Declaring a Major at 18 When We Don’t Know Who We Are Until We’re 30
By Michelle Malay Carter on January 30, 2008
I think most people reach about 30 years of age before they really know who they are and how that might translate into a job, and for some it happens later than that.? Some of this likely stems from our current education and work paradigms.
My 15 year old neighbor is already being pressured as a freshman in high school to start preparing for her career now!? She took an online assessment, and it said careers she should consider are artist, actress, a social worker and a data programmer!? Rather than providing clarity and confidence, this seems to have made her more stressed.
Unfortunately, when we try something and?dislike it?or find we are not gifted for it, we often regard these experiences as failures rather than experiments which helped us narrow our field of potential interests.? How often do we stick with things long after we should have moved on?
In my last post, I talked about the four year university experience and how it might be becoming outdated.? I think one of the limitations of the current?system is the lack of process for quickly eliminating subjects we do not care for.?
One Idea – University 101 Short Courses
I’m all for a liberal studies base.? Maybe all University 101 courses should be half-semester, short-courses designed to quickly expose students to a variety of fields and allow them to experiment and eliminate at twice the speed and half the investment.? Wouldn’t it also be great if those courses featured several interactive sessions with various people actually working in the field?
What a tragedy it is when a student?completes a four year degree, lands his first job, and realizes he hates the work!? Unwilling to cut their losses, some people spend their entire career doing work that makes them miserable.? Let’s face?it.? Some careers are far more glamorous in our minds (or on TV)?than they are in real life.? I’ve been told?architecture is one; being a medical doctor is another.
School Credit for Work
I read in the paper yesterday?that in Britain, students will now be able to receive high school credit for working at McDonalds.??I think this is a great idea.? The sooner we can begin having work experiences, the more we can use it to inform our educational choices.
I would love for this trend to continue?by allowing?adult workers to earn college credit for their work within an organization.? This way, one wouldn’t have to wait to begin a career until after college.? You could begin career, earn a few credits, then choose some courses based upon your work experiences.? I think intermingling work and school is a great idea for expediting the process of finding our place of flow.? The wide availability of online courses makes this an option even if you don’t live near a university.
Wouldn?t it be neat if education became more about building knowledge and skills our areas of interest and passion rather than about obtaining a degree?
Change Begins with Changing Our Mindsets
This model, however, could only work if organizations were willing to hire people whose college education was currently a “work in progress” rather than a “done deal”.
With most HR departments?expected to?minimize risk rather than lead change, I don’t see this? happening any time soon.
What other ways would universities and work organizations need to change to embrace a more integrated work/education experience?? Your thoughts on this subject?
Filed Under Organization Design, Personal Observation, Strategy, Talent Management | 7 Comments
Circumventing the Four-Year University Machine
By Michelle Malay Carter on January 29, 2008
I’m not a futurist, but my last post about Management Megatrends got?me thinking about other potential “machines” that may become either irrelevant or reinvented in my lifetime.?? So this post is mostly musing and is more about questions than answers.? I’d love to get your perspective as I go out on a limb and poke at some deeply ingrained mindsets and institutions.
In a previous post I mentioned that now that Bill Gates has left his role in Microsoft day-to-day operations, he could not get hired back by his own organization because he has no college degree.
The four year university has been the requisite professional-job-attainment pathway for decades.?
- Has the pendulum swung too far??
- Has a university degree become a proxy for managerial judgment in hiring decisions??
- Are we giving a degree more reverence than it is due?? We all know bright, successful people without degrees and vice versa.
- With the widespread availability of online curriculum, will the?four year university model become obsolete?
I may need a four year degree to land a job with the “organizational machine”, but I don’t need one to start my own business.? As more and more of our?youngest and brightest reject the idea of sitting through four years of coursework, much of it they may find either irrelevant or uninteresting, will the degree become less and less coveted?
Wouldn’t it be neat?if education became more about building knowledge and skills our areas of interest and passion rather than about obtaining a degree?
Do we need to rethink the four year University?? Is the model still relevant in our digital age?? What do you think?
Filed Under Corporate Values, Organization Design, Personal Observation, Strategy, Talent Management | 5 Comments
Circumventing the Machine – Wake Up! The World is Changing
By Michelle Malay Carter on January 27, 2008
I watched a video presentation by two futurists called Media Megatrends.? In it, Glen Hiemstra mentions that his assistant, a member of the?younger?”digital native” generation, remarked that once her phone/mobile device?had projection capability, she would no longer need a computer.? With projection, she could watch video on any wall, and she could type on any flat surface via a projected keyboard.? In essence, she would be circumventing the cpu/monitor machine.
It occurred to me that this concept of, Circumventing the Machine, is a metaphor for our times.? Film makers no longer need the Hollywood “machine” to reach an audience.? Song artists no longer need the record label “machine”, and writers, such as myself,?no longer need traditional media outlets to speak their minds.?
Consequently, traditional media machines are scrambling to figure what their role is within this new paradigm.
Management Megatrends
A parallel in this same universe is that recognition that workers no longer need the “organizational machine” to find work, and young high potentials have the most options.? Enduring years of boredom and other various forms of organizational sadism with an eye toward reaching the C-suite or simply just feeding one’s family is no longer the only way.? The monopoly has been broken, and organizations are struggling to find a way to compete for talent.
What do employees want?? Quite simply, they want to be led compellingly and to be free to use their gifts and talents unencumbered by the trappings of the current “management machine”.
To offer that to employees, organizations will need to:
- Understand how to structure and codify accountability and authority to eliminate conflicts of interest.?
- Institute a clear set of managerial leadership practices.
- Understand?levels of work and?its relationship to?organizational structure.
- Understand levels of work, cognitive capability and their relationship to talent management.
- Understand levels of work, cognitive capability,?and their relationship to leadership.
Incremental Change Will Not Work
Working harder or smarter to implement current management systems is not the answer.? It is time to fundamentally change the way we approach talent management, organizational structure and managerial leadership.? To date, the Requisite Organization model is the only total system model that integrates these items into a coherent whole.
Some Name Dropping
W. Edwards Deming offered his highest compliment to the Requisite Organization model by simply stating that, “Requisite Organization is a system.”
Marshall Goldsmith has this to say about the recent edited book published by Requisite professional society:? “While my work involves helping executives improve themselves, their people and their teams — this book?[Organization Design, Levels of Work & Human Capability]?can help executives develop their entire organizations to achieve positive, lasting change, and so that every individual in the company can make his or her maximum contribution!”
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
What trends are you seeing?
Photo credit to Vintage Computing and Gaming – Retro Scan of the Week.
Filed Under Accountability, Corporate Values, Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Strategy, Talent Management | 1 Comment
Seamless Integration – A True Work of Art
By Michelle Malay Carter on January 24, 2008
We’ve been talking about integrating the work of the team this week.? Do you think the artistry in the following video clip could have been accomplished without a leader integrating the work of the team?
Filed Under Accountability, Managerial Leadership, Requisite Organization, Talent Management | 2 Comments
Organizational Silos? No One to Blame but the CEO
By Michelle Malay Carter on January 23, 2008
In my last post, I said that the manager owns the output of his team, as it is his accountability to integrate the work of the team.
Therefore, when organizational silos exist between the functions, the person who owns all the functions, usually the CEO,?is not doing his job to integrate the work of the team.
Silo Example
I once worked for a company where the sales department would frequently run retail special promotions?that would create order volume that operations could not deliver within the time frame guaranteed to the customer.
The sales group achieved their productivity numbers, but it was at the expense of the operations managers’ numbers.? Additionally, the “special promotion” cut the profit margin on each sale, and we owed recompense to our customers for late delivery.? When you take into account the damage to the company’s reputation, I have to wonder how the sales department got away with it.? Who was sleeping at the wheel?
My Requisite Diagnosis?
If I were to put on my requisite consultant goggles, I would say there were several potential issues here.
1.? The CEO was not integrating the work of the team.
Why?? Possibly ignorance.? Or he was lacking the cognitive capability needed to integrate the work of the team.? If the latter, then the board of directors is to blame for hiring a CEO incapable of the CEO work.
2.? Clear accountabilities for how sales and operations were to work with one another were not codified.
3. The performance management system only took into account productivity NUMBERS not overall effectiveness.
4. The head of the sales and/ or operations functions were not staffed at work level 4 which is the first level at which a person can contain and integrate multiple serial pathways.?
If my cognitive capability is at level 3, I can work with multiple serial pathways, but I deal with them independently.? I do not yet take into account the intersection of the pathways.? So if I am in sales at level 3, I see my role as making the sales processes faster, cheaper, more efficient, but I do not take into consideration how it will affect other departments.? From an organizational standpoint, this type of thinking is OK and necessary (at level 3)?as long as there is someone above me at level 4 doing the integration work.
5.? The roles of the head of the sales and/or operations functions were slotted at level 4 on the organizational chart, but the person/people occupying them were not yet capable of level 4 work.
Did you notice how important understanding requisite work levels and organizational design are to effectiveness and productivity??? I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
Have you ever watched one department undercut another?? What do you think was going on?
Filed Under Accountability, Executive Leadership, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Strategy | 9 Comments
Integrating the Work of the Team – When the Left Hand Disagrees with the Right
By Michelle Malay Carter on January 21, 2008
Managers own the output of their team.? Hence, seamless integration of each team member’s work?need be a critical managerial leadership accountability.? Is it??
Has your manager every held you specifically accountable for integrating the work of your team?? Did you discuss this concept in your MBA program?
How Hierarchies Work?
In a managerial hierarchy,?any given?manager has work to be done as assigned by his manager.? In order to get that work done, he enlists his direct reports to do portions of his work which then input back?into the manager’s larger work goal.
What to Do with Conflicting Goals?
When Team Member A and Team Member B happen upon what appear to be conflicting work goals, what should be the proper course of action?? (Key word in the last sentence is should.)
Specifying the Rules of Engagement for Peers – A Nonexistent Practice
Team members, i.e. peers, should be accountable to make mutual accommodations in their work in light of their manager’s larger goal.? In other words, they are accountable to resolve differences as they believe their manager would have them resolve them based on the context the manager has provided them.?If this is unclear, it means that the team members do not have enough context to make an informed decision, and they should proceed to their manager to have him make the decision, in light of his greater context.? No fighting or animosity required.
The Tattle Tale Fear?
This makes perfect sense as I type it, but I ask you, how often do peers interact as competitors or contentious siblings rather than partners?? Without the clear and explicit understanding that their mutual manager is accountable for the integration of their work, peers resist going to their manager for fear of being seen as “tattle tales”.
Frequently, the manager himself, does not understand this accountability and leaves peers to “work things out” amongst themselves.? This ignorance is costly.
Nature Abhors a Vacuum – Organic Systems Emerge where Intentional Systems are Absent?
In the absence of a?managerial leadership system which codifies clear accountabilities and authorities for peers and managers, a default system of “every?team member for himself ” emerges.?
In an “every man for himself” system, peers must figure out how to get their work done in spite oftheir team member, not along with their team member.? We set up a zero sum game, i.e. my productivity must come at my team member’s expense.? We’ve created a petri dish for dysfunction, and we see resentment, sabotage, information hoarding, withdrawal, and anything but teamwork, collaboration, and cooperation.
The Solution?- Ignorance Can No Longer Be an Excuse
Once again we are back to the need for an integrated,?total-systems approach to managerial leadership which is codified and embedded into everyday policies, practices, and procedures.?
Currently, most organizations are operating at the hands of organic, default leadership systems that have emerged in?the vacuum created by ignorance of?a better way.
As of today, you may no longer use ignorance as an excuse.? Start the new year by committing to enabling productive work within your organization through systems design at the executive level and managerial leadership skill building throughout your organization.
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
Share Your Story
Have you ever worked in a system where your productivity was pitted against that of a peer?
Filed Under Accountability, Corporate Values, Executive Leadership, Managerial Leadership, Requisite Organization | 3 Comments
Changing the Conversation about Work – A Friday Funny
By Michelle Malay Carter on January 17, 2008
Have you heard – I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system??
If you hadn’t noticed, I’m determined to change the focus of the conversations?being had about talent management, organization design, and leadership.? Why?? Because I imagine what work could be, and I want that for people.?
AT&T does a great job of capturing “what could be” in this commercial as well.? It makes me laugh every time I see it.
Filed Under Accountability, Corporate Values, Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, High Potential, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Strategy, Succession Planning, Talent Management | Comments Off on Changing the Conversation about Work – A Friday Funny
Science Doesn’t Lie, But Liars Can Use Science (and Idiots too)
By Michelle Malay Carter on January 16, 2008
The Invisible Killer – Dihydrogen Monoxide
Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there.? Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage.? Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance.? For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
Dihydrogen monoxide:
- also known as hydroxyl acid is the major component of acid rain.
- contributes to the “greenhouse effect.”
- may cause severe burns.
- contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
- accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
- may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
- has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions!
Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today.? But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the US Midwest and recently California.
Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
- as an industrial solvent and coolant.
- in nuclear power plants.
- in the production of styrofoam.
- as a fire retardant.
- in many forms of cruel animal research.
- in the distribution of pesticides.? Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
- as an additive in certain “junk-foods” and other food products.
Legalized Dumping!
Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal.? The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!
The Horror Must Be Stopped!
The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its “importance to the economic health of this nation.”? In fact, the Navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations.? Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network.? Many store large quantities for later use.
Would You Sign a Petition to Ban DHMO?
A science fair student, who put together the information above,?asked 50 people if they supported a ban of the chemical.
- Forty-three (43) said yes,
- Six (6) were undecided,
- Only one (1) knew that the chemical was water.
The title of his prize winning project was, “How Gullible Are We?”?
Are hierarchical organizational designs the bane of employee engagement or the answer to it?? Hummmm
Filed Under Accountability, Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, Organization Design, Personal Observation, Requisite Organization, Strategy, Talent Management | 2 Comments
Why We Resist Positional Power – One Third of Employees Have Managers Who Can’t Be Their Leader
By Michelle Malay Carter on January 15, 2008
Positional power, like hierarchies, is getting a bad rap from the kumbaya crowd these days.? No one appreciates abuse of power, and I am not denying its prevelance.?? However, eliminating positions within organizations is ludicrous.? Positional power is not inherently a bad thing.?
What is bad is the confounded systems and unvalidated criteria that organizations use to place people into leadership positions in the first place, and by the way, all managerial positions have leadership accountabilities.
If we understood the roots of what makes for satiating leadership, designed a selection process around these elements, and then reliably screened for these elements, employees would have no issue with positional power because the system would ensure that leadership capability?was embedded within the positional capabilities.
Why the Revolt and Distain for Positional Power??
About one in three employees within organizations is being asked to commit and submit to the leadership of a manager who does not have the cognitive capacity to be the employee’s thought leader.? A manager may have more experience or education, but raw cognitive capability is a separate factor.?
Therein should lie the distain -?for the deficient talent management systems that deny one-third of our workforce proper leadership.
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
Have you ever worked for a boss with more experience than you but who “thought small” and didn’t give you the?big picture answers you needed?
Filed Under Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, Managerial Leadership, Requisite Organization, Strategy, Talent Management | Comments Off on Why We Resist Positional Power – One Third of Employees Have Managers Who Can’t Be Their Leader
Who is Accountable for Hiring Mistakes? Who Owns the Selection System?
By Michelle Malay Carter on January 14, 2008
Organizations have a habit of mismatching.
Research shows that:
- 35% of employees are mismatched to their jobs, i.e. have problem solving capability over or under their job, leaving them bored or incapable.
- 39% are mismatched to their managers, i.e. their manager does not have problem solving capability exactly one level above the employee, leaving the employee feeling micromanaged or without enough context.
There is a lot of mis-hiring going on, so the question becomes, who is accountable?? Well, who wrote the job description?? Who chose the selection criteria?? Who created the screening and interviewing process?? Who conducted the interview?? Where does the buck stop?
Mismatched Accountabilities and Authorities
Accountabilities and authorities are often mismatched as well.? We cannot hold managers accountable for mis-hires, when they don’t have the authority to hire who they want (or remove nonperforming employees.)? Once another party, such as HR,?has the authority to interfere in the selection process, we have now splintered the accountability, and the buck becomes available for passing back and forth.? Remember, team accountability is a myth.
We can no longer afford to deal with performance management (to include selection) in a piece meal fashion.? We must increase the level of sophistication of our people systems if we ever hope to?extract ourselves from?this 29% employee engagement hole.
Integration Lowers Frustration
Performance management, and all its parts,?must be integrated into a total system, and only then can we begin to clarify accountabilities and authorities.? Systems (and I’m not talking about IT systems) must be mapped, owned, monitored, and continuously improved based on feedback.
For too long, HR has been focused on programs, not systems.? The lack of integration and cohesiveness amongst the various programs (job scoping,?recruiting, screening, interviewing training, compensation, employee development, employee relations, etc.)?has created huge confusion, frustration, and conflicts of interests within organizations.
Maybe as a handful of us begin to sing this tune in concert, it will fall upon alert ears.? I talk about a need for integrated systems in nearly all my posts. A post in Frank Roche’s Know HR provided me with the terminology, systems versus programs.? It’s from a new book that I haven’t read, The New Human Capital Strategy, but the excerpt Frank posted is encouraging.
I’m Ok.? You’re Ok.? Let’s fix the system.
Have you ever suffered at the hands of a deficient system?
Filed Under Accountability, Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Talent Management | 2 Comments
Subscribe in a reader