Photo courtesy of Emma's Teashop for Old Ladies

Didn’t get to go to the SHRM annual conference in San Diego this year (or any year for that matter), so I took it upon myself to try to read as much as I could about all the conference doings and such.  After my bazillionth blog, it hit me.  A LOT of these fine folks are saying similar things. 

 And I kinda got pissed off.

 You know, I’m going to go out on a limb here and respond to all the Bloggers, Tweeters, SHRMers, etc. that are saying that, for HR to be effective, it must hear from its practitioners in the field – not from the consultants, academics, etc. who have been populating the national, state and local HR and related conferences around the country and probably around the world.  Such as from:

 Tim Sackett from Fistful of Talent, “When I was preparing to go to SHRM and deciding on what sessions to attend – my very first impression was “seems like I’ve been here and done this before”  – my next impression was “why does 90% of presenters have either consultant or speaker as their title?  Where have all the real HR Pros gone?”

 Ben Eubanks from Upstart HR, “Some of the sessions I went to were wonderful, and I took a lot of notes (and even wrote about some, too). Others didn’t turn out so well. I went to two or three sessions where the speaker read off of slides or just didn’t hit the topic the session was supposed to be about. That’s fine, when that happened I just left or started talking to someone in the crowd. I did my best not to waste any time during the event…”

 Another comment from Ben, “One of the most profound statements I’ve ever heard from Eric was this: move up, not out. So many amazing HR pros eventually take off and leave the profession instead of continually climbing to be Directors, VPs, and Chief HR Officers. We need more great people to ascend to those positions instead of leaving them to the people with seniority by default (even if they don’t have the skills or passion to be great at it)…”.

 Michael VanDervort from The Human Race Horses, “My big learning was really just a verification of what is an old discussion – HR needs to reinvent itself, and it is the practitioners who need to make that happen through aggressively transforming the way we think and work…”

 Mark Stelzner from Inflexion Point, “Second, I was sadly disappointed by the attendee reaction to a keynote featuring a panel of HR leaders, including Google, Northrop Grumman, Kaiser Permanente and Deutsche Bank. SHRM’s membership is generally not comprised of the senior-most HR professionals from the world’s largest firms, so when they actually take the time to show up, share best practices and offer advice, you damn well better pay attention. Attendees swarmed from the session, first in 2’s and 3’s and then by the dozens. Are you there to listen to Steve Forbes and Al Gore or should you perhaps learn from those who have theoretically arrived at your career destination? And if you did walk out early, you missed a gem from Deutsche Bank’s Conrad Venter when he predicated that HR will be obsolete in ten years if we stay on our current course…”.

Kathy Rapp from Fistful of Talent, “When people ponder the future of HR or ask, “What’s wrong with HR?!” it’s my belief we don’t have enough HR pros who possess the attitude of “Give ME the ball or I want to win the game.”  If there were, we’d have more HR practitioners teaching at SHRM conferences and sharing their own personal stories of achievement and beating the odds.  We’d have more HR folks who move into top leadership roles in their companies outside of HR vs. those non-HR executives who “land” in HR to finish out their careers.  Frankly, we’d have more students coming out of college wanting a job in HR because of the opportunity to build successful business careers and make a better than average living…”

 And, Charlie Judy from HR Fishbowl, “Much of what I see today seems oriented too much toward developing pansy HR subject matter experts and not focused enough on injecting the HR professional pipeline with people who are Ninjas in navigating workplace complexities, sorting through emotional dynamics, acting with agility, and thinking critically.  Without that stuff, you’re just a commodity; after all, anyone can learn to manage a benefit plan…sorry.  If as a profession we are really committed to making HR more crucial to an organization’s value stream, I think we should see stuff like this in the syllabus…”

 What’s the common thread here, people? 

What I interpret is that HR has to change.  No ands, ifs or buts about it.  And I am totally up and down with that.  But change is NOT going to come from the folks who have been doing the same things year after year after year – the HR generalists and practitioners slogging along, waiting until retirement. 

You know, the ones who run to the conference expo hall for all the free swag. 

The ones who leave when senior HR leaders do participate and try to help start the transformation.

Makes me mad as hell.

Here’s the thing – I have consultant and speaker in my title – and guess what?  I was still am an HR practitioner and OD specialist.  As a consultant I get to go into a lot of different organizations and see what’s happening at the macro and micro levels.  As a speaker, I get to share ideas –in an interesting and engaging way – that hopefully serve to inspire and get people to start thinking and doing things a bit differently. 

That is what a teacher is,  you know.  Someone who is focusing on the future and hopefully opening new minds to new ideas.

So, that is what I take from all these comments.  We don’t just need practitioners to share their thinking; we need new minds, new ideas, and new ways of doing things – no matter where they may be.  And that is going to take some serious shaking up and shaping of up of HR.   It’s time.

That’s why I love reading the comments and blogs – new minds, new thinking, new ways.

Makes me aim to misbehave.

Going Out on a Limb, Here is a post from: The HR Whisperer

Once again I must thank my mentor, Cesar Millan, for the inspiration for this week’s blog.  He said that “when humans bring a dog into their lives, they are most often looking for a companion; what they may not realize is that they are getting a teacher as well.”  This is true in a business sense, too.  When we bring a potential leader into our organization, we should be getting someone who can teach or positively influence others.  But teaching goes both ways…is it really possible to teach someone to be an effective leader or is it just genetics coming into play?

Many organizations decide they want to implement a leadership development program because they need better leaders or people who could be put into some kind of succession plan.  The HR department gets the charge to put “something together” and manages to get someone to run the program, get people into it and maybe even toss in a measure or two to try to link the success of the program to a business goal–all within a few months.  Is it any surprise then, that so many of these programs lose steam after one year or fall flat due to budget cuts?  Aside from the timing and operational issues, the real question centers on whether or not leadership development programs truly teach people to be good leaders.

Leadership by its definition is a very complex.  Some say that leadership is a natural thing, that we are born with the innate qualities it takes to be a leader.  Psychologists have continuously searched for the personal attributes that would describe leaders and differentiate them from the rest of the pack.  A large body of research supports the theory that the “Big Five” of personality traits underlie all others and encompass most of the significant variation in human personality. In addition to providing a cohesive framework, research has also found strong relationships between the Big Five and job performance, especially in terms of successful leadership.  It’s no surprise then that tools like the Myers-Briggs’ MBTI® or DiSC® tend to be a part of LD programs.

More recent research shows that effective leaders have emotional intelligence (EI).  Daniel Goleman found that high levels of EI predicts high performance.  I would even go so far as to say that the combination of EI and the Big Five trait of extroversion defines charisma.  A definitive study conducted in 1999 on the personalities of two executive management teams found that over a period of five years the charismatic personality of the executive manager and of the team he selected was key to understanding a company’s rise or decline in the market.  

Hmmm.

Now on the other hand, behavioral theories focus on identifying the specific behaviors that differentiate leaders from nonleaders, which implies that these behaviors can be taught, i.e., leadership is a competency that can be broken down into concrete sets of trainable skills.  The most comprehensive of the behavioral theories resulted from research conducted at Ohio State University in the late 40s where the researchers narrowed a thousand different leadership dimensions into two categories: (1) task/structure and (2) relationship/consideration.  The managerial grid developed by Blake and Mouton and the contingency leadership theory developed by Hersey and Blanchard in the 1960s serve as the landmarks for situational leadership theory today.  The Hersey-Blanchard theory in particular focuses on the leader being able to select the right behavioral style based on followers’ willingness and ability.   

So, in my mind good leadership really is a combination of personality and environment. Which brings us back to our original question:  can people be trained in leadership?  The answer to me is an unequivocal yes.  Strong, results-driven leadership development programs worth their salt screen for the necessary Big Five personality traits and then provide adult-centered interventions to develop the skills necessary to:

• Run the task/structure of a business, such as strategic planning and financial management.
• Develop the relationship/consideration in teams, such as communication and conflict management.
• Understand the self and corresponding behavior by opening the Johari Window through extensive feedback, coaching and 360° profiling.

Another question:  if “nature” and “nurture” are important elements of leader effectiveness then, how does experience play a part?  Many believe that the value of on-the-job experience is a strong predictor of leadership effectiveness. Research, however shows that experience alone is usually a very poor predictor of leadership.  There have been numerous studies of military officers, shop supervisors, and school principals that demonstrate that experienced leaders tend to be no more effective than leaders who have little experience.  The problem seems to be in the variability of the situations a leader finds himself in that influence whether or not the experience will transfer to that situation.  Another problem is the assumption that the amount of time a leader spends in a particular position is really a true measure of experience.  So, LD programs need to provide education, training and experience through action learning.

Remember the heroes of September 11?  They may not have had the particular experience of being attacked by terrorists, but may have had the necessary personality traits and training in leading others and influencing them to action.

And that’s what we really need in any LD program.

Nature or Nurture: Training the Leader of the Pack is a post from: The HR Whisperer

This was originally published in HR Florida Review’s Fall 2008 edition.  I thought I’d share it here as it contains some great tips for training multi-generational adult learners.  By focusing on needs, we can focus on behavior.  And changing behavior is what training is all about, right?

You need to implement a training program to introduce a new system. Everybody has to get trained. This should be easy to do, right? After all, the training should be pretty straightforward.

But…it’s a typical Thursday at 8 a.m., the first day of training. You’ve got 30 people staring at you, waiting for the magic. There are four generations present and each one is thinking something different. “Oh no, I’m going to have to learn another system!” “I don’t need to learn anything!” “This is gonna be sooooooo boring!” “Dude; what a waste of my time!” Thank goodness for the Starbucks coffee and bagels you had the foresight to order for the day.

As prepared as you may be, if you don’t take into account the different generations sitting in front of you, your training will be doomed. Each of the four generations takes in information differently and processes it from a unique perspective. This means that if your training doesn’t speak to generational differences and needs, you might not get the ROI you’re expecting.

With four generations in the training game, how can you reach all of them at the same time with the same content? Aside from the different generations, people also learn in different ways. It’s critical that training be flexible and use diverse methodologies.

So, what can you do? Put the training into the Gens’ hands: the following training strategies will work well across all the generations.

Respect experience. Ask participants to share their past experiences. This is especially fun for the Matures and Boomers; they have a ton of knowledge they’re dying to share with their younger colleagues. Besides, they probably have some interesting stories to tell that will liven up the training!

Involve participants. Get the trainees involved by using experiential-type training. Use games and simulations to keep things interesting. All trainees, regardless of generation, will learn better and faster if they are actively involved.

Use coaches. Employ the “each one, teach one” concept by pairing participants with different generational partners. Each person will be accountable for ensuring that his or her partner is learning. It takes the stress off if there is someone available to support the learning on a more comfortable one-on-one basis.

Vary audiovisuals. Take advantage of the multitude of audio-visual tools and techniques available today. Enhance the training by using interactive computer-based simulations, multimedia case studies or synchronized slide presentations. Use pictures to help tell your training story. As the old saying goes, “a picture’s worth a thousand words” no matter what the generation.

Provide visibility. Let different people be spokespersons for small group work. Gen X and Gen Y may need the practice and many of them like to be up in front of the group. While public speaking may be #1 on the top ten things we hate the most list, it is an essential business skill. Understand that while some hate it, some do love it, so a little structured visibility can be a good thing for any Gen.

Give plenty of opportunity for discussion. Use discussion as a learning tool. Having participants talk about the subject matter and challenge one another provides for a great learning experience, especially for those who prefer an auditory learning style. Besides, knowing that the four generations will have four different perspectives on the subject, it will make for a fascinating conversation!

Try peer-to-peer training. Have the participants conduct the training instead of the trainer. Not only does it allow for creativity, but it helps participants “own” their learning, get prepared and improve their attention to the subject matter. Have a contest between groups with prizes. The more fun it is, the better people will learn no matter what the generation.

Utilize case studies. Try to find examples in your own organization that can be used to help participants apply the information being learned in a real-time situation. Case studies are particularly useful for helping younger trainees synthesize information – that is, take what they have learned in class and apply it to a problem that they may not have yet experienced in the workplace.

Deploy just-in-time training. Think about the learning needs of your multigenerational workplace and provide the training at the right place at the right time. Focus on what the trainee needs to know and let them have at it at their own place and time. Providing training in different media, such as internet- or computer-based, allows participants to learn at their own pace. Many companies are now utilizing internal television networks to provide just-in-time training. They can sign up for what they need, when they need it.

Allow opportunity for feedback. Receiving plenty of feedback is a must. While Matures may want to receive feedback in a particular time and place, Boomers are more apt to feel they are not getting enough. Gen Xers and Gen Y want to hear it immediately and honestly so they will know they are on the right track. Regardless of the generation, everyone wants to know how they are doing. Tell them and help them use that information to improve their knowledge or skill.

Use some of these strategies and you’ll be well on your way to playing the generational training game and realize a greater return on that training investment.

Playing the Gen Training Game is a post from: The HR Whisperer