’t say I am always 100% successful in finding the exact citing. 

So, with a qualification that I’ve captured these as I’ve read them, I’d like to share some interesting leadership and talent management “facts” I’ve collected.  Here you go!

1. A 2007 survey study by Bersin & Associates on the Top 22 “Best Practices” which drive business impact based on 750 corporations, they rank the top six as being: 1) Coaching programs for employees (48%); 2) Consolidating staffing requirements across the organization (42%); 3) Ability of current workforce planning process to identify current and future talent gaps (38%); 4) Competencies maintained through annual maintenance process (384%); and 5) Staffing metrics (33%); Development planning (33%); and 6) Aligning golas to manager or corporate goals (33%).

2. The International Coach Federation in 2007 released the “ICF Global Coaching Study” which was conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and they conservatively estimated there are at least 30,000 coaches worldwide.  Estimated revenue generated by the industry is close to $1.5 billion (USD).  Approximately 400 new members are added to ICF each month and the organization has doubled in each of the last 3 years from 237 in 2004, 441 in 2005 and 807 in 2006. 

3. A 2006 survey by Marshall Goldsmith Partners, LLC and the Institute of Executive Development suggests that the coaching industry will grow at least 10% for the next three years.  Our own research questions whether it will become a science or a fad¹.

4. A recent survey by Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development  (CIPD) research in the UK that indicates that some 88% of organizations now expect line managers to deliver coaching.  The survey found that external coaches weren’t used at all in 32% of organizations. When they were used, they delivered less than 25% of the total coaching activities. But manager coaches receive very little training. The study goes on to report that only 2% of respondents train all managers to coach and only 17% train a majority.  I guess this adds to some of the arguments of Dr. Robert Hogan who has speculated that the “base rate” of incompetence ranges from 50% to 75% of all leaders.

5. In a 2007 survey of 180 organizations by the Institute for Corporate Productivity, 75% reported they are currently using psychological assessments for executive recruitment, selection and promotion.  52% utilize external psychologists and 64% utilize both interviews and assessments.  With that in mind, current research suggests strong caution in using personality inventories for personnel selection due to low validities in predicting future job performance.

6. Monster and Developmental Dimensions International (DDI) recently surveyed 1,250 hiring managers and 4,000 job hunters in their study “Slugging Through the War for Talent: Selection Forecast 2006-2007.  Job hunters reported their top three to be 1) Opportunities to learn/grow (78%); 2) Interesting work (77%); and 3) A good boss (75%).  Hiring managers and staffing directors reported that they believed what was most important to the job seeker was opportunity to advance (69%) although hiring managers also rated working for a “good manager/boss” as equally important.

7. A recent survey from Hudson Institute suggests that half of American workers fail to take all of their vacation time.  30% take less than half of their allotted time. And 20% take only a few days instead of a week or two.  Among extremists, 42% claim they cancel vacations regularly. Even when we go away, we don’t seem to really get away mentally. 

8. University of Michigan professor David Meyer suggests that at least 6% of Internet users have become clinically addicted.  David Greenfield, Ph.D., founder of the Center for Internet Studies (www.virtual-addiction.com) has conducted one of the largest surveys on the topic to date: a 1998 study of 18,000 Internet users who logged onto the ABC News Web site and found that 5.7 percent of his sample met the criteria for compulsive Internet use.

9. In a survey of 477 senior executives conducted by the Association of Executive Search Consultants (AESC), nearly half of the 402 male respondents said they now ask for less travel when negotiating a job offer than they did in the past. Fifty-five percent said they are less willing now to take a new job that requires frequent business travel than they were five years ago.

10.  Hay Group, a global management consulting firm, discovered in a recent study that among 75 key components, “trust and confidence in top leadership” was the single most reliable predictor of employee satisfaction.  In some new research exploring the factors that keep talent, Terence Mitchell and colleagues have introduced a powerful new construct called “job embeddedness” that involves: 1) Relationships; 2) “Fit” between the individual and organization; and 3) Perceived fairness and what the person would have to sacrifice if they left.

 So, I will leave you with another quote by Robert Ballard who once said, “Don’t confuse facts with reality”….Be well….

Technorati Tags: talent management, succession planning, coaching, executive coaching, executive development, surveys, kenneth nowack, ken nowack, nowack

1. Nowack, K. (2003). Executive Coaching: Fad or Future? California Psychologist, Vol. XXXVI, No. 4, 16-17 [↩]