Perhaps the most important competency HR professionals can develop is the ability to show leadership in collaboration. Collaboration is often defined as a problem solving competency, another way to look at it is for goal accomplishment.
Rather than viewing collaboration as a means to only solve problems, consider it as a way to develop a business case for a program that you see as innovative and important to the future success of the business. Working collaboratively means access to greater resources, recognition and reward when facing competition for finite resources.
For the HR professional, this means engaging subject matter experts across the organization to develop the best practice approach to accomplishing a goal. Perhaps your goal is to launch Social Media/Web 2.0 applications in the organization. In order to develop a comprehensive business case for the project you need to access expertise in IT, Marketing, Communications, and Learning and Development.
Engaging others to share their expertise requires that while you are taking a leadership role in developing a collaborative effort, you must ensure that all participants are committed to the success of the project. This requires that you use well developed leadership skills, especially in the competency areas of Emotional Intelligence.
When you are researching information related to the project through the internet Google searches are a very useful tool. A key resource via internet research however is the use of Social Media groups where you can access a vast scope of expertise; join groups that are not specific to HR as you will develop comprehensive and useful information resources by inviting knowledge that is diverse.
To start the discussion of what you ‘see’ as the goal(s) for the project, summarize the information you gather through online research. Ask the participants that you have engaged in your project for their thoughts on that information in relation to integration in your organization and what else needs to be considered.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
Does Your Succession Plan Work?
This example shows how a leader that the succession planning process missed turned out to be the best choice for the job. The organizations’ succession plan identified specific people who were thought by their managers to have the potential to fill leadership positions. The development plan included coaching, support for ongoing education, leadership development programs, and opportunities to work in cross functional areas to gain tactical experience.
For employees that were not included in the succession plan, the opportunities available to them for promotion to leadership positions were support for continuing education, the opportunity to volunteer for various organization wide committees, and the ability to apply for leadership positions posted internally. The internal hiring process mirrored the external process.
In one such competition there were several candidates for a management position, but only two of these candidates are noted in this post.
One candidate was reluctantly nudged into the competition by others that felt he had demonstrated many of the competencies required. He consistently exhibited a solid understanding that everyone’s contribution to the organization was critical to the success of the organization. He was well respected both on a technical basis and an interpersonal basis by his peer group. He influenced the attitudes of his co-workers in a way that built commitment to quality and productivity. However, in his over ten years of experience, he had never expressed an interest in a leadership position; had not taken advantage of the opportunity to advance his formal education, or volunteered for any of the committees that would have him ‘noticed’ by the leaders of the organization.
Another candidate who had expressed an eagerness to attain a management position applied for the competition. During his employment with the organization he had taken advantage of the support for continuing education and volunteered for many of the organization wide committees. He was respected for his technical knowledge, however his interpersonal skills did not garner the level of trust and respect that the other candidate enjoyed. His influence with his coworkers was compromised because his skills (emotional intelligence) needed development in several areas.
Each candidate underwent an extensive interview process and wrote an exam that required knowledge of the business and a solid understanding of leadership practices. Once the interview and exam phases were complete the interviewing panel tabulated the results. The ‘reluctant’ candidate topped the list with the highest score, the ‘eager’ candidate placed fifth (out of six candidates) in the ranking.
Many of the criteria for ranking the candidates were items that could be objectively ranked, while the emotional intelligence items by nature had a certain amount of subjectivity in the rankings. The rankings were 80% objective and 20% subjective.
Why did the reluctant candidate fair so well in the rankings? By all appearances and criteria set by the organization for leadership he appeared to be a follower rather than a leader. Yet close observation of his actions throughout his work life and analysis of his interview and test results showed a remarkable level of understanding how to coach and motivate people.
Previous managers that he had reported to failed to submit his name for leadership development, in part because he did not overtly seek such a position. But also, because they failed to note his demonstrated skills and thus did not coach and mentor him.
The succession planning process, which appeared to be comprehensive, failed in one important aspect-the managers that submitted names were not adequately trained to effectively evaluate candidates. In this situation the internal hiring process filled in the gap.
For employees that were not included in the succession plan, the opportunities available to them for promotion to leadership positions were support for continuing education, the opportunity to volunteer for various organization wide committees, and the ability to apply for leadership positions posted internally. The internal hiring process mirrored the external process.
In one such competition there were several candidates for a management position, but only two of these candidates are noted in this post.
One candidate was reluctantly nudged into the competition by others that felt he had demonstrated many of the competencies required. He consistently exhibited a solid understanding that everyone’s contribution to the organization was critical to the success of the organization. He was well respected both on a technical basis and an interpersonal basis by his peer group. He influenced the attitudes of his co-workers in a way that built commitment to quality and productivity. However, in his over ten years of experience, he had never expressed an interest in a leadership position; had not taken advantage of the opportunity to advance his formal education, or volunteered for any of the committees that would have him ‘noticed’ by the leaders of the organization.
Another candidate who had expressed an eagerness to attain a management position applied for the competition. During his employment with the organization he had taken advantage of the support for continuing education and volunteered for many of the organization wide committees. He was respected for his technical knowledge, however his interpersonal skills did not garner the level of trust and respect that the other candidate enjoyed. His influence with his coworkers was compromised because his skills (emotional intelligence) needed development in several areas.
Each candidate underwent an extensive interview process and wrote an exam that required knowledge of the business and a solid understanding of leadership practices. Once the interview and exam phases were complete the interviewing panel tabulated the results. The ‘reluctant’ candidate topped the list with the highest score, the ‘eager’ candidate placed fifth (out of six candidates) in the ranking.
Many of the criteria for ranking the candidates were items that could be objectively ranked, while the emotional intelligence items by nature had a certain amount of subjectivity in the rankings. The rankings were 80% objective and 20% subjective.
Why did the reluctant candidate fair so well in the rankings? By all appearances and criteria set by the organization for leadership he appeared to be a follower rather than a leader. Yet close observation of his actions throughout his work life and analysis of his interview and test results showed a remarkable level of understanding how to coach and motivate people.
Previous managers that he had reported to failed to submit his name for leadership development, in part because he did not overtly seek such a position. But also, because they failed to note his demonstrated skills and thus did not coach and mentor him.
The succession planning process, which appeared to be comprehensive, failed in one important aspect-the managers that submitted names were not adequately trained to effectively evaluate candidates. In this situation the internal hiring process filled in the gap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)