Internal recruitment: right or wrong?

 

    One of my readings today has been an article in HR Magazine: ‘Internal Recruitment: Right or Wrong?’.  I found it an irritating article (eg I for one have never heard anyone in business use the words ‘people are critical to the business’) but it does make one strong challenge:

“The main disadvantage of internal recruitment is that the pool in which you are fishing for talent is limited, leading to a toleration of candidates who are good enough but not great - and that's not good enough!”

 

It’s a good suggestion with an element of truth and has also got me thinking because I’m shortly going to be inputting on a panel from the other side of the fence (not sure if that’s a mixed metaphor or not!).

This is a session on 19th July being organised by Monster, with Keith Robinson of HR Buzz, which will be the first of a series of sessions called Monster Buzz.  This one will also feature Isabella Hung at TMS, Lee Moody from Rank, Matthew Jeffery from Autodesk, Marilyn Davidson from APSCo and Steve McNally from The Equality Law Group.

 

The first thing to note is that this is obviously a rather theoretical question – in practice you need to do both  - the HR Magazine article calls this a balanced approach.  And actually the use of the word ‘balance’ is appropriate.  To buy or to build, including through internal recruitment, isn’t a choice – it’s a matter of balance: slightly loading the scales to give a little more focus to buy or build depending upon organisational needs (the main need being either to maintain current performance if things are going well – by tipping the balance towards internal moves - or to provide new insights and perspectives if not everything is so rosy – by tipping the scales the other way).

Doing both is also central to the concept of integrated talent management which I’ve been blogging about here.  You can also think about there being a similar need to integrate recruiting within HR as there is for integrating learning into HR, which I presented on at Learning Technologies earlier this year.

 

However, if this is all I said it’d be a rather boring panel.  So I’m going to be coming down on the side of talent development.  And I actually find this a rather easy argument to make – talent development is simply a more strategic activity than talent acquisition is.

Talent acquisition provides our undeveloped people – our raw materials if you like (OK, neither do I, but stick with me for a minute).  The quality of these raw materials is hugely important but it’s just not enough.  The even more important activity is what the organisation does with these raw materials – how it converts these into something more useful for the business to use.

There’s a direct analogy to the business value chain.  Businesses also buy raw materials or other inputs and then transform these into something more valuable which can be sold to customers.  Procurement is therefore a vital activity, but even with advances in areas like supply chain management there are very few businesses which compete on they way they procure raw materials.  Most do this on the way they add value to these materials through some transformation.

Organisations don’t compete on the way they do recruitment either.  They compete on the transformation of their new joiners into an aligned and engaged workforce.  Much of this transformation is down to the role of talent development, including the way that people are progressed up and across the organisation.  And the need to focus on the transformation rather than the raw materials becomes ever greater then more we focus on competing through organisational capabilities.

That’s because competition rests upon differentiation.  If we recruit the same people as our competitors, if we have the same culture as them, we simply can’t compete upon these things.  And OK, it may be possible for one organisation to recruit better or different people simply based upon its employer brand or the speed of its recruiting activities etc.  But the difference is likely to be quite small.  The key difference is much more likely to come from the transformation of the people we’ve hired and the creation of organisational capabilities we can use.

 

You’ll be able to read more arguments for and against this perspective on the Monster Thinking blog leading up to the debate.

 

A final note: I hope I haven’t offended any of my readers in recruitment!  As I noted earlier on, this is a rather theoretical debate.  We need both recruitment and development and the real need is to have them both better integrated together; both focused on achieving the same thing – and for both of them to be doing this more strategically.

 

Technorati Tags: David Henry,Monster,Thinking,Keith Robinson,HR Buzz,Monster Buzz,talent,acquisition,development

 

• Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing
• Strategy - Talent - Engagement - Change and OD
• Contact me to create more value for your business
• jon [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

.

#HRD12 – helping people become what they are (challenges and opportunities for talent managers / 5)

 

   In my last post, I wrote that I’d explain more about why it is that I don’t think “commercial savvy and speaking ‘business’ rather than ‘HR’ language” is the way forward for talent management.

And actually, it looks as if a powerful argument for retaining a focus on talent, and speaking a more people centred language, is going on at the CIPD’s HRD conference today (I’m in South Africa so am missing the event this year):

“At Michelin, knowing people, and helping them to reveal and develop all their potential, to “become what they are” at their own pace, is personnel’s primary function.

Vocabulary is important: 'personnel', not 'HR', because people are not a 'resource' to be stockpiled and tallied, waiting to be bought and sold. Each person is a unique and irreplaceable asset, with emotions, capable of making decisions and progressing when given the chance). Personnel’s remit is not only to staff current needs with the best people wherever they happen to be, but also to raise talent for future, often unknown challenges.”

-   Alan Duke, former international career manager, Michelin

 

And then on career development (also see my two recent posts on this - 1, 2):

“People are recruited by personnel, for a career, not a job, and personality comes before competence. An individual’s potential to develop is the cornerstone of all career management. Therefore, careers take precedence over short-term operational needs, and managers do not 'own' their people. They are responsible for managing performance, developing skills and creating conditions for success, including releasing people for the greater good, when required.

Managers cannot manage career development, because their relation with their employees is limited in time and space and they do not have access to opportunities outside their own sphere of influence. The vast majority of managers willingly accept these limitations, because they know their own career progression follows the same rules.

Career managers are independent from line management. They are responsible for rating employee potential, a process which starts at recruitment and is updated annually, for drawing up succession plans and individual career paths, and for brokering every move and making the formal offer to the employee. They have access to all opportunities in the group and actively push employees to broaden out by changing departments, businesses organisations and geographical locations. They select participants for fast-track development programmes.

Naturally, the final responsibility for career development rests with each individual employee: good performance, updating skills, being open and honest with the company etc. But every employee has a clearly identified career manager and is known personally. So there is no need to join the rat race, look around or generally spend too much time worrying about your future. You can get on with being passionate about your work and producing the goods. Your career manager will take care of the rest. Against a backdrop of unrivalled corporate loyalty, he or she will help you, calmly and impartially, to become what you are.”

 

It’s this, talent-centric sort of focus that I think provides the biggest opportunities for talent managers - though I do think the term ‘personnel’ often smacks of too much of an employee focus.  We need to put employees / talent / people first, not just because that’s the right thing to do for them, but because it’s also by doing this that businesses can gain the greatest returns as well.

 

You’ll also find interesting (I think) conversations on a people vs business perspective on this blog, and in the comments to this article at HR Magazine.  And I also love this article on Forbes.com: 10 reasons the human capital zeitgeist is emerging.

 

Contact me to learn more about Careergro – the employee focused career management system (also exhibiting at the HRD conference).

And stay tuned for more on talent opportunities and challenges, and to win tickets for the Economist’s Talent Management Conference.

 

Technorati Tags: Alan Duke,Daniel Boulanger,career management,personnel,Michelin,3 star,***,CIPD,HRD< conference

 

• Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
• Strategy  -  Talent  -  Engagement  -  Change and OD
• Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
• jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

.

Career Development: Challenges and Opportunities for Talent Managers / 3

 

    The other recent report on talent management I thought was interesting is SHL’s Assessment Trends report.  I’m particularly taken by SHL’s third key finding – that companies are giving up on career development:

“Despite the focus on engagement in 2012 and the finding that more than half of companies indicated focusing more on internal talent than hiring externally, just over a third of HR professionals cited career development as a top priority. Likewise, fewer HR professionals are using it as a retention strategy and fewer are offering a formal way for employees to find new careers internally.”

 

The report goes on:

“Providing internal career opportunities can help organizations keep top talent from seeking those opportunities elsewhere. Contrasting our findings from 2011, fewer organizations, nearly 60%, indicated using career development as a means of affecting retention. Likewise, formal career development programs were only used by a little more than one-fourth of respondents.

Are companies giving up on career development? If organizations believe that engagement is a top priority for their companies, formal career development programs are crucial to demonstrating to their workforce that career opportunities exist within their organizations. With only 30% of respondents indicating that career paths exist in their organizations for all jobs, it is not surprising that engagement is low. Best-in-class organizations are offering such programs to their employees, and for good reason, as some experts find that three areas that make the biggest impact on business are development planning, talent mobility and career development expertise.”

 

This last comment refers to Bersin’s analysis which I’ve posted on recently too.  However, I strongly echo the sentiment from a personal perspective as well.   And it’s no wonder that, if organisations are giving up on career development, that in their 2012 Management Agenda, Roffey find that 30% of employees (35% in the public sector) feel their careers are on hold.

 

We know that career paths have changed, becoming much more complex (if they’re still in existence at all).  For example, in their mass career customisation work, Deloitte (Benko and Weisberg) suggest that in the talent age, the industrial age ‘one size fits all’ career ladder is morphing into a series of flexible, personalised, zig zag career paths, or career lattices (and I think that is the positive spin).

 

 

Instead of trying to force nonlinear careers into one career ladder, they urge organisations to embrace and capitalise on these different expectations.

Bersin take the analysis further, suggesting a range of options that can support career development and mobility, and proposing that the key is matching organisational needs within individual needs and desires.

 

 

I agree with this too, though I lean more towards the importance of the individual in this equation than Bersin do (they find that simply telling an employee to manage their own career has a –5% impact on firm performance – “when you tell an employee to manage his / her own career, you are telling them that you do not really care - some will manage well, but most will manage themselves out of your company” - whereas an open, social market for careers has around a +15% impact.)

I agree there are some wonderful examples of firms which use career development to help match the supply and demand of their talent (eg IBM’s workforce management initiative, which I’ve blogged about previously).  And I also agree that use of a broader social networking system to share vacancies and allow people to promote themselves will increasingly become the norm (I’m less sure about the future for separate social networking tools that just support career development – see Taleo’s recent report on social talent).

But I still think equipping the individual to manage their own career within the organisational lattice is the most important thing an organisation can do.  And it’s why I like A&DC’s approach they call career engagement:

“Career development is focused on what the organisation can do for the individual, such as training and promotion opportunities. Therefore the responsibility is predominantly on the organisation and not on the individual. This is a relatively transactional approach as the focus is on satisfying the employee, rather than on what will help them flourish. This means that the potential benefits for both the organisation and the individual may not be as sustainable.

Career engagement is more collaborative and aligned with both the individual’s and organisation’s goals. It is about what an individual can do for the organisation, whilst also developing themselves and their career opportunities. Importantly, it can be achieved without the need to offer employees more financial rewards or necessarily providing promotion opportunities. The impact of career engagement is that these employees will be happier and more fulfilled, which will lead them to be more productive and proactive.”

 

 

 

Career engagement requires that employees:

• Take ownership for their careers
• Know themselves and their strengths
• Know their own organisational impact and purpose
• Knows their future career vision and how they are progressing
• Has a positive mindset and the resilience to maximise their potential.

 

But employees will need help to engage in career development in this way.  For example, in Roffey’s Future of Careers report, survey respondents asked for:

• Career seminars
• Career workbooks
• Career workshops
• Externally facilitated career development/portfolio building events.

 

The problem with these is that workbooks are unlikely to be used for long and workshops, plus coaching etc, are prohibitively expensive in most organisations - hence the need for technology solutions.  And the best technology solution that I know of, and I’m now working to support, is Careergro.

The system focuses on three areas:

• Assessment (3 basic tools on core values, skills and world of work plus advanced tools)
• Development planning
• Socialising career goals (goals, I think, can benefit from a separate social networking system, as having this split reinforces the focus on the individual vs just the company).

 

 

 

Let me know if you’d like to know more about this system.

I’ll also be continuing to post on talent managers’ challenges and opportunities, and will shortly be offering up two tickets to attend the Economist’s Talent Summit in London on 14th June, which I will also be speaking at and blogging about on the day.

 

Technorati Tags: Talent,Careergro,career development,SHL,assessment,Bersin,mobility,Deloitte,Benko,MCC,customisation,A&DC,engagement,Roffey

 

• Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
• Strategy  -  Talent  -  Engagement  -  Change and OD
• Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
• jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

.

#BersinIMPACT: Mentoring for Career Development

 

   The other process area that seemed to get a fair amount of focus at Bersin Impact, other than performance management, learning / leadership development, and recruiting, was career development.  This is perhaps not surprising given that Bersin see “talent mobility as the new competitive advantage”.

For example, in the keynote from NBC News, Dana Tomechko suggested that one of HR’s main opportunities is to inspire and support employees in career development, eg helping them try something new and even stumble.  Employees often don’t have time to consider the next career move and HR can help them explore the ambiguity, understand their next steps and foster their career narratives.

To support this, NBC News HR:

• Embraces positive irritants (people)
• Suspends their attachment to structure and processes
• Embraces change – even when this is undefined.

 

Their most interesting strategy is probably the team’s support for connecting people – often using electronic media.  Even when they meet an employee that try to share a name and make a virtual connection with another employee.

Employees are working harder and connecting less and often have no time to understand the larger team and across the HR profession we are loosing out ability to network too – but this should be at the front of the HR agenda.

NBC News seek to ask as many question as the company’s journalists, and to understand these individuals’ histories – where they have excelled, where they’ve stumbled – and to draw their stories out.

These connections and stories provide a great basis for talent mobility and career development.

 

However the main presentation on this topic was provided by Don Kraft, Director of Learning & Development at Genentech (Roche Pharmaceuticals).  Their career development focus has been built upon an exiting mentoring initiative, as the need for mentoring has fallen from the top three list of why people leave Genentech, being replaced by people looking for career development opportunities in the new era of flat growth in pharmaceuticals.

However, the fact that mentoring has already been in place helps.  And the success of the mentoring programme is due partly to it being confidential, levels of trust, matching being done from different organisation structures, and the mentoring action plan being focused on mentees’ learning goals.

Genentech’s CareerLab was introduced three years ago and consists of career conversations (45 minute sessions up to 3 times per year); learning labs, mentoring and career readiness assessments.

The mentoring services consist of formal mentoring programmes; eHarmony type mentoring matching and a mentoring toolkit which employees wanted to create their own self-directed informal mentoring partnerships.  The toolkit consists of tools and resources and supports a mentee driven process.  This has benefits to both the individual and to Genentech (in particular being much less time consuming than the formal programmes).

I think I was most interested in Don’s inputs on this toolkit - partly because I do think technology can provide the critical enabler that makes both mentoring and career development work, as physical mentors and coaches can often be too expensive, and paper based guides lack the easy to use functionality and retainability of an electronic toolkit.

And also because I’m currently working with a start-up vendor; Careergro; providing a new career development system which I believe will help other organisations capture the same benefits from career development as, and more easily than, Genentech.

Give me a call if you want to know more about this system, or how you can develop your own approach to career development:

• info [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com
• Skype: strategic-hcm
• +44 7904 185 134

 

Technorati Tags: Bersin,Impact,conference,2012,Dana Tomechko,NBC News,Don Kraft,Genentech,Roche,mentoring,career,development,toolkit,technology,agility

 

• Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
• Strategy  -  Talent  -  Engagement  -  Change and OD
• Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
• jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

.

Peter Howes, SuccessFactors on Career Management

 

   I (virtually) attended HCI’s Talent Strategy and Workforce Planning conference this week and will be posting on some of the WFP and data stuff from there over the next few days.

However the most interesting piece for me was Peter Howes’ session which included some insightful inputs on WFP but particularly this slide on career management.

Peter notes that upwards promotion can’t be an effective focus for career management.  So in the data his group at SuccessFactors (previously InfoHRM/Inform) has collected, 50-60% of employees are never promoted and about another 30% will only have a maximum of another two promotions.

We therefore need to think more laterally about careers, including progression horizontally into other roles, but also including projects and placements.  There’s nothing that new about this (see for example Deloitte’s book on Mass Career Customisation, and it was also a key feature of Josh Bersin’s presentation I saw recently) but I did think Peter’s conclusion was very interesting – that the goal for many companies should be four transfers for every promotion (a career path ration of 0.25).

I don’t have the data Peter has but I have to say that this feels about right. 

 

This post is sponsored by SuccessFactors.

SuccessFactors provides Business Execution Software solutions that drive outstanding business results in organisations of every size and category. The insights we've gained serving 3,500+ customers with more than 15 million subscribers in 168 countries and 34 languages helps us better serve and grow companies like yours each and every day.

With a customer-focused ethos as our single most important and recognized quality, we have worked to achieve a growth rate 3x that of our nearest competitor. In fact, we’re one of the fastest growing public software companies in the world.

Simply stated, SuccessFactors works every day to help companies just like yours achieve the best possible business results with Business Execution software solutions that incorporate the latest research, the smartest technology, and the most secure systems on the planet.

Contact SuccessFactors here or call +1 800 809 9920 or in the UK +44 8450 742990.

Colour test

 

   Interesting test available on MSN:

"By determining which primary, secondary and achromatic colours you prefer most and least, you can figure out a successful career path based on how you approach work, the types of workplaces where you work best and how you handle work tasks.

The Colour Career Counsellor (on CareerPath.com ), powered by The Dewey Color System -- the world's only validated, non-language colour-based career testing instrument - uses color preferences to determine successful career paths. Dewey Sadka, author of 'The Dewey Colour System', says using colours instead of a questionnaire eliminates the chasm between self-perception and self-truth and reveals your core motivations."

 

Here are my results:

• Best Occupational Category

  You're a CREATOR

  Key Words:

  Nonconforming, Impulsive, Expressive, Romantic, Intuitive, Sensitive, and Emotional

  These original types place a high value on aesthetic qualities and have a great need for self-expression. They enjoy working independently, being creative, using their imagination, and constantly learning something new. Fields of interest are art, drama, music, and writing or places where they can express, assemble, or implement creative ideas.

  CREATOR OCCUPATIONS
  Suggested careers are Advertising Executive, Architect, Web Designer, Creative Director, Public Relations, Fine or Commercial Artist, Interior Decorator, Lawyer, Librarian, Musician, Reporter, Art Teacher, Broadcaster, Technical Writer, English Teacher, Architect, Photographer, Medical Illustrator, Corporate Trainer, Author, Editor, Landscape Architect, Exhibit Builder, and Package Designer.

  CREATOR WORKPLACES
  Consider workplaces where you can create and improve beauty and aesthetic qualities. Unstructured, flexible organizations that allow self-expression work best with your free-spirited nature.

  Suggested Creator workplaces are advertising, public relations, and interior decorating firms; artistic studios, theatres and concert halls; institutions that teach crafts, universities, music, and dance schools. Other workplaces to consider are art institutes, museums, libraries, and galleries.

 

• 2nd Best Occupational Category

  You're a RESEARCHER

  Key Words:

  Independent, Self-Motivated, Reserved, Introspective, Analytical, and Curious

  These investigative types gather information, analyse and interpret data, and inquire to uncover new facts. They have a strong scientific orientation, enjoy academic or research environments and prefer self-reliant jobs. Dislikes are group projects, selling, and repetitive activities.

 

Not too bad.  Could explain why I'm currently working independently (ie in an unstructured, flexible organisation that allows self-expression) and using social media (linked to suggested careers including Advertising Executive, Web Designer, Creative Director, Public Relations etc).  There's even a mention of  Corporate Trainer and Author.

Mind you, my horoscope (star sign Gemini) looked quite a good fit this morning too!

Does anyone have any positive or negative experience in using the Dewey Colour System?

 

Technorati Tags: The Colour Career Counsellor,CareerPath.com,The Dewey Color System,color preferences,Dewey Sadka

The art of story telling / Career Helium

I hope you enjoyed my story of the chicken and the eagle. I don’t use stories very often, despite my focus on people centred language as I never feel very authentic telling them, although I admire people who can. And I know that done well, story telling can definitely have a great impact.

When I do tell stories, they tend to come from my own personal experience, or real business examples (like normal case studies but with a real emotional edge). And if I do make up a story, I try to make sure it at least has a real business context. This may just be about my level of comfort / skill in story telling, but I generally find these ‘businss stories’ are a lot more effective than stories from myths and legends, and I have to say, about different types of birds too!

A great example of what I mean by this is a career management book published last year called Career Helium. This was written by the head of people and organisation development at ABN AMRO, David Thompson (with whom I met earlier this year).

Career Helium is a great book for any HR practitioners who want to improve their own career progression, or to coach or develop managers and employees to manage their careers more effectively. It describes 'a powerful secret that is known to a select few, an approach to work that provides the fuel to float past the others who are naively pinning their hopes on being talent spotted by the boss'. There are definitely some ideas in here which would have helped me in my own career (and my yet still do).

And the book is also a wonderful example of great business story telling – truly engaging the reader in learning by gaining an emotional connection with the content of the book. I’d recommend it to anyone who wants to progress beyond the chicken and eagle type of thing.