Day 2 - Wednesday 18 March 2015: Preparing for our Institutional Challenge Talent track: Leveraging Internal Mobility & Talent Networks. Presented by Bhavesh Chandaria, GPHR, HRMP, Head of Learning and Development SAFAL Group. #astdza2015

1. Bhavesh Chandaria,GPHR,HRMP,SCP
1
LEVERAGING
INTERNAL MOBILITY AND
TALENT NETWORKS
Perils of Myopic Microwaving Talent &
How to overcome it

2. 3-DESIGNATED YAWN BREAKS
2
Tweeting prevents yawns,,, please tweat on the go
#astdza2015 & @behaves (my id)

3. EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING
• Experiential Learning has become a
trusted methodology for successful and
sustainable learning.
• Warren Buffett’s/Berkshire Hathaway’s
2014 Shareholder Letter
• “[M]y experience in business helps
me as an investor and that my
investment experience has made me a
better businessman. Each pursuit
teaches lessons that are applicable to the
other. And some truths can only be fully
learned through experience
3

4. 4
There are certain things that can not be adequately
explained to a virgin either by words or pictures.
??????
Hmmm..
How to do I
explain!!!

5. SESSION’S TAKE AWAY
• Paradigm shift : Performance to Performance + Contribution
• Framework of Internal Talent Mobility – new language
• Individual Contributor + Training Managers – The myth
busted
• Managers- The requisite competence
• Making of Managers – the framework & the how to’s
• Don’ts of upward mobility
• How right number of right kind of Managers can unleash a
positive leverage for org. success & what is the number?
5

6. MYOPIC MICROWAVING = HALF
BAKED MANAGERS
• Do you have half baked
managers, pre- maturedly
promoted to managerial roles,
who actually devalue their
role, contaminate the
contribution of others, and rob
organization of huge value ?
At the same time HR/Training is
expected to microwave talent
quickly onto managerial roles??
HR/Training under criticism to
show quick impact?
6
Microwave
Donkeys in– Horses out

7. • Have a conversation:
• Your encounters with half baked manager
(s).
• Toxicity
• Who’s fault was it?
7

8. THE MICRO/NANO/MICROWAVED MANAGER
(RECENT REPORT 2014)
1. Cost USA 360 Billion in lost productivity…
2. 3 of 4 employees report their boss is the worst part of their job
3. 65% of emp. would take a new boss over more pay
4. Phase 2 bosses: a. fail to inspire, b. accept mediocrity, c. lack clear
vision/direction, d. won’t collaborate, e. hypocritical, f. compete with
their DR’s, g. micro-manage, h. hoard the best assignments…
5. Employees are 30% more likely to suffer heart disease and take 22
months to “shake off” the stress from bad Phase 2 bosses
6. $3,500 to replace minimum wage employee…19% turnover annually
7. Employees purposely: make errors, steal, hide information, take sick
days, take longer breaks, day dream, search job boards, complain to
others…
Source: Kathryn L. Shaw, Stanford Econ. Professor,“The Value of Bosses”
8

9. LET’S RESONATE!! CONTRIBUTION-PHASE CALIBRATION
( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )
( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )
( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )
( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )
( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )
Please Supply Real Names ForYour “Contribution Calibration”
9

10. Performance + Contribution
Performance is:
what you DO…
(job descriptions,
assignments,
team goals…)
Contribution is:
The IMPACT,
VALUE,
DIFFERENCE,
RESULTS
10

11. “Effective leaders focus on
contribution. They look up from
their work , outward toward goals
and ask: What can I do that will
significantly affect the
performance and the results of
the institution I serve?”
- Peter Drucker
PERFORMANCE & CONTRIBUTION
11

12. Performance
in Role
Contribution Value “In”
and “Out” of Role
HAND IN HAND RELATIONSHIP
12

13. COMPARING PERFORMANCE =
13

14. COMPARING CONTRIBUTION =
14

15. WE ARE NOT CALIBRATING:
• NOT Title
• NOT Level
• NOT Pay
• Not Potential
• NOT Tenure
• NOT Politics or “Contribution Inflation”
• NOT a Popularity Contest
• NOT “Flash in the Pan”
15

16. WE ARE CALIBRATING:
1. Consistent Contribution annually…
2. Delivery of relevant, positive business results…
3. Total impact, difference and value…
16

17. HOW TO CALIBRATE CONTRIBUTION:
• Calibrate each name by “contribution value”
• Start with your highest impact contributor
• Distinguish each name in descending order
• Some names might be an equal value
• Be honest, keep confidentiality
• Your perceptions are invaluable to this research
17

18. A SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION:
ContributionCalibrations
Highest contributions
Adequate contributions
Good contributions
Lowest contributions
Brett
Monimoy
Behaves
Jaco
Ntombi
Fourie
Juan
Valentine
Typical
Godgreat
Mulwa
Amla
Hansie
Bulelwa
18

19. RECORD THE CALIBRATION RANK ORDER
( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )
( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )
( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )
( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )
( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )
1
2
3
4
5
19

20. THE PHASES OF PERFORMANCE &
CONTRIBUTION™
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phases, An
Organizational
Model of
Contribution
With Significant
Implications for
Individuals
20

21. CONTRIBUTION IN PHASE 1
• New to the Role
• Potential Expertise
• Fresh Ideas
• Enthusiasm
• Basic Competencies
• Willingness to Learn
• Dependent on Others
Learning the Ropes
Phase 1
21

22. CONTRIBUTION IN PHASE 2
• Tactical Perspective
• Deep Technical Expertise
• Narrow Focus
• Independent Team Player
• Delivers Defined Solutions
• Seasoned Professional
Contributing Independently
22

23. CONTRIBUTION IN PHASE 3
• Gives Meaning to Ambiguity
• Broad Technical Understanding
• Aligned Business Perspective
• Coordinates Functions
• Leverages Networks for Results
• Develops/Coaches Others
• Intra-Team
Coordination/Communication Leading Through Others
23

24. CONTRIBUTION IN PHASE 4
• Strategic Direction
• Industry Focus
• Represents the organization
• Grooms Future Leaders
• Key External Network
• Resources of the Company
• Organization-Wide Influence
Phase 4
Organizational Leadership
24

25. RECORD THE PHASE THEY ARE “IN”
( 1 ) Name Here ( 2.6 )
( 2 ) Name Here ( 2.4 )
( 3) Name Here ( 2 )
(4 ) Name Here ( 2 )
( 5 ) Name Here ( 1 )
25

26. DIFFERENTIATE VERY CAREFULLY:
Phase 3Phase 2
26

27. CHAOS BY PHASE 2 MANAGERS = PERILS OF
MICROWAVING
a. Fail to inspire
b. Accept mediocrity
c. Lack clear vision/direction
d. Won’t collaborate
e. Hypocritical
f. Compete with their DR’s
g. Micro-manage
h. Hoard the best assignments
Phase 2
27

28. PHASE 2 BOSS
28

29. POINTERS FOR CATEGORIZATION INTO
THE 4 PHASES?
Phase 1– Learning the ropes Phase 2 – Contributing Independently
• Anyone New to the Role
• Must “Learn the Ropes” Quickly
• Dependent on Others for Help
• Asks Lots of Questions
• Is Given Little Projects to Complete
• Must Prove They Can do it “Our Way”
• Must be Willing to be Closely Supervised
• Is a Trusted Experienced Expert
• Has Deep “Technical” Expertise
• Narrow and Exacting Tactical Focus
• Works Independently
• Requires Little Supervision
• The Technical Backbone of the Team
• Offers Technical Ideas and Solutions
• Stays Current in Their Field
Phase 3 - Leading through Others Phase 4 – Organizational Leadership
• Develops a Broad Perspective
• Works Inter-Dependently With Others
• Creates and Maintains Int./Ext. Networks
• Influences/Coaches Others Toward Results
• Translates Strategy Into Tactics
• Coordinates Work Within/Between Teams
• Integrates Cross-Functional Efforts
• Gives Structure to Ambiguity
• Is Highly Valued Across the Organization
• Offers a High Level Strategic Direction
• Represents the Company
• Has a Vision for the Long Term
• Provides Industry Wide Perspectives
• Grooms Future Leaders
• Exercises Wide Influence
• Controls the Resources of the Company
29

30. ORG. CONTRIBUTION/PHASE RANKING DATA
(n = 91,651, approx. %’s)
ForcedContributionRankings
Top Contributing Phase 2’s
(6%)
Good Phase 2’s (30%)
Poor Phase 2’s and 1.5-7’s
(15%)
Adequate Phase 2’s
(35%)
Phase 3’s rank at the 90th (1%) Phase 2.7 – 2.3 (3%)
Phase 1- 1.3’s (10%)
Phase 2 Manager rankings vary
widely, but regularly are lower
than “adequate” rated IC’s
because expectation, position &
pay require more. They do not
produce leveraged results often
get in the way of and offend
those who do.
30

31. THE MICRO/NANO/MICROWAVED MANAGER
(RECENT REPORT 2014)
1. Cost USA 360 Billion in lost productivity…
2. 3 of 4 employees report their boss is the worst part of their job
3. 65% of emp. would take a new boss over more pay
4. Phase 2 bosses: a. fail to inspire, b. accept mediocrity, c. lack clear
vision/direction, d. won’t collaborate, e. hypocritical, f. compete with
their DR’s, g. micro-manage, h. hoard the best assignments…
5. Employees are 30% more likely to suffer heart disease and take 22
months to “shake off” the stress from bad Phase 2 bosses
6. $3,500 to replace minimum wage employee…19% turnover annually
7. Employees purposely: make errors, steal, hide information, take sick
days, take longer breaks, day dream, search job boards, complain to
others…
Source: Kathryn L. Shaw, Stanford Econ. Professor,“The Value of Bosses”
31

32. REFLECTION
• Does the Contribution and Phases calibration finding resonate?
32

33. CONTRIBUTION IN PHASE 1
• New to the Role
• Potential Expertise
• Fresh Ideas
• Enthusiasm
• Basic Competencies
• Willingness to Learn
• Dependent on Others
• Steep Additive Learning Curve
Learning the Ropes
Phase 1
33

34. CONTRIBUTION IN PHASE 2
• Tactical Perspective
• Deep Technical Expertise
• Narrow Focus
• Independent Team Player
• Collegial Relationships
• Delivers Defined Solutions
• Seasoned Professional
• Development is Additive
Contributing Independently
34

35. CONTRIBUTION IN PHASE 3
• Gives Meaning to Ambiguity
• Broad Technical Understanding
• Aligned Business Perspective
• Coordinates Functions
• Leverages Networks for Results
• Develops/Coaches Others
(get Coaching too!)
• Intra-Team
Coordination/Communication
• Development is:
Leading Through Others
Subtractive, Transformative, Not Intuitive
35

36. With 6% in P-3, you
can move, change,
grow the corporate
mountain.
THE IMPACT OF PHASE 3’S
36

37. A LOOK AT THE PHASE WISE CONTRIBUTION
Organizational Contribution by Phase
ContributionRankings
90th
80th
70th
60th
50th
40th
30th
20th
10th
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Mgr’s
Phase 2
Mgr’s
Phase
4
12th
61st
Average
Percentile
90th 95th
38th
Phase 3’s
73rd
This is 95-97% of your organization
This is max 1-3% of your organization
37

38. MANAGEMENT AND UNDESIRABLE TURNOVER
Attrition and Retention of Top/Key Talent
AveragePercentTurnover
Phase 3 Effectiveness Scores
Next Phase Leadership Research
29+%
7-9%
1%
Phase 2 Mgr’s Phase 3 Mgr’s
38

39. PROBLEM #1 =ABSENCE OF
PHASE 3’S
1. Poor Performance Management
2. Attrition of Best Talent
3. Declining Bench Strength
4. Implementation Failure
5. Dysfunctional Communications
6. Team Dysfunctions
7. Cross-Functional Chaos
8. Poor Coordination…
9. Emp. Engagement Suffers
Most orgn. have less
than 1 % P3 managers
& requisite is 6% to
get positive leverage
39

40. Problem #2 = Typical
Learning Paradigm
• Linear/additive
• Intuitive,
• Individually wrapped
• Logical
• Information based / in a
classroom
Solution: New Learning
Paradigm
• Non-linear (back up to go
forward)
• Non-intuitive … Counter-
intuitive
• Inter-dependently wrapped
• Logical
• Learn in real time,
anywhere
• Existential
choice/willingness
• Accountable to another
person…
40

41. REFLECTION
1. From Phase 2 3 Personal ∆’s ?
2. From Phase 2 3 Skills +/- ?
3. From Phase 2 3 “External” Helps ?
Pull as much information/experience
as you can regarding the following…
41

42. KEY FINDINGS ABOUT THE TRANSITION
Transition from Phase 2 3
(The Personal ∆’s) Willingness, Change of Heart, Initiative,
Courage, Risk, Generativity, Promotion,Want or Need a Change…
(The Skills) Let Go of Phase 2, Coach Others, Delegate, Develop,
Assignments, “Facilitate vs. Expert”, Manage Ambiguity, Influence,
Invite Distractions and Diversity, Broad Technical Understanding…
(External Helps) Get Phase-Coaching, Complex Phase 3-Projects,
Team-Coordination, Cross-Functional Integration, Meetings,
Politics, Sponsor…
42

43. 43

44. Making the Transition
Phase 2 Phase 3
INTERNAL USE ONLY © Copyright Next Phase Leadership
Letting Go
Un-becoming Phase 2
a) Phase 2 Magnets
b) Micro-Surveys
c) Developing Others
d) P-3 Assignments
Moving On
Becoming Phase 3
Phase 2 Phase 3
Getting
Started
Phase 3 Line of Sight
a) Training
b) Co-authored
Transition Plan
c) Phase-Coaching
a) Psycho-Social Shift
b) Identity/Rewards
c) Combined Strengths
d) P-3 Assignments
e) Sponsorship
44

45. TOP 10, PHASE 2 MAGNETS™ THAT PULL YOU BACK,
1.Personal interest/investment in technology (e.g. hoarding the best
technical assignments)
2.Fear of losing your “technical edge” (technical obsolescence)
3.Fear of losing your reputation as “the expert” (e.g. won’t coach
others/share expertise)
4.Love the predictability/control over your work
5.Lack of interpersonal skills.
6.Fear of ambiguity/people/mistakes
7.Manager/Peers/DR’s expect Phase 2 contributions of you
8.Your Manager isn’t in Phase 3
9.The company/function wants “player-coaches”
10.Won’t learn/use management systems, tools, training, etc.
45

46. THE TRANSITION FROM PHASE 2 3
Phase 3
Phase 2
46

47. Training light & Coaching heavy, real life next
phase assignments
“Know How to “Do How”
47

48. 2 3
You
• Role
• Boss
• Company “Culture”
• Economy
• Quotas
• Crisis
• Courage
• Customers
• Span of Influence
YOUR PHASE IS INFLUENCED BY:
48

49. P2(IC) TO P3(MGR) JOURNEY IS NOT EASY
21 % withdraw and
opt to be IC again ,
which is better than
P2 Mgr
49

50. HAVING 6% OR MORE PHASE 3 MANAGERS WILL MEAN…
• Increased net profitability ranging from 10% to over 200%
• Increase in overall organization contribution of 12-45
percentile points.
• Increase in Phase 2 employees’ contribution by an average of
10-15 percentile points (by giving them Phase 3 managers to
report to)
• Increase in employee satisfaction/engagement scores by 17-
44%
• Decrease in manager Phase 2 to Phase 3 transition by 3-7 years
• Increase Phase 2 to Phase 3 transition success rate by over
200%
50

51. ABOUT DR. BRETT SAVAGE
Dr. S. Brett Savage, specializes in taking
individual experts through the troublesome
transition toward manager and leader roles.
Doctor Savage has done global research,
trained, implemented enterprise systems and
coached hundreds of industry leaders Brett is
the founder of Next Phase Leadership LLC, a
research-based training and consulting firm that
provides contribution consulting, assessments,
training and Phase-Coaching.
The Phases of Performance and Contribution is
founded on research that originated at Harvard
University with Dr. Gene Dalton and Dr. Paul
Thomson (Organizational Dynamics, Summer
1977). We are deeply indebted to the
researchers for their original research and
subsequent mentoring of us.
www.NextPhaseLeadership.com
51

52. NEXT PHASE -WWW.NEXTPHASELEADERSHIP.COM
AT&T
52

53. GARTNER’S 10 CHANGES AT WORK
WORLD IN NEXT 10 YEARS 2010 (1-5)
Let us take a look at what the 10 points and my take on the behaviors
individuals would need to exhibit to succeed in them.
1. De-routinization of Work: Here’s the value add: Not being narrow
and tactical but broad perspective
2. Work Swarms (the new team): jet speed teaming up and
disbanding-- Able to work outside the comfort zone
3. Weak Links (to work around it): Relying on People rather than
Technology and on info/relationship networks
4. Working With the Collectives: Influence and networking with inside
and outside work
5. Work Sketch-Ups: Not just being ok with lack of precedence but
thriving on it.
53

54. GARTNER’S 10 CHANGES AT WORK
WORLD IN NEXT 10 YEARS 2010 (6-10)
6. SpontaneousWork: always on
the look out and not waiting for
instructions
7. Simulation and
Experimentation: Being ready
for the new way of working with
data.
8. Pattern Sensitivity: being able
to make sense out of mess.
9. Hyperconnected: Networking,
Influence
10. My Place: balancing personal
and professional space as the
boundaries of office and home
disappear
54

55. THE PHASES
55
Phase 1 (The Rookie) Phase 2 (The Technical/Functional Expert)
Anyone New to the Role
Must “Learn the Ropes” Quickly
Dependent on Others for Help
Asks Lots of Questions
Is Given Little Projects to Complete
Must Prove They Can do it “Our Way”
Must be Willing to be Closely
Supervised
Is a Trusted Experienced Expert
Has Deep “Technical” Expertise
Narrow and Exacting Tactical Focus
Works Independently
Requires Little Supervision
The Technical Backbone of the Team
Offers Technical Ideas and Solutions
Stays Current in Their Field
Phase 3 (The Collaborator) Phase 4 (The Visionary)
Develops a Broad Perspective
Works Inter-Dependently With Others
Creates and Maintains Int./Ext. Networks
Influences/Coaches Others Toward Results
Translates Strategy Into Tactics
Coordinates Work Within/Between Teams
Integrates Cross-Functional Efforts
Gives Structure to Ambiguity
Is Highly Valued Across the Organization
In control of his/her work
Offers a High Level Strategic Direction
Represents the Company
Has a Vision for the Long Term
Provides Industry Wide Perspectives
Grooms Future Leaders
Exercises Wide Influence
Controls the Resources of the Company

56. THE FULCRUM
56
Phase 1 (The Rookie) Phase 2 (The Technical/Functional Expert)
Anyone New to the Role
Must “Learn the Ropes” Quickly
Dependent on Others for Help
Asks Lots of Questions
Is Given Little Projects to Complete
Must Prove They Can do it “Our Way”
Must be Willing to be Closely
Supervised
Is a Trusted Experienced Expert
Has Deep “Technical” Expertise
Narrow and Exacting Tactical Focus
Works Independently
Requires Little Supervision
The Technical Backbone of the Team
Offers Technical Ideas and Solutions
Stays Current in Their Field
Phase 3 (The Collaborator) Phase 4 (The Visionary)
Develops a Broad Perspective
Works Inter-Dependently With Others
Creates and Maintains Int./Ext. Networks
Influences/Coaches Others Toward Results
Translates Strategy Into Tactics
Coordinates Work Within/Between Teams
Integrates Cross-Functional Efforts
Gives Structure to Ambiguity
Is Highly Valued Across the Organization
In control of his/her work
Offers a High Level Strategic Direction
Represents the Company
Has a Vision for the Long Term
Provides Industry Wide Perspectives
Grooms Future Leaders
Exercises Wide Influence
Controls the Resources of the Company

57. THE GARTNER’S ANALYSIS AND PHASE
3 BEHAVIOR
57
Phase 3 (The Collaborator)Gartner’s 10 Trends
De-routinization of Work
Work Swarms
Weak Inks
Working with collective
Working Sketch up
Spontaneous Work
Simulation and Experimentation
Pattern Sensitivity
Hyper-connected
My Place
Develops a Broad Perspective
Works Inter-Dependently With Others
Creates and Maintains Int./Ext. Networks
Influences/Coaches Others Toward Results
Translates Strategy Into Tactics
Coordinates Work Within/Between Teams
Integrates Cross-Functional Efforts
Gives Structure to Ambiguity
Is Highly Valued Across the Organization
In control of his/her work
Seems like a tailor made fit!
These are my Interpretations
not Gartner’s !

58. LINKEDIN DISCUSSION
58

59. 59

60. 60

61. 61

62. 62
Thank you,
@behaves
tz.linkedin.com/in/bhaveshchandaria/
Bhavesh N Chandaria,GPHR, HRMP, SCP
bhavesh@alaf.co.tz
Head Learning Training and Development
SAFALGROUP