HR management Paper

The Conference Board (2005) has reported that only 14 percent of U.S. workers are "very satisfied" with their jobs. It is, therefore, not surprising to learn that, "C-suite executives at companies of all sizes identified 'engaging and retaining talented employees' as [one of] their most pressing concerns" (Pomeroy, 2007, p. 22).

e bel ieve orga ni za tions an d the individ uals that work in them can benefit from a career-management

W

framework tha t syncs and guides their mutual efforts to establish prod uctive a nd posi tive associa tions. Indeed, the more positive the caree r rela tionshi p, t he more I i kely a n employee's talents will be fully, creatively and consistently provided to an employer. Career devel opment a nd talent management a re li nked; they should be integrated as they are two sides of the same coin.

We offer a robust, practica l, action-guiding framework to help job candida tes, incu m­ bents, managers and HR specialists promote m u tually beneficial career development. The COMPASS acron ym introd uced here pro­ vides a n easi l y re mem bered framewo r k withi n wh ich critical career issues can surface and employers can address them. While an acronym is not scientific, it is useful. COM­ PASS helps organ ize and recall a set of key issues we have identified during more tha n 45

com bi ned yea rs of ca reer-rela ted work.

employer's goal should be to match, as m uch as possi ble, an employee's career-type prefer­ ence with an organizationa l role and track. Discussing and accommoda ting an employ­ ee's preference is an importa nt wa y to demonstra te the employee's value.

Employees tend to follow one of four career types: Linea r, Steady State Expert, Spiral or Tra nsitory (Broussea u et. al., 1996). These la bels, although perhaps new to some, are descriptive of the potential paths employees ta ke over time and a re illustrated in Exhibit 1.

The Linear type, often called the management track where success mea ns moving u p an organiza tional hierarchy, is the domina n t one. Steady State Expert types, often called the tech n ical track, do not seek a series of promotions bu t rather perform tasks or proj­ ects where they hone their expertise over

EXHIBIT 1: CAREER TYPES

years, such as in the professions and skilled trades. Spira l types, akin to Herma n's (2001) "Adapta bles," wa nt experienti a l va riety. Employees with this career type are less inter­ ested in a specific job and more interested in a bread th of stimula ting experiences. Finally, wha t moti vates Tra nsi tories is not wor k, which is only a means to an end they value more. They work as long as needed to get the job done, so they can move on to something that they would ra ther be doing.

Each ca reer type adds value to an organ iza­ tion. For example, Linea rs bri ng am bition and d etermina tion. Stead y State Expe r ts bring expertise a nd craftsmanship. Spira ls bring new ways of looking a t things. Transi­ tories help organiza tions manage and a bsorb workforce fl u ctuati ons as they often com­ prise a n organiza tion's ca d re of contract workers or part-time workers.

Moreover, each piece of the COMPASS cul­ mi nates in a set of practicalca reer management questions to guide employers and employees. The career COMPASS framework consists of the following:

C Career types

0 Organized for fit

Power and Status

Linear Steady State Expert

A B PoVJer and Status

C

Stuck

M Motivation and energy

p Political savvy

A Assessment and feedback s Systematic development s Success

Career Types: Legitimate Diff erent Strokes for Diff erent Folks

Employers' u nderstanding of an employee's preferred career type is the first step. Here, an

Power and Status

Spiral

Time

Power a nd Status

Time

Transitory

Time

(Based on: Brousseau et. al. (1996))

VOLUME 34/ISSUE 1- 2011

Placing a person with a certa i n preferred career type i n a role with a contrary path and related set of expectation can be detrimental to achieving a fu ll -fledged, m utually posi tive employee/employer relationshi p. We ha ve all een, for exam ple, ready State Experts frus­ trated and tressed by promotion i nto Linea r management tracks. Thus, an i m porta nt step i n effective career development is to match a person's career ty pe with the expectations of a specific role.

Implications for Employees (EE)

Many employee ee the Li nea r model as the only accepta ble career path. The pressure to follow this path is especially strong i n orga ni­ zations tha t rewa rd the ma nagement track more highly and more vi i bly than they do a techn ical or professional track. In doing that, they put some of thei r most valued employees' careers i n danger due to potential i ncreases i n stress, burn out, frustration, d isenchantment, and ultimately, disengagement. On the other ha nd, employees have a re pon i bility to be self-awa re and to know wh ich career pattern best su its them an d fi nd orga n izations tha t value thei r career type. Specifically, employee can benefit from asking:

Implications for Employers (ER) Organiza tion need to look at the kinds of work they ha ve to offer and the options they

can provide employees to match career i nter­

ests with the business needs. Talent election, assign men t and promotion a re some of the most importa nt decisions employer make in th is respect. Queries for employers based on these career types i nclude:

ER-2. What kinds of support. opportunities and recognition are offered for employees in each career type?

CAREER CONCEPTS- EMPLOYER

ER-1. What is the organization 's current mix of career types? What is the desired mix?

ER-3. What messages are sent, explicitly and implicitly, to employees with different career types about the value of their track and their contributions?

ER-4. How does the organization's culture inhibit/ nurture an employee's career development?

rganized for Fit: Avoid too Many Square Pegs in Round Holes and Vice Versa

The challenge is to a l ign a per on's skill set with an orga n ization's needs, while honoring the employee's career type. Resea rch shows employers are often not adept at linking busi­ nes strategi es w i th ta l en t developme n t tra tegie (Hall, 1995), th u i ncreasi ng poten­ tial employer/emp loyee misfit. Better fit leads to h igher employee engagement and higher retention (Lied tka et. al., 1997; Towers Per­ ri n, 2005). Indeed, the CEO of Xerox, An n Mu lcah y, has stated, "The biggest success or fa i l u re indication [is] whether people are a good fit" (Bryant, 2009a, p.BU2).

The Strategy-Talent Landscape

As it is difficu lt to align talent trategy to busi­ ness strategy, a focused approach hel p . onsider the potential benefits of a strategy­ ta lent la nd cape grid. Create the la ndsca pe grid by depicting the core element of a com­

pany's bu ine sstrategy and key competencie requ i red to execute it. Such a grid hel ps sur­ ve y a n orga n i za ti on 's stra teg y-ta l e n t la ndscape to identify where it can better sup­ port specific busi ness strategy components with additional talent.

As an example, orga n izations can use a 3x8 busi ness strategy-talent l and cape grid incor­ porating work by Wiersema & Treacy ( 1995) and Butler & Waldroop (1999). Wiersema & Treacy fou nd that successful fi rm focus on excell ence i n one of three areas-prod ucts/ services, cu tomers/clients or operations/pro­ cesses-wh i le reta i n i ng competency in the other two. Bu tler & Wa ld roop i dentif i ed eight skills orga n izations need: tech nologica l, a na l ytical, theoretica l/conceptual th i nki ng, managi ng rela tionshi ps, counseli ng/mentor­ i ng, adm i nistra tion, creativity and i nfluenci ng d i rection/ou tcomes. Thus, the combi nation of these two perspecti ves i n a 3x8 matrix prod uces a general template for providing an effecti ve h u man capital strategy that priori­ tize and populates a portfolio of a bilities.

Add ress empty cells i n a strategy-talent la nd- cape grid through h iring and development processes. An orga nized approach for hiri ng uses two key questions. Fi r t, does a potential candidate have the skills and experience that align with a stipu lated organiza tional strat­ egy need ? In th i rega rd, em pl oyer ca n eva l ua te prospect ' prior experience, aca­ demic train ing and/or admini ter diagno tic i nstruments as i often done by consulti ng firms and governmental agencie .

If a hiring cand idate passes th is fi rst-level review, a second "fit" question arises: Doe the candi da te ha ve the a ttitud inal qualitie the organization is seeking? For example, the Li ndblad Expedition cruise compa ny assumes that you can teach technica l ski ll s, "but you can't teach how to be a kind-hea rted, gener­ ous-minded per on with a n open spirit" (AP, 2007, p. I J ). Li kewise, the Ka Boom non prof­ i t orga n i za tion h a s fo u n d t h a t t h e i r most-effecti ve project ma nagers possess atti­ tude tra i ts l i ke: "Can do, wi ll do, team fit, d a mn q u ick, a n d d am n sma rt" ( AP, 2007,

p.1 l ). Some companies effecti vely use u niver- iry/employer co-op progra ms and i nternships as ways to a e s attitudinal fit. These provide students and employers with opportu nities for m u tu a l eva l u a tion. Anothe r mea ns is usi ng temp agencies.

Implications for Employees Employee can match thei r capabilitie with thei r employer wa nts by u ing a trategy­

ta l en t la nd ca pe grid. They ca n u e i t to

cla rif y option a nd i denti f y devel opment needs to better fit future organizational needs. For example, a pha rmaceutical compan y that pla ns to grow through acq u isition, ra ther tha n orga nica lly, wi ll req uire different skills sets and have different career options open. Employees can elect to prepare them elve for such challenges. Key question for employee rega rdi ng "fit" are:

ORGANIZED FOR FIT-EMPLOYEE

EE-4. What is this company's strategic focus and how do my skills/interests further that?

EE-5. In what specific ways does my personality fit with the culture of this organization?

EE-6. Are the people I will be working with likely to stretch me in appealing ways? How?

EE-7. When contemplating a change, and when I step back from the aura of the company name. the position title. the remuneration

and the perks, does my gut say "yes" or 1s there a hesitant inner voice? If the latter. what is the reason for that hesitation?

48 PEOPLE & STRATEGY

Implications for Employers

An employer's mis-hi res, mis-promotions and m is-assignmen ts ca n be costly in terms of money, time and reputation. Therefore, orga­ n i za tion s hou l d k now a job's d emands, req uired ski lls, needed a ttitudes and how best to ma tch those in the job candidates they consider. Some q uestions for organiza tions to ask regarding "fit" include:

ORGANIZED FOR FIT-EMPLOYER

ER-5. What are the core knowledge, skills and attitudes needed for the organization 's future and for the specific job in question?

ER-6. Is our strategy-talent landscape appropriately populated and what, if anything, is needed?

ER-7. How can we best identify and assess the level of knowledge , skills and attitudes of those we consider hiring, promoting and/ or assigning while also being open to

the appeal of the unique and attractive attributes they might possess?

ER-8. What intangible qualities do we want in the people we hire, promote and assign? What kind of person best fits our culture? Are the requisite qualities non-discriminatory?

ER-9. For each new hire, newly promoted person and newly assigned employee, what support structure is needed to provide

a basis for their success and is that structure available? If not, why not and what steps are needed to put it in place?

otivation and Energy: It Takes These Two to Tango

Thin k wha t wou l d h appen if employees were truly engaged in their work. World­ wi d e, t he ma na gers we ta lk to esti ma te only a bou t 10 percent to 20 percent of thei r employees a re tru l y engaged a t work, an estima te consistent with Sindell & Sindel! ( 2008 ) . Th is t ra gic symptom is d u e to employee and employer mis-fit. It is also a n opportu nity; employers who offer energiz­ ing work ha ve an adva ntage in the war for ta lent (Clawson & Newburg, 2009; Loehr & Schwa rtz, 2003).

The difference between choice and obligation is central. When a person moves from choice to obligation, energy, prod uctivity, q uality, in no­ vation, commitment and engagement diminish (Prottas, 2008; elson, 2003). This obligatory mindset is a common mental habit. It is insidi­ ous beca use i t is an unconscious, de-motivati ng frame of min d. Choice is something every employee can decide to employ (Glasser, 1999), and there is a big difference between mostly

thinking, "What do I have to do today?" versus "What do I choose to do today?"

Ma ny compa nies design jobs too narrowly. This tends to produce a vicious cycle; people are placed in poorly designed jobs, a person's a utonomy is red uced, a systematic decline i n employee work-focused energy is observed, a nd employers begi n to wonder how to moti­ va te employees, which ty pica ll y lea ds to u nprod ucti ve extrinsic incenti ves (Kohn, 1999). Autonomy is a key dimension of good job design that can mitigate obligatory think­ i ng a nd nurture employee choice (Hack ma n & Lawler, 1971; Schmid & Ada ms, 2008). Employers need to design jobs with expan­ sive choices embedded in them. For example, why ca n't a person responsi ble for workplace safety be given the tasks associated with the typical compliance parts of such a job and a broader objective of contri bu ting to his or her consti tuencies ' q uali ty of life? Why can't a cost accou nta nt ha ve the typical financia l reporti ng tasks and external customer service opportu n ities ? Su ch possi bil i ties bring expansi veness and choice to a job, creating the potential for more engagement, broader impacts a nd contagious energy.

Implications for Employees

Empl oyees ha ve a n u m be r of options to increase their own motiva tion, energy and engagement. They can choose to l i ve thei r work lives with an awareness of, and empha­ sis on, the choices they ha ve a vaila ble to them, as opposed to the obligatory aspects of it. They can ask for broader or different job res ponsi bilities when they see a need or opportuni ty. They can also del ibera tely iden­ tify activities in their jobs that they enjoy and embrace them more fully. It req uires a change i n attitude, maybe a change in jobs. Consider the following questions:

Implications for Employers

Employers have a significant opportu n i ty to design work tha t i energizing. Employers responsi ble for crafting jobs with such poten­ tial can benefit from considering:

olitical Savvy: Necessary Component for Organizational Success

A fourth component of COMPASS is politi­ ca l-sa vvy. Resea rch has sh own t ha t a n employee's job strain, role conflict and likeli­ hood to leave increase as their perceptions of organiza t i ona l pol i tics increases (Harris, et. al. 2007). Such nega tive poli tic i nclu de: "withholdi ng information from co-workers, failing to enforce policies a nd proced u res appropria tel y, shifting blame, and ma lign i ng others to make oneself look better" (Harris, et. al. 2007, p. 635). Politics need not be nega tive or avoi ded. In fact, Carol Ba rtz, CEO of YAHOO has said,

MOTIVATION AND ENERGY- EMPLOYEE

EE-8. What is my focus on the way to work each morning? If it is "what do I have to do today? " How can I change that to "what do I want/choose to do today?"

EE-9. How do I want to feel at work (being more precise and descriptive than "happy" or

"successful ")? What do I do at work that truly engages and energizes me? What do I look forward to about my work?

EE-10. If I have lost my zest for work or my appreciation for work what would it take to get back to how I want to feel while working?

EE-11. When I feel energized at work, what can I do to be ful ly self-aware so that I can re-create that experience in the future?

I'm somebody who loves poli tics -I mean politics i n the compan y, as i n, how do you help a nd enable people to get along? It's not a dirty word. It's how you organize. People say, 'Oh, we don't have pol itics.' Everybody has politics. So be an expert at it. Figure out how to influence people to get things done

..." (Bryant, 2009b, p.BU2).

Thus, for an employee, the objecti ve is not to avoid orga n izations tha t are pol i tica l. Nor is i t to refra i n from being pol i ti ca l.

Ra ther, it is to be savvy about the politics ),,

VOLUME 34/ ISSUE 1- 2011 49

present, hel p ma ke them constructi ve and to be posi ti ve in one's own pol i tical beha vior (Morford, 2007, 2008).

EE-16. Are there influential people in the organization that I have not met? If so. how can I get to work with them?

EE-17. What information flows would I like to tap

· they can l i nk institu tional tra tegie p r i o r1 t1 e w i t h pe r on a l a r ea development and respon i bi l i ty;

and o f

At a basic level and with constructive i nten­ tions, posi tive political behavior is getting others to do what you wa n t them to do o tha t you meet your goals, im plemen t you r strategie , and you crea te val ue for as many as possi ble. From such a va ntage point, pol i­ tics is fu n d a men ta ll y con nected to t he i nforma tion flow with i n a n orga n iza ti on. Thus, i t is im porta nt for a n employee to determine who are the key people in that flow, how to politely and na turally ta p i nto that stream and the best contributions to ma ke to it. Volunteering for special committees/proj­ ects, steppi ng u p to ma ke an i m porta n t presentation, au thoring a conference paper or getting involved in a professional society (Maa , 2008) are all excellent ways to access key pla yers, showcase i n i tia ti ve a n d to become i nfl uential.

Em ployers can m itiga te nega tive politica l behaviors and their related negative impact by crafting fair policies and proced u res a nd adhering to them, rewarding employees' out­ standing performa nce, and by supporting empl oyees' needs for esteem and approva l (Harris, et. al., 2007). The underpi nning of an employer's actions in this rega rd are rooted i n an understanding of the i nstitution's informal information and influence flows that provide employer i nsight a bout employees' percep­ tions of significa nt organiza ti ona l actions. Lea rn how to accomplish such work flows by social network studies tha t highl ight real nodes of infl uence (Cross & Thomas, 2009).

Implications for Employees

Em ployees can assess thei r own wor kplace networks and pol i tical skills while bei ng open to the possi bili ty that such pol i tics offer posi tive, pu rposeful networki ng opportu n i­ ties (Forrer & Dougherty, 2001; May, 2007). Key questions i ncl ude the followi ng:

into and how would that enhance my work contributions? What wou ld it take to tap into those flows?

Implications for Employers

To reduce the likelihood of poli tically nega ­ tive behaviors, orga n ization need to ask:

ssessment and Feedback: The Good, the Bad and the

Not-so Ugly

Feed back, formal and informal, is i m portant to job success a nd career ucces . However, Ja mes Good n ight, fou nder of SAS Institu te, has noted tha t no one wa nts to give perfor­ ma nce appra isa l , no one wants to recei ve them, they tend to be subjecti ve and inaccu­ rate, they are often not con nected to rewards, and they consu me enormou amount of orga­ nizational energy (Pfeffer, 1998a). ln a simila r vein, Fox (2009) report on two tudies that found a majori ty of tho e surveyed bel ieved there was "little val ue in performance reviews," a nd they did nothi ng "to hel p [empl oyees'] future performance." De pite such views, per­ forma nce assessmen ts do offer potenti a I benefits (Forte, 2009; raig, 2009).

POLITICAL SAVVY- EMPLOYEE

EE-12. To whom do people take their questions, and why do they go to that person?

EE-13. Have colleagues been pleased or not with recent personnel promotions and why?

EE-14. To what extent does gossip and self- interested posturing exist amongst those with whom I work?

EE-15. Ask prospective co-workers, "What do you like best about work and the company?"

If descriptors like fair, equitable, open and transparent do not surface, beware.

If u ed well, performance asse ments serve a n um ber of posi tive purpose , such as:

· high performers eldom leave organizations t h a t assess a n d a ck n ow l ed ge t h e i r contribu tions (Durand, 2008);

· theycan end explicitsignalsa bout behaviors, values, attitudes, expectations and outcomes that are, and are not, welcomed;

· they ca n bea n effecti ve mea n of developi ng

employee confidence in the "rationality" of rewa rd and recognition systems;

· they can provide usef ul i npu ts rega rd i ng the direction and i ntensity of an employee's professional development plan;

· mo t of us wa nt to k now how we a re per eived by others; a nd

POLITICAL SAVVY- EMPLOYER

ER-14. What does a social network analysis show about, and are we comfortable with, the pattern of information flow and its revelation of influential employees?

ER-15. What do employee conversations tend to be mostly about?

ER-16. After a round of personnel promotions is the organizational buu affirming, perplexed, critical or deflated?

ER-17. Are there individuals whose behavior is mostly self-serving, critical of others

and/or spotlight seeking? If yes, is that behavior tolerated and if so. why?

· the discu sions that should accompa ny a n employee a e sment can preem pt counter­ prod u cti ve a m bi gu i ties, u n wa r ra n ted a u m p t i o n s a n d d e t r i m e n t a l m isundersta ndi ngs.

lf ma nagers con d uct performa nce asse s­ me n ts wi t h haste a n d deta ch me n t, t he opportu n i ty i lo t to guide, encou rage, ener­ gize and rewa rd employees. A a result, an organ iza tion deprives i tself of commitment, opti m i m a n d excellence from tho e not recei vi ng conscientiousl y del ivered feed back. We ha ve ob erved increasingly i mper nal mea n (e.g., letters) and narrowed foci (e.g., mostly financial resu lts) for feed back the lon­ ger employee have been wi th an orga n iza tion. Tho e with the most time in an orga n ization ca n actu a l l y best benef i t from more a n d broader assessments (Morison, et. a l., 2006) .

Implications for Employees

mployees can do their part by as essi ng thei r own work-related capa bi l ities a nd attitudes. Making job decisions, even the one to tay, in the absence of such self-awa reness i l i kel y to contribu te to a n u nfulfilling, energy draining ca reer. Use these questions for an employee's self-awa reness assessment:

ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK­ EMPLOYEE

EE-18. Is the performance assessment process clear, complete and to my liking? If not, what's missing and have I inquired to see if changes can be made?

EE-19. Have I undertaken a robust self­ assessment to identify habitual ways of thinking, believing and assuming? If not. why not, and why not now?

EE-20. How has my career changed over time? Is it less fulfilling than Ithought 1t would be? Why? What can I do to make it more

fulfilling? Is it more fulfilling than I thought it would be? Why? What commitments can I make to myself to (a) continue to have

it be fulfilling and (b) to help a colleague experience more career fulfillment?

50 PEOPLE & STRATEGY

ystemat1c Development: A Career-long Mutual Commitment

EE-21. Would I hire me? Why or why not?

EE-22. In what way(s) does my employer's assessment process encourage me to learn? Should I enhance my strengths or address my weaknesses? Why?

EE-23. Have I found myself relying on 'true grit' to make it through a task or situation at work? If yes, what factors undergird that and how might they be best addressed?

Implications for Employees

At the employee level, individ uals should ask:

SYSTEMATIC DEVELOPMENT- EMPLOYEE

EE-24. What job would I like to have in 3 years?

6 years? 10 years? What steps must I take to obtain the skills, knowledge,

attitudes, and experiences to qualify for those jobs?

EE-25. Are the organization's short- and long-term strategic talent needs clear to me? If not. where can I obtain the needed clarity?

If yes, am I doing all that I should/could be doing to position myself as a valued contributor? If not, how can I improve my position?

EE-26. What are my best/worst attributes? How can I nurture the best and overcome the worst ones?

EE-27. Do I have a clear sense of the areas and the extent to which I have grown

professionally over the past 3 to 5 years? If yes, how can I make sure my employer knows that? If not. what is getting in the way of that realization and how can that be best addressed?

Implications for Employers

In Good to Great,Col lins (2001) popularized the concept of "who is on the bus" to denote the importa nce of the person/orga nization fit. To th is, we add that it is also i mporta nt to get right "who sits in what seat," a point Cra ig (2009) also asserts (2009). Who is on the bus and wha t seat they sit in is a hi ring, promo­ tions a nd job assign ments task rooted i n orga n iza ti ona l employee assessmen ts. To su ch en ds, em ployer processes ca n be enhanced by questions like:

ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK- EMPLOYER

ER-18. Are performance assessment criteria congruent with hiring criteria and

job tasks? Why or why not? Are they congruent with an individual's career type, stage and aspiration? If no, how might that be improved?

ER-19. How do we assess the performance of an employee? Is assessment grounded in documentable ways with multiple sources and dimensions? Is there a blending of qualitative and quantitative descriptors? In what ways might these aspects of assessment be improved?

ER-20. Is there a timeliness to the feedback employees receive that allows it to be used developmentally and when best needed? How could timeliness be improved?

ER-21. What is an employee's role in his/her review process? How can it be expanded? Does the review process increase an employee's capability of effectively assessing themself?

ER-22. Assessments must be done with an open mind to the potential value of differences. Be real. Are the personnel profiles the organization seeks to acquire feasible, or do they suggest the organization would be populated with superstars, clones or both?

ER-23. Prior to individual performance assessments, consider categorizing the personnel traits your organization is seeking into: "must haves," "nice to have," "let's give this a try," and ··must avoid." As you assess personnel, are certain categories overstocked? Too lean? Just right? What shifts might be worth pursuing?

ER-24. Do we invest in employee learning in ways that are on-going, tailored and valued by them and their supervisors? If not, why not and how can that be remedied?

Pfeffer (1998b) notes tha t a pervasive cor­ por a te pro bl em i s a m i a l ign me n t of i nd i vid ua l development foci with a n orga­ niza t i on's cr i t i ca l stra tegi c objecti ves. There is a need for a systema tic approach to talen t devel opment over one's career (Morison, et. a l., 2006). Appropria te forms of support for i nd i vid ua ls a t the appropri­ ate time integra te com pan y and empl oyee tra tegic objectives a nd needs ( Ba ruch & Peiper!, 2000).

A systema tic gap ana l ysis req u i res atten­ ti on at three levels. First, let's refer to this as t he Level 1 focus t h a t esta bl ishes a n accura te pictu re of an i nd ivid ual's and an orga n iza t i on 's respecti ve po r tfolio of skills, knowledge, a tti t u d es a n d experi­ ences as they exist toda y. Level 2 del inea tes a n i nd i vid ua l 's a n d t he orga n i za t i on 's portfoli o of sk i l ls, kn owledge, a tti t u des a n d experi ences a s t h ey a re cu r re n tl y needed. Level 3 projects a n ind i vid ua l 's a n d orga niza t ion 's portfol io of sk i l l s, k n ow l ed ge, a tti t u d es a n d exper iences needed in the fu tu re.

An y gap between Level 1 a nd 2 high l ights immed ia te needs i n performi ng the current job. For exa m ple, does an experience gap exist i n a certa in busi ness u n it d ue to too ma ny Transitory career path types? That unit ma y need to crea te more favora ble conditions and opportu ni ties for Stead y State Experts. Perha ps a current negotiati ng skills gap exists in a particular country where the foreign gov­ ernment is a key pa rty. An outside consulta nt with the req uisite cou ntry knowledge may be used if urgent.

Gaps between Levels 2 a nd 3 h ighlight the strategic, future-foc used needs. Here t he response ca n be method ical a nd seq uenced. As a n example, a Level 2 versus Level 3 gap might point to a need for i n nova ti ve cus­ tomer solu tions by a sen ior sales force to meet aggressive, five-yea r sa les growth ta r­ gets. Or, a Level 2 versus Level 3 ski l l gap might indicate the need for more geogra ph­ ica l networking by key thought lea ders to meet service needs of the compa n y's m ulti­ na tional customers.

Implications for Employers

Recently one of our clients went th rough a process to identify h igh-potential, bu t u nder­ performing, employees. The company then sought to customize both immediate a nd long­ term opportuni ties to better captu re each i ndivid ual's percei ved, but untapped potential. Organization , therefore, should gather i nfor­ mation using the following questions:

SYSTEMATIC DEVELOPMENT- EMPLOYER

ER-25. Collectively, what skills, knowledge, attitudes, and experiences do employees possess today?

ER-26. Collectively, what skills, knowledge, attitudes, and experiences does the organization need today?

ER-27. Where are the gaps between #ER-25 and

#ER-26 and how can they be remedied?

ER-28. Collectively, and given the organization's strategic goals, what skills, knowledge, attitudes, and experiences are needed over the next several years to meet those goals?

ER-29. Assuming the gaps identified in #ER-27 are addressed in the near term, what gaps exist between #ER-26 and #ER-28 and how can they be addressed over the next 3-5 years?

ER-30. Which individuals are unwilling or incapable of developing along the lines indicated by #ER-29? On an individual basis, is it best that they be reassigned, left alone, or asked to leave?

VOLUME 34/ ISSUE 1- 2011 51

uccess: Yours, Mine and Ours

The last element of the COMPA tem pla te perta i ns to perceptions a bou t success, spe­ cif ica ll y w h a t i t mea n s from d i ffe ren t pers pectives. Wha t a re the employee and employer per pectives?

EXHIBIT 2: A PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT BALANCE WHEEL

From an employee perspecti ve, i t is i m porta nt to affirm the fact tha t individ ua ls have m u l ­ tiple aspects to thei r life. For exam ple, we a ll ha ve a professional side, as well as an intel­ le tual, socia l, physical, recrea tional, fami lial, emotional and spiritual side. As Estep (2005) a nd Ol tesvig (2006) have asserted, an indi­ vid ua l's success depends on whether we ha ve u ed our ti me and energy i n "composing the life" we want (Ba teson, 1989).

Consi der Exh i bit 2. Each of i ts segmen ts represents a "side" to ou r l i ves. The cen ter poin t represents ou r cond i ti on at bi rth­ zero developmen t on a ll d i mensi ons. The ou ter ring repre ents worl d -clas perfor­ ma nce. An i nd i vid ua l cou ld review h is or her l ife u i ng a visua l spreadsheet to prod uce a 12-sided k ite d iagra m such as the one la w­ son (2010) u ed. Figu re 2 how wha t one actu a l ma nage r's d evel opmen ta l prof i l e looked l ike a t age 42. We bel ieve the e 12 dimensions of l i fe a re importa n t wa y i n wh ich they potentially i nteract. For exam­ pl e, poo r hea l t h or poo r re l a t i onsh i ps (socia l ) ca n sign ifica ntly affect a per on 's profes ional success. I it worth it to become CEO a t the expense of one's ma rriage? The collecti ve pa ttern depicted on one' wheel is importa nt so tha t choices and tradeoffs are con cious a nd in formed.

or everyone wa nts to be worl d-class on these dimensions. or are the defin i tion of world-class absol u te. Ind ivid ua ls who use th is wheel an n u ally can ee thei r progress toward ucce a they define i t. Ind i vi d ual success is not a perfectly circu lar pa ttern a t level 10 on all 12 d imensions. Ra ther, the goal is to be able to answer the question, "What do I wa nt?" The bold line on Figu re 2 depicts this i ndivid ual-specific response.

From an employer perspecti ve, talent-rela ted success points to the i mporta nce of attract­ ing, h i ring a n d retaini ng the right peopl e; de ign i ng work tha t energizes them; assess­ i n g t h e m fa i r l y ; r e w a r d i n g t h e m appropr i a tel y; a n d prov i d i n g for t he i r growth and development. It boil down to two foci: How well are individ ual perform-

52 PEOPLE & STRATEGY

Marital

Familial

Emotional

ing rela tive to thei r ca pa bilities and what sort of bench-strength is a va il a ble for the key positions wi thi n the organization?

We encou rage organ ization to q u an ti f y where they stand on these two q uestions. They can do so by calcu la ti ng an organiza­ tiona l "career succe s index." Th is simple index depicts the proportion of posi tions in the compa n y tha t ha ve the right high-per­ forming person i n place, and read y successors i denti f ied a nd cu l ti va ted. As an exam pl e, a ume a bu ine u n i t has 300 critical posi­ tions. If the performa nce assessment sy tern points to 255 of those as currently filled with h igh-perfor m i ng people, a nd 125 of them with identifia ble i nternal candidates ready to a u me that position should i t open up, then tha t u ni t's career success index is: (255/300 + 125/300) I 2 = 63 percent. We might a rgue tha t th is un i t is modera tel y successfu l in craft­ ing a portfolio of careers for its people that provi ded for the right people, a t the righ t time, for the right opportu nity.

Implications for Employees

As we have multiple dimensions to our li ves a n d wor k, em p l oyees shou l d ask m u l ti­ dimensional questions as thei r careers unfold. That wa y they are able to ma ke the appropri­ a te cha nges in thei r wor k en v i ron ment,

Spiritual

Material

Source: Clawson (2010)

a tti tudes, d i rection and/or a pi ra tions. Use­ ful questions in this rega rd i nclude:

Implications for Employers

Orga nization have a vested interest i n creat­ i ng uccessfu l employee sooner a nd wi th greater l i kel ihood. Orga niza tions need not be the prima ry contribu tor to a ll the dimen­ sions of an individ ual's life (Carless & Wintle, 2007), but ma rt organizations will wa nt to contri bu te po i tively to an employee's non­ work dimensions.

EXHIBIT 3: A POSSIBLE COMPASS EMPLOYEE CAREER MANAGEMENT FORM (FRONT)

Employee Name: Date:

Position:

Years in position ---------

(AREER CONCEPT PROFILE:

Where do I see myself now, and where would Ilike to be in 3, 6, and 9 years on the grid below? Is this congruent with how the organization views me and wants me?

Career Type* Linear

Function

Organizational context Geographic Business

locale unit Responsibility

Steady State Expert Spiral

Transitory

*Brousseau et. al. (1996)

ORGANIZED FOR FIT:

In what one cell, in the 3 x 8 matrix below, do Icurrently and predominantly see myself? What two additional cells represent my next two arenas of perceived contribution? Am I content with those positions? If not, what cell(s) are more appealing? How do all those positions align with my employer's view of me and for me?

Employer

Products/ Services Custome Clients Operatio Processes

Employee Talent(s)M

Technological Analytical Conceptual Mentoring Relational Administration Creativity Influencing

rs/

ns/

__.

_ _

._

"Wiersma and Treacy (1995) ""Butler and Waldroop {1999)

MOTIVATION AND ENERGY:

On a scale of 1(very low) to 10 (very high), how would I rate my energy level when Icome into work and when Iam finished with work? Are the levels, by themselves, as high as Iwould like? If not, why not? Are the levels different at those two points in time? If so, why?

What suggestions might I make to my employer as to how "choice" can be a larger, more tangible part of my work assignment?

-

VOLUME 34/ ISSUE 1- 2011 1 53

EXHIBIT 3: A POSSIBLE COMPASS EMPLOYEE CAREER MANAGEMENT FORM (BACK)

How do I wa nt to feel on my way into work, while at work, and after work? Do I experience those feel i ngs? If not, why not.

POLITICAL SAVVY:

The three or four most negati ve pol itical behaviors I observe i n my work place are: Am I guilty of engaging i n those?

The three or four most positive political behaviors I observe i n my workplace are: Do I contri bute to those?

Who would I like to work with the orga nization that I have not yet had a cha nce to? What are some valid mea ns I might explore for seeing if that is doable i n the next six mont hs? ------------

ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK:

Is the perfor ma nce assessment information I give (and receive):

· usef u ll y developmenta l i n nat u re?

· based on 360° i n puts?

· li n ked to the va l ues a nd beliefs most supportive of the organization's desired cultu re?

· con nected to the organ ization's strategic priorities as well as mine?

· perceived as fair and transpa rent?

· com m u n icated face-to-face and one-on-one?

SYSTEMATIC DEVELOPMENT:

My 'currently existing' (i.e., Stage 1) skills, knowledge, attitudes, and experiences are:

My 'needed today' (i.e., Stage 2) skills, k nowledge, attitudes, a nd experiences are:

My 'needed in the f utu re' (i.e., Stage 3) skills, k nowledge, attitudes, and experiences are:

Does my supervisor agree wit h this? If not, how can those different perce ptions be reconciled? What persona l development agend a springs from a Stage 1/Stage 2 ga p a nd a Stage 2/ Stage 3 gap?

SUCCESS:

My personal defin ition of success is: -------------------------

I n what way(s) d oes t his contribute to my employer's success? ---------------

L

As of tod ay, ,onstrnct a Ufe's Balance Wheel? Do I like what It ,eveals? If not, how do I want to change It?

54 PEOPLE & STRATEGY

Conclusion

SUCCESS- EMPLOYER

ER-31. In the context of the work demands we have placed on employees, have we sought to learn about the cost incurred by them on the other dimensions of their lives? If yes, what can we do to mitigate those? If not, why not?

ER-32. In the exit interviews of those who have left, have we gathered data about how well we did in creating the means for them to flourish? What are we doing well? Not so well?

ER-33. How does the organization define employee success? Does that definition fit all career types?

ER-34. On at least one occasion over the past 3-5 years, has every employee been recognized for his/her contribution(s) to

the organization? If not, why not and what does that suggest about the organization and/or its employees?

ER-35. How do we hold managers accountable for the development of their successors? How might we improve our approach?

Proactivel y guiding careers is a challenge for employees and employers. We have presented a systematic framework that both can use to assess a nd n a viga te i ncreasi ngl y compl ex career wa ters. In the same way that a compass helps adventu rers chart their course and find thei r wa y, a ca reer COMPASS ca n hel p employees and employers build relationships that contribu te ro the m u l ti-d imension a l well-bei ng of both. Th rough the reflective and action-oriented q ue tions th is pa per poses a n d the Fi gu re 3 COMPASS tem pl a te, employees and employers can become better

a l igned to the benefit of both. Im

arless, .A. and Wintle, J. (2007) 'Attraction: The role of recruiter function, work -life balance policies and ca reer salience', llllernational Journal of Sclect1011 and Assess­ ment , Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 3904.

lawson, J. G. S. (20 I0) Bala11ci11g Your Life: Executive Lessons for Work, ramify a11d Self, Singa pore: World Scientific Publishing ompany.

la wson, J. a nd ew bu rg, D. (2009) Powered by reel: How l11dw1duals, Teams, and ompa11ies Excel, ingaporc: World cientific Pu blishing ompany.

Coll i ns, J. (200 I ) Good to Great, ew York, Y: Harper ollins.

Conference Board (2005) 'U.S. job sa t1sfa tion keeps f a 11 i n g', w ww . con f e m cee- boa r d .org/ u t1 I i rie ,/ press Pri nter Friendl y.cf m ? press_ l D=25 82 , (accessed Jan u ary 1 1, 2006).

Craig, T. (2009) 'I low ro...make a business case for assess­ ment', Personnel Today, February I 0, p.25.

ross, R. and Thomas, R. (2009) Drwmg Results through Social Networks: How Top Orga111zat1011s Leuerag e Networks for Performance a11d Growth, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Durand, D. (2008) 'Master motivation ', Leadershi p Excel­ le11ce, Vol. 25, No. 1 1, p. 15.

Estep, T. (2005) 'Win ni ng the ra t race', T+D, Vol. 59,

No. I, pp. 71-72.

Forrer, M. and Dougherty, T. (200 I ) ' 'orrelates of net­ worki ng beha vior for ma nageria l a nd professiona l employees', Group & Orga111zat1011 Management, Vol. 26,

o. 3, pp. 283-31 1.

Fortc,J. (2009) 'C.1ve feedback, get pcrform,tncc', Su1>erVi­ sion, Vol. 70, No. 2, pp. 3-4.

Fox, A. (2009) 'Curing what ail, performa nce reviews',

H RMagazme, Vol. 54, o. I , pp. 52-57.

Glasser, W. ( 1999) Choice Theory: A New Psychology of l'erso11al Freedom, New York, NY: Ha rper.

Maas, B. (2008) 'The tipping point to career success·, S11111- 111it, Vol. 1 1 , No. 3, pp. 7-8.

May, T. (2007) "Personal networks and their uses," A /I M F M agazme, Vol. 2 1 , No. 5, p. 63.

Morford, M. (2007) 'Positive workpl,1ce politics with your boss', Busmess Credit, Vol. I 09, No. 5, pp. 48-49.

Morford, M. (2008) 'Pornive workplace politics with .:ol leagues', B11s111ess Credit, Vol. 1 1 0, o. I 0, pp. 68-69.

Morison, R., Frickson, T., a nd Dychtwald, K. (2006) 'Manag111g m1ddlesccnce', Haruard 811s111ess Rel'1ew, Vol. 84, No. 3, pp. 79-86.

elson, B. (2003) 'What do employees want?' ABA Bauk M arketmg, Vol. .H, o. 2, p. 9.

Oltewig, J. (2006) ' 1 2 keys to career success', Quality Progress, Vol. 39, No. I 0, pp. 22-27.

Pfeffer, J. ( 1998a) SAS lnstllute: A D1ffere11t Approach to l11ce1111L•es and Peo/1/e Ma11ageme11t l'r,ict1ces III the Soft­ ll'are /11du stry II R6-J'l) f'-r . G, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Business ',chool.

Pfeffer, J. ( I 998b) The H11111a11 l:quatm11, Boston, MA:

Harva rd Business School Press.

Pomeroy, A. (2007) 'C-suite worries over succession plan ning', H RM agazme, Vol. 52, No. 12, p. 22.

Prortas, D. (2008) 'Do the self-employed val ue autonomy more thiln cmployccc;?', Career Deuelo/)ment /11ter11a­ t10nal, Vol. I 3, No. I , pp. .H-45.

Schmid, D. and Adam,, J. (2008) 'Monvat1on 111 pro1ect management: The pro1ect manager's perspecrivc', Pro1ect Ma11age111e11t Jo1mwl, Vol. 39, o. 2, pp. 60-71.

Smdell, t-1. and . indell, T. (2008) 'Recharge your enthusi asm for you r 10h', T+D, Vol. 62, o. 5, pp. 82-83.

Tower; Perrin (2005) Wi11111ng Strategies for a Global Workforce-Exernt11•e Re/mrt, Philadelphia, PA: Towers Perrin.

Wiersema, E and Treacy, M. ( 1 995) The D1sc1pl111e of Market Leaders, New York, NY: Perseus Books.

References

Associated Press (2007) 'Qualified? Yes, but will she fit in?'

I !all , D. T. ( 1995)'Executive careers and learning: Aligning

,election, strategy, and development', Huma11 Resource l'la1111111g, Vol. 1 8, No. 2, pp. 14-23.

James lawson has recen tl y pu b­

The Da,ly Progress, November 12, pp. 10-1 1 .

Baruch, Y. and Pei per!, M. (2000) 'Career ma nagement practices: An empirical survey and implications', Human Resource Management, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 347-366.

Bateson, M. . (1989) Composmg a Life, ew York, NY: Plume Books.

Brousseau, K., Driver, M., Eneroth, K., and Larsson, R. ( 1996) 'Ca reer pandemonium: realigning organizations and individuals', The Academy of Management Executwe, Vol. 1 0, No. 4, pp. 52-66.

Bryant, A., (2009a) 'The keeper of that tapping pen', ew York Times, Ma rch 22, p. BU2.

Bryant, A., (2009b) 'I magi ni ng a world of no a n n ual reviews: I nterview with arol Martz, EO of YAI 100', New York T11nes, October 1 8, p. BU2.

Butler, T. and Waldroop,J. ( 1 999) 'Job sculpting,' / larvard Business Review, Vol. 77, No. 5, pp. 1 44-1 52.

Harris, R. B., Harris, K. J., and Harvey, P. (2007) 'A test of competing models of the relationships among perception5

of organizational polincs, percei ved orga nizational sup­ port, and ind1v1d ual ou tcomes', The Jo11mal of Social Psychology, Vol. 147, No. 6, pp. 631 -655.

Herman, R. (200 I ) 'Ada pting to the Ada pta bles', The futurist, Vol. 35, o. 2, p. 8.

Kohn, A. ( 1999) Pm11shed by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, /ncentwe Plans, A's, Praise, a11d Other Br1bes, New York, Y: Mariner.

L.ied tka, J., Haski ns, M., Rosen bl um, J., and Weber, J. ( I 997) 'The generative cycle: Linking knowledge and rela ­ tionshi ps', Sloan M a11ageme11t Review, Vol. 39, o. I , pp. 47-58.

Loeh r, J., and Schwa rtz, T. (2003) The l'ower of 1-ull b1gage111e11t: M anagmg Energy, Not Time, I s the Key to High Performance aud l'erso11al Re11ewal, New York, NY: Free Press

l i shed I euel Three I c<1dership th cd , Powered by f eel: how i11diu1d11,1/s, teams, a nd com/h111 Les excel ( wi t h Doug ew bu rg), and 8<1/,mcmg your I i(e: l.xecutiues l.esso11s for Work, h1mtlv and Self. I le tea ches i n t he Da rden chool \ M BA a n d doctora l programs.

Mark E. Haskin teaches i n the D.1rden chool ' I BA progra m. I n add1tton, h e desi gn s a n d d el i ve rs execu t i ve e d u c.a i o n p r og r a m s fo r m a n y well k n own corpora ti ons. Professor l lask1m is also the a uthor or coa uthor of seven books a n d ea rned h is Ph D from Pen n State Un iversit;.

VOLUME 34/ISSUE 1- 2011 55

Copyright of People & Strategy is the property of HR People & Strategy and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.