Here's wishing him a lot of more years of fruitful and engaging conversations.
I've found him to be an insightful mind for HR issues and someone to learn the systems part of HR.
Mar 23, 2007
Human Process work
One of the question that I always struggle to answer people who hear that I have gone to human process labs is "But what business use are they?"
Process work, or T-Group or Sensitivity Groups are all similar methodologies for "learning from living"
Now I merely have to point at Ed Batista's great post that explains the complex experience one goes through with amazing clarity and simplicity. And for theoretical learners like me, linking it to the double-loop learning principle.
In India, the organizations that do similar work are ISABS, Sumedhas and Aastha.
Remember, radical change and learning can happen only when assumptions are held up for questioning. It's an uncomfortable process when that happens.
Process work, or T-Group or Sensitivity Groups are all similar methodologies for "learning from living"
Now I merely have to point at Ed Batista's great post that explains the complex experience one goes through with amazing clarity and simplicity. And for theoretical learners like me, linking it to the double-loop learning principle.
In India, the organizations that do similar work are ISABS, Sumedhas and Aastha.
Remember, radical change and learning can happen only when assumptions are held up for questioning. It's an uncomfortable process when that happens.
No thought leadership from HR consulting firms
So says Fiona Czerniawska, the author of White Space 2007, a research report that evaluates the latest thought leadership published by the top global consulting firms. (Hat tip: Mike McLaughlin)
If you take a look at the article which says that more HR related thought leadership is driven by the strategic consulting firms than by HR specific ones.
Amongst the HR consulting firms her verdict is:
I guess the writing is on the wall as far as thought leadership goes. You produce more value as a HR or Organizational practice in a larger strategic consulting firm than as a standalone HR specialist firm. Isn't that the advice the same firms give to their HR clients in organizations: that they should link more with business to produce more value? Looks like they need to follow their own advice :-))
If you take a look at the article which says that more HR related thought leadership is driven by the strategic consulting firms than by HR specific ones.
Interestingly, McKinsey produces by far the most material on organisational design and change with 37 percent of the market, and Accenture produces as much as Hewitt Associates and Towers Perrin on recruitment and retention.
Amongst the HR consulting firms her verdict is:
Most of the HR firms struggle to find anything new to say about the issues they focus their attention on. Mercer and Hay Group stand out from a wide array of specialist HR firms, largely because they have something a little more original to say. Hewitt Associates produces more commercially astute material than most of its peer group: it succeeds in presenting issues that clients might choose to act on rather than just think about. But none of the specialist HR firms appears in the White Space top ten ranking of thought leadership quality.
I guess the writing is on the wall as far as thought leadership goes. You produce more value as a HR or Organizational practice in a larger strategic consulting firm than as a standalone HR specialist firm. Isn't that the advice the same firms give to their HR clients in organizations: that they should link more with business to produce more value? Looks like they need to follow their own advice :-))
Mar 22, 2007
The partnership model
David Maister who is one of the thought leaders in the area of professional services firms (we studied his model when I was an employee of the large 4 psfs) asks a question whether the "stewardship model" of the professional services firms is outdated.
Yes I know, private ownership of consulting firms that Prof. Nanda is talking about does not directly relate to the stewardship model, but it surely rules out that some firms can be traded on the stock exchanges. Which gets me thinking, IT services and BPO firms are also dependent on the strategic assets called "people". Why are they public and not private? Is it the nature of work that really says whether the people are strategic assets or not, or is it a function of size of the organization and the industry also?
I first started thinking about the ownership model of such firms when AT Kearney partners carried out a management buy-out (or whatever it is called) from EDS. I read a quote by Prof. Ashish Nanda of Harvard (also a specialist when it comes to professional services firms) where he stated:In the old days, when professional firms acted like they cared, many of them ran on the principle of stewardship or “legacy.” The firm was run not only for the current generation, but with an eye to building an institution that would flourish and survive in future years. Partners, so the argument went, held the firm in trust for the next generation.
This was not just a cultural issue. Under the stewardship model, equity in the firm was transferred at book value – in at book, out at book. Partners made their money from the income they earned while working at the firm, not by equity appreciation.
But what do you think is going to happen in the UK when the Clementi reforms are (finally) implemented and outsiders can buy the equity of a law firm? How long do you think it will take for the existing partners to rethink (even more than they have been doing) whether they want to admit new partners without forcing them to buy in at fair-market value? Why give away a part share of ownership in your law firm when you can sell it to Goldman Sachs?In accounting firms, it depends on the size of the firm. Big global firms still pretend they are “passing on the heritage”, while many small CPA firms owners are unapologetic in saying: if you want ownership in my firm, you have to buy it from me!
"When your principal strategic assets are your people, private ownership is the better model," said Ashish Nanda, associate professor at Harvard Business School. "It has the advantage of binding together capable professionals into a shared organization, in which they each have a financial stake, which in turn delivers genuine commitment to produce results."
Yes I know, private ownership of consulting firms that Prof. Nanda is talking about does not directly relate to the stewardship model, but it surely rules out that some firms can be traded on the stock exchanges. Which gets me thinking, IT services and BPO firms are also dependent on the strategic assets called "people". Why are they public and not private? Is it the nature of work that really says whether the people are strategic assets or not, or is it a function of size of the organization and the industry also?
Mar 20, 2007
Talent Trap?
Niladri Roy feels that the growth of the KPO industry without adequate thought to career planning and development might open doors to a talent trap.
Well, I think that traditional career planning and development is dead. So the only thing one can do is prepare your best people and hope they stay. It's no rocket science, but it's harder to get it to work.
So where does all of this leave us , assuming that hiring bright minds for KPO jobs is a reality and the immediacy of financial pressures will make it difficult for the employers to recognize the long term ramifications of this hiring ….. the only solution lies in a structured process of Talent Development (not a fancy word , it's different from simply training ) , so that the careers and the abilities of these young people are not eroded over time ….what do you think ?
Well, I think that traditional career planning and development is dead. So the only thing one can do is prepare your best people and hope they stay. It's no rocket science, but it's harder to get it to work.
Making it mainstream
Well this week has been a significant one because I've got featured in the 26th March 2007 issue of Businessworld.
The reason you can see my picture and byline on page 72 is because I was asked to do a case analysis of a blogging and social media related case. Meera Seth who writes the cases for Businessworld was referred to me by a prospective client (who shall go unnamed here :-)).
It's an interesting case called The Music Blogger (link updated on 27th). It's about how a music company executive called Suvrat who is trying to explain to his CEO how blogging is helping "tribes" of various music lovers congregate over the web and how powerful it is becoming in shaping the typical music lovers' perception of what is cool and what is not.
I found these lines particularly interesting:
[Note: URLs changed on 27th]
The reason you can see my picture and byline on page 72 is because I was asked to do a case analysis of a blogging and social media related case. Meera Seth who writes the cases for Businessworld was referred to me by a prospective client (who shall go unnamed here :-)).
It's an interesting case called The Music Blogger (link updated on 27th). It's about how a music company executive called Suvrat who is trying to explain to his CEO how blogging is helping "tribes" of various music lovers congregate over the web and how powerful it is becoming in shaping the typical music lovers' perception of what is cool and what is not.
I found these lines particularly interesting:
“The major insight is that there has been a splintering of communities, of society — siblings cannot relate to each other, friends cannot relate to each other. The state and national geographic boundaries, the attributes that we reiterate govern us, describe us, the culture and tradition that we insist defines us; all these are slowly but steadily turning inadequate as vehicles of expressing our identities. Today it is very frustrating to define oneself only by nationality or flag colours. That is good as an address, but how do I define who I am? To define myself, I need to define that core part of me that stands for all those things I feel, love, crave, enjoy and vibrate to… and the sigma of that cannot be expressed by geography.My case analysis essentially focussed on the final question left in the case "How can you validate blogging's verdict?" It also focusses on how marketers can engage with bloggers if they choose to. Have also tried to talk about blog search engines like Technorati and how they can help marketers reach to the correct blogs. My personal belief is state“So, one has to reach out across the globe to find new siblings, new friends, new family! It is the reformation of tribes, the reverse of the Tower of Babel where God punished people to speak in different tongues, so they were splintered. Now these Babelites of the world want to come together into individual tribes that speak the same language!”
The most important advice is: Do not try to manipulate blogs or blog readers by trying to ‘inject’ messages. Blogs thrive on interactivity, linkages and conversations. That means making your brand vulnerable and opening it up to criticism. Most businesses are wary of doing so, and yet that is the only way they can appeal to bloggers. That is the appeal of real, human and authentic conversation as opposed to crafted, polished, corporate brochure language. Unless businesses face this reality, they cannot leverage either the reach or richness of the blogosphere.
[Note: URLs changed on 27th]
Mar 17, 2007
Training and Facilitation
I attended a program in the beautiful town of Khandala (about 2 hours drive from Mumbai) along with 14 other learning partners of a large financial services company.
One issue we struggled with is the focus on making the transition from being trainers (which is what we all called ourselves when we began our careers) to facilitators of learning (which is what we are trying to become).
What's the difference? Isn't that just a clever name for an old skill?
Not really, because while training follows a "one to many" model, facilitation is "many to many" where the expertise of the facilitator lies not so much on what the content of the learning is, but also what is the process of learning.
Let's interpret this using an example. Suppose you are in a training program, and differ with the trainer on certain aspects of what is being taught.
What would a trainer do? Well, normally a trainer would ask you to politely keep shut and not disrupt the class with your clearly advanced knowledge. That would be rational because the onus of providing learning in that setup rests with the trainer.
However, if the same example is in the same class but with a facilitator, then the focus would be to draw upon your learning and add to the learning of the group. This might also result in contradictory learnings being given to the participants. But you know what, that's ok.
Reality is often complex enough not to be labeled in a set of binary instructions, this works and this does not work, or this is true and this is not true.
Yes, this approach also causes us facilitators to look at how our own opinions are formed and to always be aware of how our biases and notions might be impacting what we influence our participants with.
That is one reason why I never really react to opposing points of view, as I recognise that there is more versions of reality than just mine. That goes true with even opposing comments posted on the blog :-)
One issue we struggled with is the focus on making the transition from being trainers (which is what we all called ourselves when we began our careers) to facilitators of learning (which is what we are trying to become).
What's the difference? Isn't that just a clever name for an old skill?
Not really, because while training follows a "one to many" model, facilitation is "many to many" where the expertise of the facilitator lies not so much on what the content of the learning is, but also what is the process of learning.
Let's interpret this using an example. Suppose you are in a training program, and differ with the trainer on certain aspects of what is being taught.
What would a trainer do? Well, normally a trainer would ask you to politely keep shut and not disrupt the class with your clearly advanced knowledge. That would be rational because the onus of providing learning in that setup rests with the trainer.
However, if the same example is in the same class but with a facilitator, then the focus would be to draw upon your learning and add to the learning of the group. This might also result in contradictory learnings being given to the participants. But you know what, that's ok.
Reality is often complex enough not to be labeled in a set of binary instructions, this works and this does not work, or this is true and this is not true.
Yes, this approach also causes us facilitators to look at how our own opinions are formed and to always be aware of how our biases and notions might be impacting what we influence our participants with.
That is one reason why I never really react to opposing points of view, as I recognise that there is more versions of reality than just mine. That goes true with even opposing comments posted on the blog :-)
Mar 14, 2007
AK Menon gets quoted
Fellow blogger AK Menon, who as regular readers might know, is a client of mine too, has been quoted in the Indian Express newspaper as an example of how blogging can help differentiate one's business in a crowded competitive field. As it says:
Oh, by the way, the article quotes yours truly too ;-))
Hyderabad-Based Achyut Menon runs a recruitment agency that specialises in
providing jobs to Indians returning from abroad. With hundreds of firms offering
such services countrywide, Menon realised he could cut through the clutter only
by creating a unique “buzz” about his services. He started an interactive blog
that sought to address queries on topics like work culture and emerging sectors
in India. This soon began receiving a stream of enquiries from not only
job-seeking NRIs but also international recruitment firms.
Oh, by the way, the article quotes yours truly too ;-))
Google India's cricket blogging contest
A friend pointed me to Google India's effort to make blogging more mainstream in India by riding on the Cricket World Cup. In fact, there's a blogging contest for cricket crazy fans.
Blogging about cricket with the reward promising to be on TV with Kris Srikkanth? Hmm, I think a lot of opinionated Indian cricket fans would take that plunge into blogging :-)
Apologies for the non-posting to the blog over the last 4 days, I had been travelling to the lovely hill station just outside Mumbai, Khandala, alas, only on work :-(
Recruiting is marketing. Try jobcasting.
Blogging about cricket with the reward promising to be on TV with Kris Srikkanth? Hmm, I think a lot of opinionated Indian cricket fans would take that plunge into blogging :-)
Apologies for the non-posting to the blog over the last 4 days, I had been travelling to the lovely hill station just outside Mumbai, Khandala, alas, only on work :-(
Recruiting is marketing. Try jobcasting.
Mar 9, 2007
Feedback Anxieties
Yesterday I facilitated a workshop for a client on how to give effective feedback during performance appraisal time. It was an interesting session because while they were expecting to be "told" what is the right way to give feedback, I made the whole process a totally discussion oriented workshop.
I did have around 40 slides regarding feedback, goal setting and coaching but a conversation with my contact person made me aware that what these people needed was not knowledge but to confront their issues with giving feedback.
Feedback is a tricky business, because the word comes loaded itself with negative connotations. "I want to give you some feedback" elicits a "Uh-oh" response from most people. Usage of the phrase "positive feedback" also focuses that mostly feedback is "negative".
Of course, some people have issues giving "positive feedback" too :-)
It must be stressed that giving feedback is not an end in itself. It has to be tied to business outcomes and performance. How does the behavior of an employee link to business results (positively or negatively)? If it links positively then that linkage has to be highlighted as why you want that behavior to be continued in the future. Negative linkages to businesses should also be given when a behavior has to be discontinued.
If as a manager one is not able to link employee behavior to performance, then it's better not to give feedback on that (unless that behavior is against the core ethics and values of the firm)
The workshop also brought the fact that senior managers yearn for consistency in their own managers' behavior in delivering feedback, and I had to stress the fact that like there are star employees and laggard employees there will be star managers and laggard managers. Giving feedback is shaped by the relationship between the two individuals, the time they have worked together and their preferred style of communication.
Organizations should only give broad outlines on "how to" and let people discover their own comfort level. There should be a second line of support for employees also to approach and for managers who either feel they are not assertive enough or too aggressive in giving feedback.
I did have around 40 slides regarding feedback, goal setting and coaching but a conversation with my contact person made me aware that what these people needed was not knowledge but to confront their issues with giving feedback.
Feedback is a tricky business, because the word comes loaded itself with negative connotations. "I want to give you some feedback" elicits a "Uh-oh" response from most people. Usage of the phrase "positive feedback" also focuses that mostly feedback is "negative".
Of course, some people have issues giving "positive feedback" too :-)
It must be stressed that giving feedback is not an end in itself. It has to be tied to business outcomes and performance. How does the behavior of an employee link to business results (positively or negatively)? If it links positively then that linkage has to be highlighted as why you want that behavior to be continued in the future. Negative linkages to businesses should also be given when a behavior has to be discontinued.
If as a manager one is not able to link employee behavior to performance, then it's better not to give feedback on that (unless that behavior is against the core ethics and values of the firm)
The workshop also brought the fact that senior managers yearn for consistency in their own managers' behavior in delivering feedback, and I had to stress the fact that like there are star employees and laggard employees there will be star managers and laggard managers. Giving feedback is shaped by the relationship between the two individuals, the time they have worked together and their preferred style of communication.
Organizations should only give broad outlines on "how to" and let people discover their own comfort level. There should be a second line of support for employees also to approach and for managers who either feel they are not assertive enough or too aggressive in giving feedback.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)