A Gift for Those Who Hate Their Job
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 16, 2007
I love consulting and blogging.? The fact that?neither is?illegal, sinful, or fattening is just mind boggling to me.??Furthermore, it’s amazing to get paid to say the very things my former bosses told me to stop talking about!
For those of you who have not yet found a job that does not feel like work, I offer the following electronic vacation countdown calendar compliments of Bahama Breeze.
?I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
Filed Under Employee Engagement, Managerial Leadership, Requisite Organization, Talent Management | Comments Off on A Gift for Those Who Hate Their Job
It’s a Small World After All: Micro Solutions for Macro Organizational Problems
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 15, 2007
Michael McKinney?reviews the book,?Optimizing Luck on his informative Leading Blog.? I haven’t read the book, but for the most part, I agree with Michael’s commentary and the overall premise of the book.?
?It’s the last paragraph of the post, which is an excerpt from the book, that pains me.? Once again, we are thinking too small!!!
Differences in levels of success often come down to differences in personal habits.? People employ decades-old systems of habits to get through the day.? However, most people put no special thought into developing these systems.? They pick up a few tricks from mom and dad and a few teachers and a lot from their peers, while growing up and going through school.? And that?s where their habit-developing effort stops.
I’d prefer?we took this paragraph and upgraded it by one level of abstraction by changing the word people to organizations…
Differences in levels of success often come down to differences in organizational habits.? Organizations employ decades-old systems of habits to get through the day.? However, most organizations put no special thought into developing these systems.? They pick up a few tricks from mom and dad and a few teachers and a lot from their peers, while growing up and going through school.? And that?s where their habit-developing effort stops.
My work is done here.? I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
Filed Under Corporate Values, Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, Requisite Organization, Talent Management | Comments Off on It’s a Small World After All: Micro Solutions for Macro Organizational Problems
Fixing Talent Management Systems – The Road Less Taken
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 13, 2007
I came across an article on FastCompany.com entitled, Ten Habits of Incompetent Managers.? The list appears below. It’s written by a Talent and Career expert with an impressive pedigree including a former CEO position. Obviously, an experienced and competent lady.
Within her list of ten habits, I took the liberty of bolding the seven symptoms commonly seen when an employee is overcommitted in his/her role.? Meaning the complexity level of the role is beyond that of the current cognitive problem solving capability of the employee.? The remaining three unbolded habits could potentially point to the same root issue but more investigation would be required.
Ten Habits of Incompetent Managers
? Bias against action
? Secrecy
? Over-sensitivity
? Love of procedure
? Preference for weak candidates
? Focus on small tasks
? Allergy to deadlines
? Inability to hire former employee
? Addiction to consultants
? Long hours
When you see these habits, yes, it likely means the employee is incompetent in his/her current role.
What makes me sad about the article is that rather than viewing the managers who display these habits as honorable people mismatched to their roles, the author chooses to write them off as them incompetent. Once again, we are taking the road of blaming employees rather than addressing the system that allowed for this person to be hired into the role in the first place.
If these “incompetent” managers were redeployed into roles matching their current capability, these signs of incompetence would likely disappear.? Their incompetence is contextual not inherent.
For those organizations warring for talent, take heed.? Just because a person is failing at one role does not mean they should be kicked to the curb.? In reality, the failure of the employee is a failure of the original hiring manager who slotted the employee in a role above his or her head in the first place.
Unfortunately, labeling employees as incompetent is easier than ensuring an organization’s managers understand work levels and are trained to match employees to roles.
Research shows that 35% of employees mismatched to their roles in terms of problem solving capability.
I’m OK. You’re OK. Let’s fix the system.
Filed Under Requisite Organization | Comments Off on Fixing Talent Management Systems – The Road Less Taken
How to Assess Potential for Succession Planning and Development
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 12, 2007
Although?it’s becoming clear that?succession planning is important, a Harvard Business Review study finds 60% of US companies have no plan in place.?
Why is no one planning for succession??
Because managers have a conscience!? I suspect the whimsy, inconsistent, politically-laden assessing-potential processes most organizations resort to using leave managers feeling queasy and sleazy.? No wonder they avoid it.
Consider the following metaphor, you and I can fight all day about whether the room we are sitting in is hot or cold.??Who is right?? Succession planning can be a little like this.? One person’s smart employee can be another’s fool.? But you and I could walk together to the thermostat and agree that the room temperature is 70 degrees.? Just as we can agree to the problem solving capability level of a given employee.? Whether I think this person is smart or dumb becomes irrelevant.
If we can stratify jobs into levels of complexity and then compare people’s ability relative to?their ability to solve problems at that level, we no longer have to?use meaningless words (dumb, smart, clever, sharp)?to describe capability.? Instead we can say, this person is currently capable of level 3 work, and that means the same thing to all of us.?
Giving Managers a Common Language
The problem with nearly all succession planning is that it has no scientific theory base, and therefore, no universal measures or common language.? Using a work levels theory base, aka stratified systems theory aka requisite organization, makes assessing potential relatively straightforward because it provides universal measures and a common language.
When I work with clients to help their line managers assess potential, we are looking for level of cognitive capacity to solve problems, aka current potential capability.
Brace Yourself for a Little Theory?
Work can be divided into discreet levels of complexity (just as H2O can exist as ice, water, or steam).? Using a universal measurement system, time span of discretion, all jobs can be classified by level.? Each level of work calls for a specific level of cognitive capacity, aka complexity of information processing.
How to Assess Potential?Rapidly and Consistently
So when we assess potential, we are looking at the level at which a person can currently solve problems, or at what level of the organization are they currently suited to work.? Then, we look at the level of their current role.?
What to Do with the Results
If an employee’s cognitive capacity matches the role, no action is required.
If they have greater potential than the role, the manager-once-removed (who is accountable for talent development of his people two levels down) needs to look to get the person promoted.? This might require filling any current skill or experience gaps that would allow for this person to assume a role that matches their current cognitive capacity.
When a person has cognitive capacity below that required of their current role, that person should be redeployed into a lower level role.
Accurate Data?for?Succession and?Development Planning?
Cognitive capacity matures throughout our lifetimes in a predictable manner. ?If you know a person’s current capacity and age, you can predict their future potential as well.? So long term development planning is possible.?
Any thoughts?? Have I raised or lowered your blood pressure?
Filed Under Executive Leadership, High Potential, Managerial Leadership, Requisite Organization, Succession Planning, Talent Management | 6 Comments
The Catch 22 of What I Do – A Friday Funny If You Read to the End
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 9, 2007
I got some second-hand feedback from an executive?at a global corporation, “I don’t appreciate the sarcastic tone [of Mission Minded],” said “Tracey”.
Tracey viewed the site after my chronically underutilized friend, who appreciates the site immensely, recommended it.? My friend said that Tracey has had the unusual experience of being fully utilized her entire career.
That got me thinking.? My?passion is working?with executives to implement a total-systems model for managerial leadership, talent management,?and organization design – one that enables productive work.? One that affords each employee an opportunity to work at their fullest potential.
Interestingly, today’s executives are yesterday’s employees who made it to the top within the current system.? If I were one of those executives, I might be resistant to believe the system is broken – even though 79% of employees are disengaged at work.? I suspect a large portion of the 21% who are engaged sit in the executive offices.? They aren’t evil; they just haven’t walked a mile in disengaged, pinching, stiletto?shoes.
So how do you convince executives that a total-systems approach might be worth looking into?? Any marketing advice?? Sometimes I feel like I might as well be trying to convince them to build flying cars.
For a chuckle, watch this clip, Mean Automakers Dash Nation’s Hope For Flying Cars,?and substitute the words “total-systems approach” for flying car.? Put me in the role of the interviewer.
Incidentally, flying cars might not be that far off as some trailblazing executives are on the task.? Are you a trailblazing executive interested in being on the leading edge of talent management?? Let’s chat.? I’m OK. You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
*Photo from Moller International
Filed Under Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Talent Management | 6 Comments
Corporate Collateral Damage – One in Five Employees is Underutilized
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 8, 2007
Squandered Potential
Having partnered with managers to assess the potential of over 6000 employees, our data shows that about one in five employees is capable of performing higher level work than that called for by their current role.
The Perilous Road to the Executive Suite
Young, high potentials are chronically underutilized as their problem solving capability outruns their experience and wisdom.? The road to gaining enough experience and wisdom in order to be trusted with a higher level role that matches their problem solving capability?is filled with potholes and landmines.?
Those who survive become executives; those who don’t become corporate collateral damage.
Let’s Eliminate Corporate Collateral Damage
Mission Minded Management?was created to raise corporate?collateral damage awareness, and we are looking for a few surviving executives interested in designing systems that eliminate this useless tragedy.?
Mr. or Mrs. Executive, if you lost a few high-quality brothers and sisters-in-arms along the perilous road to the executive suite, do it for them.??Or if not for them, do it for the next generation of recruits?whom you are struggling to attract and retain.??Technology has given them options your generation did not have.? They need no longer travel the corporate road; they can pave their own.
I received an email from a sister who was lost on the road to the executive suite.? Here are her words:
“Only rarely do I run across such a collection of writings I find that nail problems I’ve dealt with for years! “Mission Minded Management” is chock-full of statements I can directly relate to.? I swear, I think 90% of your posts I could comment on with an illustrative, first-hand anecdote!
Please, use your time to the benefit of the youth who are now assuming management roles and continue what you’ve started.?? I’ve already been used-up and dumped by the side of the managerial road, besides I’m too old now, so no need to respond to me.”
Do you have a corporate war story to share???
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
Filed Under Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, High Potential, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Talent Management | Comments Off on Corporate Collateral Damage – One in Five Employees is Underutilized
Succession Management: Whose Eyes Are Focused on Talent?
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 7, 2007
When it comes to spotting talent, perspective is everything.? Asking managers to choose and groom their own replacements is a misguided notion for a variety of reasons I’ve discussed in previous posts.? They simply don’t have enough distance on the situation.
Rather, the manager-once-removed should be accountable for mentoring for long-term career development.? Why? They are in the best position to see which employees working two levels down are currently capable for a promotion, in other words, which employee(s) could currently work for them, the manager-once-removed.
Why? When organizations are designed correctly, each layer of management should have problem solving capability one level beyond that of the previous.? When this is the case, each layer of management is capable of seeing a bigger picture than the previous.
Notice how?a little distance on the image below gave you an entirely different perspective?
?
Filed Under Executive Leadership, High Potential, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Succession Planning, Talent Management | Comments Off on Succession Management: Whose Eyes Are Focused on Talent?
Why is Succession So Badly Managed? A Globally-Thought-Provoking Subject
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 6, 2007
I made a comment to a CEO succession post on Harvard Business School’s Working Knowledge entitled, Why is Succession So Badly Managed?
My comment was no more?brilliant and certainly not as detail-rich as many I have posted here, but I have seen a substantial spike in global traffic driven by my comment.? Many of these new?readers are staying on the site for 10 and 20 minutes; several have surpassed the one hour mark.
So as not to deprive my regular readers of this globally-thought-provoking?insight, I am posting my slightly-refined comment here as well.? Some of it is review:
Succession planning should be a piece of a larger talent management system.? A critical key to an effective system is eliminating some of the conflicting interests.
Contrary to current talent management models, two levels of talent development accountability are needed.
1. The manager needs to be accountable for developing employees to maximize their current potential in their current role.
2. Managers-once-removed need to be accountable for long-term career development and mentoring of their direct reports once removed for future assignments.
Making managers accountable for spotting high potentials can lead to talent hoarding when underutilized employees are well behaved, and conversely, high potentials frequently clash with their managers because they are nipping at the managers’ heels and they threaten their managers.
It is only when organization’s institutionalize the idea of regular face time between employees and their managers-once-removed will high potentials “suddenly appear” when they were right there under the nose of the manager all along.
So in the case of a board of directors, it should be accountable for both assessing potential and long term development of the CEO’s direct reports.?? If they do this, then,?when it’s time for CEO succession, they only need execute their plan, not begin their planning.
I’m OK. You’re OK. Let’s fix the broken system.
Filed Under Accountability, Executive Leadership, High Potential, Managerial Leadership, Requisite Organization, Succession Planning, Talent Management | Comments Off on Why is Succession So Badly Managed? A Globally-Thought-Provoking Subject
Integrated Organization Design and Leadership Approach Seen as Frequently as a Ninja Parade
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 3, 2007
Seventy nine percent?of your?employees called – they are disengaged and waiting for their executive leadership to take systems-level approach to organization design and managerial leadership.
A science-based framework already exists, but it’s been about as visible as a ninja parade.? Why?? The pain of the “blame the employee” model is not yet greater than the perceived pain of implementing a new one, but with only 21% employee engagement, I suspect we are getting close.
View the?Ninja Parade Footage?
In the meantime, employees will continue to give their best hoping to catch a glimpse of an integrated model, like an optimistic crowd waiting to see a ninja parade?- click for the news story.
Filed Under Corporate Values, Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Succession Planning, Talent Management | Comments Off on Integrated Organization Design and Leadership Approach Seen as Frequently as a Ninja Parade
Merrill Lynch – Buy or Sell? Depends on the Successor’s Cognitive Capacity
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 1, 2007
The fundamental determinant of a company?s growth, stability, or contraction is the cognitive capacity level of its CEO.? It’s what I refer to in this blog as problem-solving capability and what Elliott Jaques called complexity of information processing.
–If a?CEO’s cognitive?capability level?matches the level of work of the CEO role in a particular organization, you can expect stability.?
–If the CEO’s capability is lower than that called for by the role, it’s time to sell your stock.?
–If the CEO has excess capacity, fasten your seatbelt for growth.
Not all CEO roles are created equal, the level of the role will depend upon the size and complexity of the organization.? Generally, a single business unit organization will top out at level 5.? Multi-business unit organizations have 6 or 7 levels, and only the largest mega-corporations have 8.
What would I do if Alberto Cribiore, the Merrill Lynch board member leading the search committee to replace Stanley O’Neal, called me in a panic because the board dropped the ball on succession planning?
CEO Succession Process
- I would do an analysis of the organization and its strategy to determine the highest level of work within the organization, which would specify the level of work of the CEO’s role.?
- I would talk with the board about their future strategy to determine if they want to hire for stability (CEO capacity matching the role)?or growth (+1 CEO capacity).?
- Then, we would screen the CEO candidates to determine the current level of problem solving capability and hire accordingly.? Of course, knowledge, skills, experience and values would be factors as well, but cognitive capacity calibrated to strategy level would be the imperative.
Most of us view ourselves as “out of the box” thinkers, but despite over 50 years of research on the subject, most management consultants and business executives simply remain blind to the idea of levels of work and corresponding cognitive capacity.?
Accurately matching cognitive capacity to roles at all levels of?the organization?is the key to bringing about?all that is lacking these days – employee engagement and retention of high potentials.
Curious?? Let’s chat.
Filed Under Executive Leadership, High Potential, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Succession Planning, Talent Management | 3 Comments
Subscribe in a reader
