Opportunism of Learning versus Opportunity of Development: The Paradigm of Perpetual Learning Bench

In recent years, Learning & Development (L&D) has become an important function of Human Resources Management (HRM) in a company. What used to be a small training cell, has now become equal in importance to other HR functions such as recruitment and performance management. L&D is an important bridge between recruitment from the marketplace and delivery in the workplace. L&D can play a vital role in the overall talent management of the company, receiving and providing inputs from the other HR functions. Previously viewed as a corporate function, L&D is now viewed as an important site and business function. However, its importance as a function that could bridge the gaps between academic education and industrial needs for young entrants on one hand and reskilling and retooling of the aging workforce on the other is yet to be appreciated to the full potential. There are, however, reservations as to whether the function is living up to the expectations. 

The reasons for such doubts are many. Firstly, there is no clear body of knowledge as to what constitutes the right methodology for L&D. An overwhelming number of CXOs would still vote for on- the-job development, largely because the L&D specialists have been unable to make an effective case for dedicated learning streams. Secondly, L&D is often seen as a soft-skill initiative (based on generic outsourced canned programmes), leaving the line managers to grapple with the challenges of technical development (that require company-specific customization). Thirdly, despite having one of the world’s largest educational infrastructures in the world, L&D departments have been unable to forge viable academic-industry collaborations. Fourthly, it is unclear if L&D function is regarded as a mainstream HR function that can throw up future heads of HR function or the businesses themselves. Fifthly, the metrics to determine the effectiveness of L&D are yet to be developed to any appreciable extent. As a result, L&D continues to be a function of high potential but beset with unclear delivery.

Opportunism of learning

It is interesting that most functions in HR are not exactly the functions that provide ‘universal joy’ in organizations, given their requirements to be objective in business partnering. Recruitment, for example, has to bring in new talent to make businesses and operations competitive, even at higher salaries; this certainly is not a matter of joy for internal aspirants. Rewards management has to structure compensation within the means available to a firm, notwithstanding what industry pays or what staff believe they deserve.  Performance appraisal introduces relativity amongst employees with all its disharmony; bell curve or no bell curve. Succession planning is a function that demands hard (perception-wise harsh) choices; many top level separations are caused by succession battles. Industrial relations in traditional companies (and right sizing in new generation firms), of course, has been the cauldron of strife and disharmony in established organizations. In contrast to all these HR functions, L&D emerges as a relatively welcome function that brings forth no hard feelings!

In-house learning has, therefore, been quick to grab for itself the joyous characteristic of non-graded learning. Sponsorship to learning programmes is seen as a relief from the day to day work drudgery. If the sponsorship is to off campus and overseas learning programmes, the joy is even higher. Usually company learning programmes have neither the rigour of institutional teaching nor the challenge of end-of-the-learning gradation. Fun though such limited company learning is, firms can hardly become competitive just based on the joy of such non-demanding learning processes. In-company learning needs to be as studious and demanding as an academic programme of a top-notch institution tends to be; this is the only way to develop the needed skill sets. L&D has to be a mini HR system; from selecting the right candidates to providing the needed inputs, and from measuring learning to rewarding learning. L&D professionals should be willing to become gentle but tough taskmasters who would be both facilitative and objective.

Opportunity of development

The real joy of learning must come from the fulfilment of the accompanying development process. Learning and development are the two sides of the same coin. There can be no development without learning and learning sans development is infructuous. Just as a student who leaves the portals of a college is expected to be decidedly better than the one who enters, every employee who leaves a learning programme must be a better performer than the one who enters. The learning programmes could be simple ones such as fortifying one’s known language skills or challenging ones such as learning an absolutely new coding language. The joy for the learners as well as the teachers of such company programmes must be in terms of measurable increases in individual competence, and hence in organizational competitiveness. L&D professionals must impart seriousness and objectivity to the process of ‘learner-teacher match’ to focus on competencies and competitiveness.

Many times, the relative short span of internal programmes is held to be working against the objective of enduring developmental impact of the programmes. The fallacy lies here itself; why should a firm undertake learning programmes that are deemed suboptimal as a design itself? Are L&D professionals giving importance to form rather than substance, operational managers giving precedence to current work rather than future potential, `and corporate managements getting bogged down by budget impacts rather than by competency needs? It is important that firms decide on a few core themes and work towards programme structures and contents that reshape the skill sets in a decisive manner. This requires that L&D professionals become a part of value chain in the laboratories, plants and markets, list out the needs and develop customized programmes. A panel of line and HR leaders must vet the programmes, oversee coaching and evaluate the outcomes.

Accessing the infrastructure

India has such a large educational infrastructure that firms can indeed develop very effective programmes in collaboration with leading educational institutions. Rather than consider expensive executive education programmes, which are again general in nature, L&D would do well to tie up with colleges and universities to provide full course programmes such as Bachelors for Diploma holders, Masters for Bachelors degree holders, and Ph D for Masters degree holders. Many public sector undertakings such as HAL, SAIL and BEL (and some leading private sector companies such as L&T) had taken the lead, decades ago, in structuring such company specific academic programmes with intensely practical slant. With newer fields such as artificial intelligence, robotics, mechatronics, sensor technologies, Internet of Things, bionics, nanotechnology, epigenetics, and wearable technologies set to transform all industries, it is important that middle level employees are reskilled in such domains so that organizations can stay contemporary at the minimum, and futuristic as a target.

There is a dilemma here though. On one hand, so much investment has been made in India by private agencies and the governments on colleges and institutions as well as teaching staff that it makes sense, at least for mid-rung companies, to utilize the investments. On the other, there does exist a criticism that Indian colleges and academic programmes are not known to be up to date in terms of knowledge base and pedagogy as a result of which the graduates do not have readily deployable skillsets, forcing companies to resort to on the job experimental development. Consequently, the confidence with which the industry can approach the academia is yet to be built. The paradox can be resolved to mutual benefit only if industry and academia decide to move together for collaborative programmes. Scale is necessary for making such programmes meaningful for companies as well as for institutions.

Learning bench

The concept of learning bench is relevant in this context. Depending on the nature of business and the technologies deployed, each firm should predetermine the number of executives in each cadre and each function that should be constantly learning. As a matter of hypothetical example, a pharmaceutical company could decide that 20 percent of its staff should constitute the learning bench at all times, so that in a span of five years the entire organization would be reskilled. Depending on the business model (whether it is research, manufacturing or marketing oriented), the relative percentages of staff in those and related domains and the nature of programmes could vary. Once a learning bench concept is embedded, selection of staff that need to qualify into the learning bench must be an annual feature with well specified criteria.

There should be a three tier approach to pass the learning bench through academic collaboration. The first tier would comprise the IITs, NITs, IIMs and other top ranking autonomous institutions such as BITS which can take the lead for creating industrial laboratory based research as well as advanced masters programmes. Entry into this tier must be based on proven potential as well as open competition. The second tier would comprise the large number of colleges and institutions which can impart academic programmes after learning industrial needs themselves. Entry into this tier would be open for the large numbers of young, operating staff who need their academic capabilities customized to industry needs. The third tier would comprise in-house programmes which are led by domain experts of the industry and institutions together with the learning bench staff that has already gone through tier 1 and 2 learning and development processes.

Companies baulk at making such huge investments on L&D as they are uncertain that executives so trained would remain in the company. The author is reminded of what an executive of Telco (now, Tata Motors) told him in 1976; he said that Telco, and for that matter all Tata Group companies invest a lot in training engineers under the Graduate Engineer Training schemes or in sponsoring middle level executives to XLRI three year evening programmes, fully aware that not all would stay. Yet, it has been the view of the Group that by training graduates and developing them and others in their companies the Tata Group is, in fact, building national competencies. That such a progressive concept was integral to Tata organizational development four decades ago, and could be articulated so clearly at a time when the fancy concepts of L&D were not in vogue in Indian industry, speaks of the visionary mind-set of Telco and the Tata Group. It should not be too much to expect the more enlightened companies of today to view learning and development as an immersive commitment, for their companies’ competitive advantage and India’s comparative advantage.

Posted by Dr CB Rao on April 30, 2016      

The Fine Art of Building and Leading an Organization: CPOs, CEOs (and CXOs) as Mindful and Thoughtful Gurus

The Human Resources (HR) Professional, whether he or she is an executive or a leader, is a critical person in organization building. If the competitive advantage of an organization is derived from its people, the Human Resources department, and its constituent professionals are a critical enabler of the competitive advantage of the firm. This is not to paper over the direct contributions of various line and staff functions such as Research & Development, Manufacturing, Supply Chain, Sales & Marketing, Quality & Regulatory, Safety, Health & Environment, Business Planning & Development, Information Technology, Finance and Secretarial & Compliance (and several other functions and sub-functions) to the competitive advantage. While each of the functions tends to be domain-specific with reference to the people function, only HR plays an all-encompassing role in organization development, across all domains.

HR domain itself has evolved, substantially over the years, from being a mere Personnel and Administration department to becoming today’s Human Resources department that is considered more a business partner. In keeping with this evolution, heads of HR are now a part of the C Suite, with impressive titling, for example Chief people Officer (CPO) or Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO). At the same time, there has also been a realization within the line and staff functional leaders that people management is one of their key responsibilities too. Of the commonly held HR responsibilities such as Recruitment, Training & Development, Performance Management, Compensation Administration, and Organization Design & Development, line and staff functions are taking an increasingly shared responsibility with the HR function. This trend is accentuated with scale as well as decentralization, whether at business or site level. This has led to lack of clarity on decision rights and responsibilities, with conflicts as well. 

Paradoxes abound

A major facet of a true HR professional is one of managing paradoxes skilfully. Like the CEO of a firm who has such paradoxical imperatives (for example, building businesses and closing businesses simultaneously), the CPO too faces some challenging paradoxes. First and foremost, one of the key aspects of HR is organizational culture, which can only be felt and experienced, and not metricised and measured. Second, HR is required to touch the heart but most of the financial decisions of business are made by the head. Third, organization is expected to precede other infrastructure which, in turn, must precede business but HR is usually brought into play late in new businesses, mergers and acquisitions. Fourth, HR is required to promote transparency but is often faced with situations where it cannot disclose or receive information on developments freely. Fifth, while factors such as workplace ambience, title weight, job security etc., are supposed to be hygiene factors, they tend to demand disproportionate attention and time too.

More than the above five, HR has to grapple with the challenge of developing talent to the maximum extent possible from within (without sub-optimised performance that inbreeding could cause) while also bringing in the leading-edge industry talent (without causing disharmony and disaffection). There is a clear need for HR to be the ‘best of the best’ domains in an organization, and emerge as a role model. This has to be accomplished in the face of a rather truncated view that could exist, within HR and outside, that HR’s role is to find and recruit people, fix and review salaries, identify and solve relational problems, train and develop people (usually on shoestring budgets). This has also to be accomplished without a large HR team, as often HR, like any other corporate team, is seen to be a cost to be catered to than as a value to be welcomed. The final challenge is that being a part of the C Suite, and close to the CEO, but still not a part of the direct business delivery value chain, HR gets to be drawn into top level organizational dynamics, including succession planning at the senior levels, with their own political and emotional challenges.   

Managing paradoxes

There are no set methods to manage paradoxes but by doing a few things right, the CPO and the HR function can achieve and maintain a stature of authentic leadership for themselves that would make paradox management easy and harmonious. These are as follows.

Employee as customer

As discussed initially, a fundamental task of HR is to recruit and induct people. Usually, HR is the first interface that a prospective candidate has with the organization; likewise HR is the lens through which the organization can see and feel the outside world. Mahatma Gandhi held customer as being the very reason for a company’s existence. Likewise, an employee is as valuable to the organization as a customer is to business. HR leaders and executives should treat every prospective candidate with utmost care, respect and objectivity. Not only would this be a dutiful activity but would lay the foundation for an extremely positive of view of the company by the candidates, and eventually by the employees. This approach must be a part of the DNA of HR, continuing with individual employees and the teams.

Business as process

Typically, HR processes are considered unique to HR domain just as quality processes are to the Quality department and production processes to Manufacturing, and so on. The relevant fact is that unless HR is well educated on the business value chain it would not be able to understand the real talent requirements and select the right talent. Effective recruitment is more than creation of slick job specifications; it requires a feel for the value chain. All HR executives must make it a point to spend time in R&D laboratories, plants and marketplace to understand the products, processes of manufacture and delivery, and the customer needs. While line executives take primary responsibility in the respective domains, a business savvy HR executive can be an exceptionally effective business partner.

Learning as development

Most companies provide several training and development opportunities. Irrespective of the industry, the current expectation is for superior skill levels backed by compliance to standard operating procedures. This alone would ensure high quality and support global standards. Most programmes, however, look at learning as a standalone objective of the programmes with development taking place as a follow-on activity on the job. The paradigm needs to be reversed in that actual on-the-job experiences and expectations must lead to learning programmes which must be evaluated immediately for their delivery on development. Also, rather than deploy generic canned programmes, the internal trainers must learn about the business and business processes, and develop firm-specific and business-specific content.  

Performance as journey

In an earlier blog post, the author has brought out the deficiencies of performance management as is commonly practiced in organizations. Reference may be made to “Vaunted Bell Curve: Wanted Culture Verve?”, Strategy Musings, April 20, 2016 (http://cbrao2008.blogspot.in/2016/04/vaunted-bell-curve-instead-culture-verve.html). Performance of employees is not to be measured, as an event outcome; it should not also be straightjacketed as an annual review. Performance review needs to be a continuous journey wherein supervisors and employees collaboratively discuss how to maximize performance of teams and the firm. It should not be judgemental and condescending on individual employees, teams and managers, without an appreciation of the total business and operational context. This requires the HR professional to partner the business leaders in their operational performance as well as business development.

Recognitions as rewards

The outcome of a performance review process invariably tends to be universal merit increases, and selective promotions. These certainly play a very important role in the employees feeling rewarded for their work and to be hopeful of career growth. These, however, are not real recognitions in the complete sense; more so in organizations which seek to keep such matters confidential. In organizations, the process of dispensation of such rewards, whether generous or frugal, tends to be a major source of grape-wine gossip, fuelled by an embarrassed non-disclosure.  While these kinks cannot be avoided, an objective HR system should be so convinced of its objectivity that it does not point to extraneous triggers or constraints as the causes for missed expectations. A paradigm in which open recognition of achievements in team meetings (without monetary rewards in such events) could nurture a more authentic, recognition climate. At the same time, HR must have the power to design an explicit linkage between business performance and team rewards.

Organization as ecosystem

A true HR professional helps in making an organization a lively and vibrant ecosystem. This is a concept greater than teamwork or team rewards, although team interactions are superior to individual relationships. An ecosystem is a habitat in which life thrives naturally. Organizations are synthetic creations to meet business ends but involving people competencies and emotions. Being a team, department, business etc., goes only half-way in creating a nurturing environment. The other half is made up by people feeling wanted, aligned, and achieving, with a fair balance between professional work and personal life. There must be enough adrenalin in people to achieve competitiveness but there must also be enough mindfulness amongst them not to be overly cluttered and stressed. Creation of an organizational ecosystem that nurtures creativity, innovation, competence and accomplishment in a mindful manner is the ultimate art for the HR leader.

HR leader as a Guru

The above has served to lay out the sterling qualities a HR leader must possess to nurture an ecosystem of positive culture rather than an organization of just material goals and transactional processes. To be able to lead the HR function, and also guide the CEO in such path, the HR leader has to be more of a mindful, thoughtful and reflective person than a leader of systems and processes. Whether a HR leader does that by himself/herself or seeks the help of gurus of business spirituality (for example, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev) is a matter of choice. Not every organization can afford a Jaggi Vasudev; nor can one Jaggi Vasudev serve the needs of the several thousands of organizations needing such guidance. The choice, therefore, is obvious! The CPOs and the CEOs (ideally, all the CXOs) themselves must embark on a personal journey of transformation to be mindful, introspective, thoughtful and reflective in whatever they say and do in order to be able to facilitate such positive practices in the broader organization development.

This is easier said than done. Human beings are genetically wired and behaviourally conditioned to be judgemental. As one attains higher positions in organizations, the tendency to be judgemental only increases. Many of the HR practices such as selection and recruitment, appraisal and compensation, training and development, and so on are prone to judgement. As leaders facing increasing clutter in their professional life but are expected to take quicker decisions, being judgemental (several times with beaming righteousness) becomes both fallacious and stressful. Mindfulness as a practice involving conscious slowing down and meditated self-introspection can declutter and destress one’s mind, reduce stressfulness, enhance cognitive abilities and improve judgemental capabilities. The CPO of an organization has a particularly challenging responsibility in initiating the mindfulness movement in an organization as he is expected to mediate and harmonize three important and complex behaviours: human emotional behaviour, organizational group behaviour and corporate business behaviour. The effort for embedding mindful leadership is certainly worth the competitive advantage and sustainable success it would bring to organizations.

Posted by Dr CB Rao on April 27, 2016

Author’s Note:

This blog post is inspired by the author’s observation of, and association with, Ken Meyers, Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer of Hospira, Inc (now, a Pfizer Company) between 2010 and 2015. Ken is currently SVP and CHRO of Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. Ken has been a passionate advocate of mindfulness and reflection as critical enablers of effective leadership.    

  

The Ten Principles of Optimality: Beyond Both the Obvious and the Paradox

Life’s greatest feature is that it requires individuals to execute things which are obvious on one hand and balance seemingly opposing points of view on the other. This is true for organizations as well. Some would characterize this as management of the obvious and the paradox in life. Obvious is something that is easy to see or understand. It is also something which most people would think of or agree to. The natural expectation, therefore, is that individuals and organizations would think of or do the obvious most of the times, if not always. Paradox is a statement or situation containing two opposite ideas that make it seem impossible or unlikely, although it is probably true. For example, ‘More haste, less speed’ and ‘Hasten slowly’ are two of the well-known paradoxes. The expectation here is that one should negotiate the paradoxes of life.

A little more distilled view of life would reveal that nothing is as obvious or paradoxical as it would seem. For example, healthy diet and rigorous exercise together constitute the key to good life. Few people, however, practice either of the two. Similarly, it is paradoxical that even the most educated tend to be most ill-informed about certain responsibilities or developments. Both obviously and paradoxically, therefore, there exist certain individual, familial, social, economic, demographic and cultural factors that make individuals and organizations deny the obvious and succumb to the paradox. As these macro aspects are neither a matter of choice nor amenable to modification, individuals and organizations must follow their own principles of deriving optimality in life, looking beyond the obvious and rising beyond the paradox. Here are such ten principles.

1. Productive safety, Safe productivity

Most inventions of the human race are intended to increase speed and productivity, and in that effort carry intrinsic safety issues. The pedal bicycle and the motorized two-wheeler are the two prime examples of the speedup options carrying inherent risks of accidents. Almost all sports, except mind games, involve the risk of injuries. Yet, the human race keeps pushing the envelope with Formula 1 races and such other events. Similarly, plant and equipment are constantly upgraded to turn out more parts per minute imposing more pressures on materials and men. Technology and practice fortunately provide several risk mitigating options to increased speed and productivity. Doing nothing or status quo will never be an answer in the path of progress. Embedding safety in product and process design, and accepting productive safety or safe productivity as an operational paradigm is an enabler of optimality. 

2. Purposeful Quality, Qualitative purpose

Quality is the ultimate governor of product design and operational excellence. Quality sets the limits of design excellence but quality has also to examine what is fit for purpose. For example, would it be sensible or viable to design an instant food product to last five years? Pursuit of perfectionist quality without regard to usage characteristics would be a profligate use of resources. The purpose must first be established to define the quality standard. A most exotic vaccine would be powerless in a rural market of emerging country compared to a normal vaccine that can tolerate the high temperature conditions. Quality has to be interpreted purposefully in terms of a larger ecosystem and there could be occasions when the entire product paradigm would need to be reconfigured. For example, if a frozen vaccine provides unmatched benefits, logistics need to be reworked to transport toddlers and kids to cold storage centers rather than transporting vaccines unreliably to diverse habitats. Qualitative purpose is as critical as purposeful quality.  

3. Creative conformity, Conformist creativity

Creativity and conformity are two sides of the life coin. Without creativity, there will be neither progress of achievement nor joy of fulfillment. Without conformity, there will only be disorder and anarchy in life. In most cases, there exist a number of familial, educational, social and organizational norms that reduce or constrain the creative instincts of individuals and in some cases the very same factors lead to unbridled and disruptive creativity. The essential thesis is that creativity has to be combined with conformity for success. A student, for example, has to be conformist in reading the entire syllabus but will also have to be creative in achieving the study modality that provides maximum absorption. Organizations may have to be conformist in catering to a common marketplace but need to be creative in developing segmental product-market fits. A recruiter has to be conformist in addressing the available talent pool but needs to be creative in offering distinctive value provisions.      

4. Innovative continuity, Continuous innovation  

Innovation is the lifeblood of human progress. As contrasted with creativity which is more in terms of ideation, innovation is more focused on bringing products and processes into fruition. Innovation springs from a foundation of knowledge and is opened up by one’s observation, openness, empathy and persistence. The best innovations tend to be breakthrough but the most helpful ones are likely to be continuous innovations. Societies are slow to accept breakthrough innovations (for example, the decades being taken to popularize electric cars, or even hybrid cars) and are rearing to accept incremental innovations (for example, the way incrementally innovated smart phones are bought every six months). Individuals and organizations need to anchor on a thematic product or process for innovative continuity while aiming for continuous innovation in anchor products and processes. Individuals and organizations need to make space for innovation as a daily routine (for example as an innovation hour in a day or an innovation day in a week). 

5. Expressive thinking, Thoughtful expression

Communication is the backbone of human network. Thoughts and expressions constitute the core of communication (listening being the other part). That is stating the obvious. However, there is a skill that is beyond the obvious in titrating thoughts and expressions against each other. The human mind is wired to think and express spontaneously but such ability is conditioned by a host of environmental factors. Life would be hollow if mind ceases thinking while it would be overwhelming if mind is excited by continuous thinking. Life would be static if thoughts are not converted into expressions while it would be draining if all thoughts are converted into expressions unfiltered. The purity and efficacy of thought that come with a focused and meditated mind results in expressive thinking while the clarity and coherence of expression that come with a logical and purposive mind provide the optimality of communication.   

6. Spontaneous deliberation, Deliberative spontaneity

Allied to the earlier principle is how prompt or affected one is in communication. Spontaneity in communication, both in terms of expression and response, is reflective of transparency and trust in communication. However, spontaneity should not be at the cost of deliberation. As a saying goes, before saying anything to others, one should evaluate how one would feel if one were to receive the same communication. Apart from time, the only thing in life that cannot really be taken back or made up is ‘word’, or in a broader sense spoken or written language, and body language. Being deliberate and spontaneous simultaneously reinforces one’s communication stature. What is not obvious is that it requires a trained mind tuned to quick thinking and high processing to achieve this capability. As one gains education and experience, one must balance the paradox of managing spontaneity and deliberation in response, whether in oral and written communication or in body language. Face, is the index of the mind; a calm and steady mind is reflected in a pleasant and reassuring face.       

7. Disciplined empowerment, Empowered discipline

All human beings seek empowerment. Some people tend to use power to control or throttle others, some to discipline others and some to lead others. Most people, however, consider it paradoxical to set limits for their empowerment and it is also an obvious phenomenon that most people are also reluctant to grant to others the same level of empowerment that they seek for themselves. Good parents and teachers realize that their power to lead comes from their role modeling while strong leaders in organizations derive their power from knowledge and experience well deployed rather than from reporting lines authoritatively imposed. Empowerment is an ultimate lever that is available in an organization to harness individual capabilities. It cannot be doled out to the undeserving, nor can it be used without discipline. Disciplined and directed empowerment needs to be responded with empowered discipline and dedication.     

8. Collaborative competition, Competitive collaboration

Many believe that collaboration must come obviously to individuals in a family or organizational system and would find it paradoxical to see competition in those ecosystems where collaboration must exist. Many also believe that collaboration cannot obviously exist where competition exists, say between the players of an industry and are surprised by how competition exists between team or family members  (for example, between siblings) and collaboration exists between competitors (for example, between Samsung and Apple, or between licensors and licensees in a competitive industry). It is the strength of competence and the viability of aspiration that determine whether collaborators and competitors stay as such or reverse the roles. An ability to collaborate and compete strategically provides optimality of resource deployment without losing competitive edge.

9. Dispassionate passion, Passionate dispassion

Passion, besides its other connotations, has emerged as an important, but often misused, concept in management lexicon. Passion denotes, from a leadership and management perspective, a very strong feeling of dedication and commitment to a domain or accomplishment. Renowned scientists, technologists, professionals, sportsmen, actors and public servants as well as all inventors have passion as their DNA of inspiration and accomplishment. At the same time, passion should not blind a person to seek preeminence beyond the expertise. Sachin Tendulkar would not have become the legend that he is today if he sought continuous captaincy as the recognition for his cricketing greatness. A dispassionate approach which signifies an unemotional and impartial view of one’s capabilities, contributions and relevance adds value to one’s passion. That said, it does not pay to be only dispassionate; one needs to have passionate dispassion to be professionally successful and socially relevant. This wonderful characteristic is akin to what Hinduism defines as Sthita Prajna, a hero whose soul is unmoved by circumstance, and who accepts pleasure and pain with equanimity. This esoteric principle, which is neither obvious nor paradoxical, differentiates superior organizations as much as individuals.  

10. Ingenious ingenuity, Ingenuous genius

Being ingenious is critical in today’s competitive world. But being ingenuous is also equally important. Knowledge, intellect and innovation, however desirable as characteristics they are, also somewhat distance the followers. Being ingenuous, that is being honest, trustworthy and approachable, adds the human touch to the genius of a person, and makes him or her an even more adored and followed manager or leader. Being friendly alone, on the other hand, is of little benefit in today’s world where followers need scientific, technical and professional mentoring to be able to enhance their competencies and solve their problems to become well set for their career progression. Contrary to the popular but misplaced notion that knowledge is power, knowledge with sharing and intellect with empathy enhance meaningful power of individuals and organizations.  

Maximal optimum, Optimal maximum

Optimum means the best possible or producing the best possible results. Maximum means the most that is possible or allowed. It is established in economic research as well as operations research that the most is not necessarily the best. It would appear beyond the obvious and paradoxical that optimum should have higher levels leading up to a maximum or a set of maximums would have an optimum. In matter of fact, it is possible to have more than one optimal solution and strive to make maximal outcomes optimal outcomes. The ten principles that look beyond both the obvious and the paradox help the processes of optimality in life.

Posted by Dr CB Rao on November 10, 2013

 

     

Education and Experience - Specialization and Diversification: Matrix of Multiple Possibilities

Many young people as they embark upon their educational and experience journeys are often intrigued and stymied in their analysis of what kind of focus and/or versatility in their journeys would provide them with appropriate career growth and satisfaction. There cannot be easy answers to this query as the variables that influence one’s career development go beyond education and experience. That said, education and experience are two of the most profound variables that influence a person and his or her contributions to any system. Education and experience not only add knowledge on a continuous basis but also influence personality development. Any template that helps the aspirants to understand themselves and their career ecosystem better should be a welcome addition to management and organizational literature.  

The template cannot be about which educational course or industry domain is better or worse from a career point of view. The template has to be more generic and independent of such choices. The oriental model advocates specialization in education and experience; it almost frowns upon darting across streams. The western model is open to, and even welcomes, versatility in education and experience. Alternatives are possible when a matrix approach is taken. The author, in one of the earlier blog posts, brought out how a 2X2 matrix provides insightful conceptual and analytical clarity to understand any issue. Interested readers may refer to the blog post, “The 2 Dimensional Matrix: A Universal Analytical Tool”, Strategy Musings, July 3, 2011 (http://cbrao2008.blogspot.in/search?q=the+two+dimensional+matrix).

Four categories

Fundamentally, there are four options for an individual with respect to education or experience. He or she can pursue specialization or diversification in the course of education. He can also pursue specialization or diversification in industry of employment. Individuals can, therefore, be slotted in one of the four quadrants of the education-experience matrix. These are (i) Education Specialization – Experience Specialization (ESES), (ii) Education Diversification – Experience Specialization (EDES), (iii) Education Specialization – Experience Diversification (ESED), and (iv) Education Diversification – Experience Diversification (EDED). For ease of reference and even for representative reflection, these four categories of individuals may be referred to as Mountaineers, Miners, Seafarers, and Explorers, respectively. The nomenclature is supported logically as further discussed below.

The individual who specializes in a particular education stream and sticks to a particular related industry domain is very much like a mountaineer who masters mountaineering and is clear about the singular mountain he needs to climb; hence ESES individuals are best named as Mountaineers. The individual who diversifies into many educational streams but sticks to a particular industry domain is quite like a miner who masters multiple mining technologies to get that best metal or mineral; hence EDES individuals are appropriately named as Miners. The individual who specializes in one educational stream but diversifies into many industry domains is like a sailor who trusts his ship to navigate through the varied seas; hence ESED individuals are logically named as Seafarers. The individual who diversifies into many educational streams and also diversifies into multiple industry settings is like an explorer who constantly learns and embraces the new to achieve the prize catch; hence EDED individuals are reasoned to be Explorers.

The Successful Mountaineer (ESES Executive)

To be a successful Mountaineer in the professional or corporate world, one must have a strong aptitude for the subject or domain and a commitment to contribute through a synergy of academic knowledge and practical experience in the industry. A good example would be a basic degree in mechanical engineering, followed by a post graduate degree in automobile engineering or other specializations such as thermal engineering, metal forming, robotics or mechatronics and a career in an automobile firm. Typically, he or she would commence the career in one of the three core areas of product development, manufacture or marketing and move on to become a functional head and eventually a business head. The linkage of education and experience with the subject and domain aptitude is the hallmark of the successful Mountaineer.

To be a successful career Mountaineer, the professional executive would need to have all the technique and patience of the real mountaineer. The career path for a person specialized in and dedicated to a particular domain, industry, and even a company is likely to be challenging with slow growth and slippery terrain. It requires a perfection of subject knowledge and conversion of knowledge into results to become differentiated. As one would be aware, automotive, aerospace and metals majors recruit each year scores of graduate engineers suited to different functions, and only a handful can reach to the top. It is, however, a feasible target illustrated by the likes of Alan Mulally of Boeing and Ford and AM Naik of L&T, and several other graduate engineers who reached to the top in the respective industries. It pays to be a Mountaineer if education and experience are aligned with aptitude serving as the glue.

The Successful Miner (EDES Executive)

The successful Miner in the professional or corporate world is like a miner in search of precious metals and minerals. He is likely to be highly career focused, motivated to reach to the top by being as broad spectrum as possible in terms of functional capabilities. An individual who pursues a graduate degree in any engineering discipline, followed by post graduate degree in business management or a professional who does chartered accountancy, company secretary and cost accounting courses are driven by an ambition to mine wider and grow faster, picking prize assignments and seeking functional adjacencies in growth. As opposed to the Mountaineer who has committed aptitude, the Miner tends to have flexibility and adaptability as the key drivers.

To be a successful Miner, the professional or corporate executive needs to have, like the real life miner, a fine discriminating and refining power. Knowing more subjects or dabbling in multiple disciplines is not necessarily a sure passport to the top. Successful move to the top is often based on some solid achievements in certain core functional or business areas. The uniqueness of knowing multiple domains must be reflected in an ability to define, plan and execute for strategic goals, with greater end to end connectivity. A large number of senior executives at the top in an industry appear to conform to the pattern of learning more and contributing singularly to a specialized industry. Indian industry and Indian executives, in particular, appear to prefer the Miner model.

The Successful Seafarer (ESED Executive)

The successful Seafarer has aptitude for, and belief in, his core subjects just as the successful real life sailor has control on, and confidence in, his ship. He is also not easily laid off by the vastness of practical applications which his core specialization can explore. Examples of this type of career planning relate to educational specializations that are not industry specific, and instead are industry neutral. Specializations like finance, information technology, legal, electronics and instrumentation which can find scope and need in any industry are the typical Seafarer’s preferences. However, certain gritty Seafarers are wont to use their educational specializations in uncharted seas of radically different industries. Unlike the Mountaineer who has a certain natural alignment of education and experience and the Miner who has a vast functional spread for a unitary industry, the Seafarer has the challenge of his or her knowledge specialization leading to such notable contributions that could help him or her get positioned for growth in competition with Mountaineers and Miners that are bound to exist in an organization.  

To be a successful Seafarer, the individual has to have the innovative ability to apply his specialization to achieve competitive advantage for any industry. He or she also should have the competitive and tenacious spirit to push the envelope and create new areas of contribution to the industry. An instrumentation engineer would, for example, be able to secure new levels of automation for any industry. A finance professional can bring his vast core and collateral functional knowledge to lead the company in any industry to newer levels of financial solidity, costing sharpness, overseas listing and so on. In addition, a Seafarer would need to have an extra set of behavioral competencies to be seen as a strategic manager despite strong functional specialization. If the Seafarer does not possess or acquire such soft skills, it is quite possible that a Seafarer would remain a knowledge worker or a subject expert even in the long term, which, however, need not necessarily be a bad outcome either for the individual or the organization.

The Successful Explorer (EDED Executive)

There could be a view that an Explorer would end up a rolling stone, gathering no mass in the sober, steady corporate and organizational worlds. On the other hand, the Explorer represents the quintessential Gen-Next executive, eager to absorb multiple subjects and dabble in several domains. He is also eager and motivated to constantly search for an organizational home that not merely meets his expectations but challenges him to explore higher trajectories. The new age young CEOs and the young entrepreneurs coming up with new ideas are the representatives of the Explorer category. Some Explorers tend to become turnaround specialists and growth drivers. Most Explorers also become highly successful as consultants with diversified competencies and organizational deliveries.

To be successful, the Explorer needs to be an intensely absorbing person; linking subject mastery and organizational delivery to each moment’s challenge rather than to the nature of degrees or longevity in organizations. The Explorer tends to have a bit of the Mountaineer, Miner and Seafarer characteristics in him but in his own ‘mix and match’ capability. The Explorer is characterized essentially by lateral thinking and an ability to generate new thinking from current situations and adapt past experiences to new situations. Explorers eventually make excellent heads of diversified business conglomerates, and not surprisingly highly successful bureaucrats and public servants. Business stalwarts like JRD Tata and Ratan Tata are legendary examples.  

Talent-Organization Matrix

An ideal organizational format of a growing organization would offer adequate space for all the four classes of performers, the Mountaineers, the Miners, the Seafarers and the Explorers. Needless to say, diversified companies organized in terms of business units offer much greater space for all the four classes of aspirants. That said, their existence or requirement is also contextual. If an organization chooses to be specialized and narrowly focused, it will need, and also tend to have, more Mountaineers. If an organization is narrowly focused but needs new ideas to propel turnaround or growth, it will need and also tend to have more Miners. If an organization is in search of a core competence, it will need, and tend to have, Seafarers. If an organization needs diversification, or is already a business conglomerate, it will have, and need to have Explorers.

The above has important implications for strategy formulation and talent management. There has been a debate whether structure or strategy precedes the other, and the debate has been settled with the validated hypothesis that structure follows strategy. The discussion in this blog post also leads to a debate whether strategy sets the talent needs or talent helps create a sustainable strategy. Potentially, a broad vision for the organization should lead to induction of an appropriate mix of Mountaineers, Miners, Seafarers and Explorers that can develop and execute a required strategy. Young aspirants need to understand that when they choose their unique educational paths and experience pathways, they are not only categorizing themselves into one of the four classes but are also developing into human dynamos that can power organizations in potentially unique ways.

Posted by Dr CB Rao on October 14, 2013  

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

Five Competitive Forces in Organizational Talent Arena: Porter’s Competitive Strategy Framework Extended

Michael Porter had in 1980 formulated a landmark framework for generic competitive strategies. Central to Porter’s theory of competitive strategy is the framework of five competitive forces. These five forces are the bargaining power of suppliers, the bargaining power of customers, the threat of new entrants, the threat of substitute products and the competitive rivalry within the industry. These represent five important external competitive forces that influence competitive intensity in an industry. Each of the competitive forces typically has several components to it. A good understanding of the five competitive forces enables a firm to respond with appropriate generic competitive strategies. The ability of the firm to leverage or address the competitive forces leads to firm-level competitive strategies in terms of cost leadership, differentiation or niche, as postulated by Porter.

My blog, “Strategy Musings” featured several posts by me that address certain weaknesses of Porter’s framework or tweak the framework to be in step with the contemporary environment. Some of these are: “Beyond Porter’s Darwinism: The Sixth Competitive Force”, http://cbrao2008.blogspot.in/2009/08/beyond-porters-darwinism-sixth.html, Generic Competitive Strategy and Specific Competitive Advantage: Viable Paradigm or Visible Paradox?” http://cbrao2008.blogspot.in/2011/07/generic-competitive-strategy-and.html, and “From Competition to Collaboration: Porter’s Five Forces Theory Revisited”, http://cbrao2008.blogspot.in/2012/05/from-competition-to-collaboration.html. Though several other aspects of Porter’s generic competitive strategy have also been addressed by the author, the above cited posts have a direct treatment of the five forces framework. The blog posts point to the solidity and the adaptability of the five forces framework to a changing environment.

From macro to micro

Porter’s strategy is essentially aimed at a macro level understanding of the firm and its environment. However, the framework can be applied at functional and micro levels as well. At each functional level (be it manufacturing, research, supply chain or human resources, for example), there could be relevant competitive forces that can be captured in terms of the Porter framework. One of the important applications could be addressing the industry’s war for talent. In emerging markets such as India which are aiming at faster economic and industrial development, talent is a scarce factor that is hotly competed. Three macro factors dictate the talent competition. Firstly, the pace of foreign direct investments in India would only go up with global firms increasingly looking to Indian operations to provide products and services for their global needs. Secondly, there would be a renewed interest to capture the burgeoning Indian market as India promises to become the most populous country of the world, overtaking China by 2028. Thirdly, Indian companies would globalize more aggressively to achieve market access and geographic diversity.

At a micro level, the talent wars would place a premium on readily deployable talent as more companies vie for the Indian pie and more Indian companies vie for the global pie. With business models being limited and competition relatively unlimited, the availability of ready-to-use skills would be a key factor. As companies realize the challenge, there would be a greater emphasis on operational excellence and product or service level innovation to achieve differentiation. The micro level strategies of the firms are bound to accentuate the pressures on talent. With universities churning out candidates with only generic skills, availability of candidates with customized, industry specific skills becomes a key requirement for firms seeking competitive advantage. Corporate human resources leaders need to understand the five competitive forces that govern the talent scenario and influence firm level competency to attract talent. The five forces of talent are:  bargaining power of candidates, bargaining power of service providers, threat of competitors, threat of new knowledge, and competitive rivalry in talent pool. These are considered below.

Bargaining power of candidates

While at a gross level there are more candidates than available jobs, when it comes to skills that are required for effective job performance highly competent candidates do wield considerable bargaining power. In India particularly, a combination of technical and commercial knowledge, operating and strategic skills, and communication and collaboration skills is hard to get in candidates, particularly as one considers middle and tiers of management. It is not surprising, therefore, that the limited talent pool of this particular combination of candidates exercises considerable bargaining power. HR leaders are required to balance the premium that is required to be paid for such talented candidates with the value that such candidates would be able to bring about in the particular organizational settings. In certain cases, this requires a broader review of organizational culture; organizations that are home to multi-faceted talent tend to have an equally potent value proposition for such multifaceted candidates. Recruiters need to focus as much on creating a star organization as on recruiting star performers. Neither should they baulk away from the costs of building high performance organizations and recruiting high performing talent.    

Bargaining power of service providers

Certain skills lend themselves for outsourcing. Service providers in technical and management fields often emerge as short term and medium term alternatives to regular talent that seeks in-house employment. This alternative becomes particularly relevant for one-time burst activities and for specialized skill sets. Certain advanced geographies and certain global corporate houses tend to rely on service providers as a matter of course even as such service providers tend to be available in abundance thereon. In emerging markets and domestic companies the reliance on service providers is much less even as such service providers tend to be relatively scarce. From an organization’s viewpoint, however, it is a choice between two types of power rather than reduction of overall external power on the organization system per se. Progressive organizations may seek to strike a prudent balance between premium in-house talent (that could be both a perpetual cost and institutionalized value) and specialized external vendor support (which could offer specialized support at high cost but with a discretionary tenure). The resort to service providers as an alternative to in-house talent must be a carefully thought out strategy.      

Threat of competitors

The talent paradigm adopted by competitors has a bearing on the competitive forces exerted in the talent scenario. At the very basic level the more companies seek a particular level of talent the more demanding and choosy the premium candidates become. At a more involved level, however, as companies innovate or begin to follow innovators they become competitors to incumbents and monopolists. Firms which are forced to defend their positions and firms seeking to dethrone them equally become hunting grounds for talent. In addition, during certain phases of industry evolution certain discrete skills tend to be sought after by all companies fiercely. For example, leaders with expertise in global selling and customer development became the highly sought after skills of Indian IT majors in the 1990s. For the Indian pharmaceutical industry in hot pursuit of Hatch-Waxman generic exclusivity opportunities, intellectual property expertise became highly sought after. As competitors follow successful business and operational models of industry leaders, the threat of competitors in terms of poaching talent or proactively attracting talent enhances the competitive intensity.    

Threat of new knowledge

Managements are aware how technologies make laboratory and manufacturing assets obsolete. As new measuring technologies emerge metrology equipment pass through successive generations of obsolescence. As new machining technologies emerge machine tools become lighter and more flexible. Less realized, however, is the impact of new knowledge on the talent scenario. In the 1980s and 1990s, a new generation of computer savvy executives overtook more conventionally trained established manpower. In the 2000s and 2010s, a new generation of Internet savvy and highly networked executives is tending to dominate global executive scenario, overtaking standalone executives. Scientific and technology domains are, often, reinvented by new innovations. Firms which lay store on the talent trained years ago would find themselves obsolete as new knowledge shapes new business models. Construction firms which rely on conventional excavating, piling and stuttering practices may find themselves overtaken by firms which deploy mechanized excavation, ready-mix concreting and mechanized stuttering, for example.    

Competitive rivalry in talent pool

Quite apart from the above four factors, firms and industries are affected by the competitive rivalry in the talent pool. By logic, firms and industries that are in an aggressive growth mode tend to experience competitive rivalry within the talent pool. If corporations are unable to clearly explain the individual talent - employee career - corporate growth paradigm with visible nexus between individual performance, career development and business results, individuals tend to jostle for visibility, enhancing rivalry. Firms and industries that have enjoyed rapid growth but are slated to slow down also are subject to competitive rivalry as talent seeks new avenues to satisfy its growth passion. Departure of successful key executives from firms encountering growth-plateau to companies desperate for reinvention leads to higher competitive rivalry in the industry in the overall as leaders seek to build their growth teams. Firms need to understand that their own internal career policies and external hiring policies could elevate the competitive rivalry in an industry and even create a talent bubble wherein competitive intensity for talent zooms far ahead of competency growth of the talent, leading to an unsustainable demand-supply balance.

Generic talent strategies

Porter suggested cost leadership, differentiation and niche as three generic strategies that are available to firms to cope with the five competitive forces that an industry faces. To manage the five competitive forces of the talent paradigm discussed herein, the author suggests three relevant generic talent strategies that firms can adopt. These are compensation leadership, career differentiation and niche. Each of these will have unique ways of talent management that offer alternative approaches for coping with the five competitive forces in the talent arena and optimizing organizational and business performance. A framework of such generic talent strategies would be the subject of a later day sequel to this blog post.

Posted by Dr CB Rao on June 16, 2013