During the last few weeks, I’ve been speaking to a number of people. One was in HR and facing some difficult workplace situations. It seemed that a lot of improvement was needed in order to take “identified top talent” forward in terms of ability to lead, motivate and engage people.
He had worked on identifying training needs but, on offering relevant interventions, the take-up was miserably low. He had difficulty in 'selling' the training to this group. Less than 30% showed any interest.
What didn't help was the fact that HR was seen as more of a nuisance than anything and were just trying to add more unnecessary processes to the daily work.
'What can I do to increase the uptake of these courses?' he asked.
This kind of situation is not unusual.
The HR person was keen to help make a real difference to abilities and performance and had, for several months, worked hard at trying to generate an increased response. He was now at his wit's end. 'It's driving me mad,' the poor fellow admitted.
I asked him what his boss had done to guide or support him.
The answer was to the effect that he was told not to keep bashing his head against a brick wall. 'That's the way things are and you can't expect to change it. Your job is to set up the courses, so just stick to doing that and don't worry about it.'
So, we have a person keen to make a strong contribution to the organisation being, in effect, advised not to bother.
I was immediately reminded of an important part of the Preface and of the Introduction to the book “Lead To Win - Pioneering Powerful Performance”:
“For many years I have had a passion. I firmly believe, and this has been confirmed during my decades of experience and observations as a manager and as a consultant, that people love producing fantastic results.
I also firmly believe companies (read: “managers at all levels”) actively prevent people from doing so — unwittingly in most cases. This can so easily lead to lower performance and expensive staff turnover.”
And:
"So many organisations are like Formula 1 racing cars being used solely to toddle around to the local supermarket to get the family groceries. A definite quantum leap in performance is under the bonnet but is rarely, if ever, unleashed.
I do not use this simile lightly. People can and do achieve great things, amazing things, just because they want to."
This incident was a fine example of this in action.
Yet things could be so very different. The situation could be to a large extent turned around if senior management actually wanted to create a more dynamic and results-oriented organisation.
How?
Simply by taking it seriously and acting on it.
Let me explain.
First, to make things simpler, let's assume the identified top talent are 100 people.
One of my first questions is: why are 100 people considered "top" if they can't be bothered to learn more about how to be more effective in their work? To my mind, only the 30 have shown an interest in improvement. These are the ones to be nurtured.
By really focusing support in helping these individuals be successful, if we are doing our job effectively, they should start bringing in better results through their teams. These achievements must be quantified/qualified as they happen and form a significant part of their appraisals. Appropriate recognition/reward should follow.
The 70 who aren't interested are far less likely to achieve in this way and, therefore, will not be in line for anywhere near the same recognition.
What are the potential outcomes of this?
The 70 will be unhappy with their lot. Some will resign — which is not necessarily a bad thing because we can replace them with real top talent.
Many are likely to state that they've not been given the support the 30 were given and they want to avail of it now. Great. We can now assist them to become star performers.
Yes, this is simplified. Yes, there is more to it than this.
First, it demands commitment to results from senior management. In this, we must remember that commitment is different - very different - to a verbal agreement that it should be done and getting HR to act on it. Commitment means living it. If senior management follow similar practices to those they want adopted, it sends a very powerful message to everyone in the organisation.
Second, it needs a different approach to appraisals that brings not just a non-threatening way of measuring performance but instead a very positive one.
Third, the support must be practical and results-oriented. The 'usual' leadership and motivational theories must be replaced by simple, logical and straightforward approaches in dealing with people and processes — and ones that work.
As the many illustrative live cases in "Lead To Win" show, it can be done. Yes, it takes effort to change long-ingrained habits. The step-changes in morale and performance make the effort rewarding: to everyone in the organisation, to customer satisfaction, to quality of delivery, to costs and to profits.
