There are 3 skills that remained the same, and 2 new skills that have been identified as skills critical for future leadership success. Which 3 do you think remained? Which 2 are new? In your handout, there is a list for you to work on with your table. Take 10 minutes to discuss…
Slide 2: The focus of DDI’s POV on Creating a Culture of innovation First Animation There are many environmental and organizational challenges to innovation. Four we see as especially prevalent are: lack of understanding stakeholders, lackluster ideas, aversion to risk, and failure to execute. Note that even if the first three challenges are dealt with, without execution, innovation will not take place. The leader’s task is to help team members overcome these challenges. (when you click all four challenges will show) Let’s focus on Lack of Stakeholder Understanding …. What we mean by this challenge is when team members identify a problem or opportunity, they often rush prematurely to generating solutions. They do not contemplate who the multiple stakeholders are within a given problem space nor take the time to uncover their true needs and desires. As a result, team members wind up oversimplifying the problem and advocating for solutions that do not meet, let alone exceed, stakeholder expectations. Leaders must ( CLICK NOW for Second animation ) INSPIRE CURIOSITY in their employees by showing them how to adopt a stance of humility and providing intellectual stimulation to learn about the people they are providing solutions for. Whether your stakeholders are clients, customers, shareholders, patients, users, partners, or employees, a team must approach them with respect and (CLICK NOW for Third Animation ) question existing assumptions about stakeholders, their needs and their experiences . The process of questioning assumptions clears the path for deep understanding and insight. (CLICK NOW for Fourth Animation ) Therefore, as leaders inspire curiosity, their people will come to have a deeper and more profound understanding of their stakeholders. Lackluster Ideas In order to stay competitive, organizations require solutions that range from incremental (non-disruptive) to breakthrough (disruptive) depending on the situation and needs of stakeholders. In order to find value-add solutions, team members must generate a variety of substantive ideas. However, people often get caught in the trap of solving problems and generating ideas within the boundaries of “how things have always been done”. This tendency is exacerbated by many factors; silo structures that reinforce narrow thinking and personal gain, lack of diverse viewpoints, poor cross-pollination of ideas, and lack of multi-disciplinary collaboration needed to anticipate the future business landscape. Leaders must (CLICK NOW for Animation Five ) CHALLENGE CURRENT PERSPECTIVES by pushing boundaries, creating and sharing compelling aspirations, and providing ideation tools that provoke thinking. As a result, team members will be encouraged to (CLICK NOW for Animation Six ) think in different ways in order to generate new, fresh and boundary-breaking ideas. These new ideas will address the myriad of complex challenges facing organizations today. (CLICK NOW for Animation Seven ) Aversion to Risk Risk-mitigation is a good business practice. While many companies are founded on a risky move at the outset, like a breakthrough business model or technology, maturity is typically achieved by making low-risk decisions and improvements. Initiatives like adding new features, cutting costs and improving marketing strategies are what sustain predictable growth. However, problems arise when a company needs to make more “disruptive” innovation leaps because of a competitive threat, or because incremental solutions have failed to solve nagging problems. All of a sudden companies that were very healthy and growing don’t know what to do because “business-as-usual” no longer works. The once healthy habit of risk-mitigation turns into the harmful behavior of risk-aversion. Leaders must identify these situations and (CLICK HERE for Animation Eight ) CREATE FREEDOM in order to equip their people with the license and techniques to take risks on potentially big ideas. Team members are then free to (CLICK HERE for Animation Nine ) experiment , allowing for mistakes and timely course-corrections. When leaders “take the risk out of risk-taking,” they allow for game-changing ideas and solutions. (CLICK HERE for Animation Ten as you say the last sentence. ) Failure to Execute While many organizations suffer from lackluster ideas and narrow thinking, others fail to innovate because their useful ideas remain, simply, ideas. Despite “idea brilliance,” innovation does not take place, nor is it sustained, without execution. Leaders must (CLICK HERE for Animation 11 ) DRIVE DISCIPLINE by providing focus, accountability, engagement, and sustainability to the execution process. Too often, leaders think of execution as a set of activities that happen once a good solution is conceived. They and their teams must (CLICK HERE for Animation 12 ) get things done every day, especially in driving the most strategically- relevant ideas and solutions. They must transform their mind-set to view execution as actions that begin the moment a problem or opportunity is identified. (CLICK HERE for Animation 13 ) To ensure ideas become differentiated and value-added solutions, leaders must recognize that execution is the thread that runs continuously and repeatedly throughout a culture of innovation. CLICK NOW for last Animation: Notice how these actions might appear separate, but, as you know, leader and team member actions happen simultaneously in an integrated fashion. When leaders exhibit these behaviors in a consistant manner, they help their teams overcome the challenges to innovation. In essence, they foster a culture in support of creating and sustaining innovation over time. BOB: (Comment during the last animation) DDI’s new one-day BIL course, called Driving Innovation, focuses on the behaviors and tools needed within this box. We teach leaders how to help their teams overcome innovation challenges through these four leadership actions. In addition, the course provides mid level leaders a diverse set of Human-Centered Design tools that allow them to take an idea from infancy to development to execution. Human-Centered Design is the discipline of generating new solutions where the activity is driven by the needs, desires and context of the people being designed for. In other words, anyone can sit in an office and design things in a vacuum. HCD is based on designing with the end in mind….and that end is the experience of all the stakeholders associated with your problem. We are partnering with an organization that specializes in Human-Centered Design, The Luma Institute, to design this highly engaging and interactive course. During the course, participants will be assigned a problem to solve in teams that they will work on throughout the day using Human-Centered Design tools. They will practice using these tools so that they can take them back to their teams. In addition, the participants will examine how well they observed and practiced the very behaviors needed to overcome innovation challenge while using the tools. This lab environment provides participants a way to assess their strengths and development needs, in real time, in driving a culture of innovation. They will leave the course with self insight, new knowledge, and set of tools they can apply the very next day to drive innovation.
Tacy – less subjective criteria… The framework, which is on the screen now, provides leaders and other raters with a consistent set of criteria against which to consider an individual they believe may be high potential. It assumes that consistent above average levels of performance are a ticket of entry but moves the thinking beyond just the area of performance. In total there are 10 factors grouped into 4 areas. As you might see these are a mixture of competencies and personality attributes, in fact they might well be called traits. Whatever we choose to call them , they cover areas which are less easy to develop, they are more hard wired and less likely to be altered by even focused development. People tend not to suddenly become receptive to feedback simply because they are told they need to, neither do those who have a low tolerance for ambiguity suddenly develop a propensity for dealing with this. And it is precisely because they are not easy to develop that they are so valuable when it comes to making decisions about inclusion in any acceleration pool. OK so simply speaking there was a communication/education strategy to educate the raters to the new definition. Raters complete an on-line survey asking them to rate each factor ( there are subscales for each element) and they also provide qualitative data to support their ratings. The software pulls this together into simple reports which are used by an appointed decision making group who have the final say on who goes forward into the pool and who does not. So, in summary, the Leadership Potential Factors can generically provide a common consensus on what potential is, help prevent organizations promote on the basis of current and past performance alone and can help organizations to turn the 9 box grid into a useful tool. Specifically in the case I cited it resulted in: Fewer people being nominated for the pools initially A reduction in the communication load for the HR folk and line managers as they no longer had the difficult task of communicating negative messages to the 50 % of their folks who had previously failed the AC An increase in focus on a smaller group of people who achieved readiness for the next level faster and were successful in their transition. Incidentally they also saved around $1/2million per year in AC costs. Ok moving on, if we can address the early identification issues and can get the right people on the process in the first place, what else can happen to sabotage our attempt at unlocking the pipeline? Well issue number 4 is…. STEVE And we did, we worked with them to introduce a new framework and process to facilitate the nomination of high potentials. To do this we used a research based framework we have developed based on our own 30+ years of experience in the field of leader assessment, but also taking into account findings from such luminaries as Morgan McCall ( High Flyers) and Jim Collins ( particularly his Level 5 leader research from Good to Great).
Glf Presentation 2011 Mexico Version (2)
Welcome Please fill out the Talent Management Check-up (page 13) and the Culture Check-up (page 24) in your handout if you haven’t already The Talent Management Expert
Global Leadership Forecast 2011 The Talent Management Expert
<ul><li>Mocha coconut frappuccino </li></ul><ul><li>Cupcakes </li></ul><ul><li>Lactose free milk </li></ul><ul><li>Extra large drinks </li></ul><ul><li>Via in French roast & Verona </li></ul><ul><li>Electronic delivery of rewards </li></ul><ul><li>Free WiFi </li></ul>
Cost of Leadership Performance AVERAGE HIGH LOW 1 Leader X 10 Direct Reports X $170,000 Revenue Per EE $1.7 million If the difference between an average leader and top-performing leader is 50% $2.6 million
Leadership Skill Effectiveness: 50 / 50 Value Proposition
“ Our CEO coined how we need to think about innovation. He said, ‘ I’d rather be 8 and 2 than 2 and 0 in terms of willingness to try out something new’ ”.
Innovation Important 95% 90% 89% 72% Budget Increases 80% 82% 73% 49% Up The Value Chain Boston Consulting Group 2010
( R )evolution Point 1 A Leaders Role in Innovation
The Leader’s Role in Innovation Innovation Challenges Culture of Innovation ? Failure to Execute Think Differently Question Assumptions Get Things Done Experiment Team Members Inspire Curiosity Drive Discipline Leader Challenge Current Perspectives Create Freedom
Leadership Development Methods <ul><li>Formal classroom training </li></ul><ul><li>Special projects </li></ul><ul><li>Coaching from your manager </li></ul><ul><li>Moving positions </li></ul><ul><li>Coaching from internal coaches </li></ul><ul><li>Web-based, self-study learning </li></ul><ul><li>Coaching from external coaches </li></ul><ul><li>Virtual classroom </li></ul>
Effectiveness of Development Methods Formal classroom training Special projects or assignments Coaching from your manager Moving positions Coaching from internal coaches Web-based learning Coaching from external coaches Virtual classroom 66 % 63 % 59 % 43 % 37 % 58 % 27 % 36 %
Organizations that have effective programs use more methods. 32% HR
( R )evolution Point 2 Learning: From Event to Journey
Learning Mash-Up = Assessments, Targeted Personal Development Focus Formal Learning April-June July-September October-December January-March = Core Curriculum = Action Learning & Ongoing Development Informal Learning, Feedback, and On-the-job Experience = Learning 2.0 components Orientation Kick Off Coaching Action Learning Ongoing Feedback and Support Core Curriculum 3 Building High-Performing Teams Driving Innovation Supporting Leadership Development 2 days Action Learning Action Learning Coaching Coaching <ul><li>Assessment: 360 and personality Inventories </li></ul><ul><li>Prework </li></ul><ul><li>Action Learning Kickoff </li></ul>Development Planning Meetings (DDI Coach, Boss, Mentor) Repeat 360 to Assess Behavior Change Development Planning Meetings (DDI Coach, Boss, Mentor) Job Growth Experiences Manager/Sr. Leader Kick-Off Webinar Leader Blog: What leadership means to participant, how they will use new skills Wikis: Tying leadership skills to business outcomes – how do they link together? Discussion Board: Participants seek feedback from BU leaders on ideas, best practices Core Curriculum 1 Challenges of Transitions Mastering EQ Influencing Courage 3 days Core Curriculum 2 Cultivating Networks & Partnerships Making Change Happen Learning through Transitions 3 days
64 % of leaders made a leadership transition in the past 5 years 26 % of organizations have effective programs to ensure smooth leadership transitions BUT ONLY 30 %
( R )evolution Point 3 Get it Right: Identifying Potential
There’s a Difference Performance Potential Readiness
Leadership Potential Identification of High Potentials Growth of High Potentials 50% 39% 44% 37% 2009 2011 HR
Leadership Potential 41% 35% Identification of High Potentials Growth of High Potentials 44% 37% 2011 Global 2011 Mexico HR
Leadership Potential Factors Sources: Howard & Bray; McCall; Hogan & Hogan; Collins S U S T A I N E D P E R F O R M A N C E + <ul><li>Leadership Promise </li></ul><ul><li>Propensity to Lead </li></ul><ul><li>Brings Out the Best in People </li></ul><ul><li>Authenticity </li></ul><ul><li>Balance of Values and Results </li></ul><ul><li>Culture Fit </li></ul><ul><li>Passion for Results </li></ul><ul><li>Personal Development Orientation </li></ul><ul><li>Receptivity to Feedback </li></ul><ul><li>Learning Agility </li></ul><ul><li>Mastery of Complexity </li></ul><ul><li>Adaptability </li></ul><ul><li>Conceptual Thinking </li></ul><ul><li>Navigates Ambiguity </li></ul>
Best Practices 88% 87% 60% 48% 46% 43% Organizations with effective talent management systems Organizations with ineffective talent management systems 19% 19% 13% 8% 3% 3% HR
Table Discussion: If senior leader buy-in is so key, how do you maintain their level of engagement and avoid sr. leader fatigue? OR How do you measure your initiatives to show real business impact?
“ Right now, your company has 21st century Internet-enabled business processes, mid-20th-century management processes, all built atop 19th-century management principles.” Gary Hamel
Management Culture Killers <ul><li>Bureaucracy of management processes </li></ul><ul><li>Values that are not meaningful </li></ul><ul><li>Influence based on position power </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation opportunities for select few </li></ul><ul><li>Decisions are held closely by those in power </li></ul><ul><li>Rigid structure </li></ul><ul><li>Power held by those who value status quo </li></ul><ul><li>Goals only focus on bottom-line growth </li></ul>
Culture Impacts Passion 29% 57% 81% Low effectiveness of management culture Medium effectiveness of management culture High effectiveness of management culture
17% 31% 51% Culture Impacts The bottom line Low effectiveness of management culture Medium effectiveness of management culture High effectiveness of management culture
Management Culture Killers 61% 54% Decisions are held closely by those in power Organizations are siloed, rigid, hierarchical 44% 43% 41% 38% 37% 32% Bureaucracy of management processes Innovation opportunities for select few Goals only focus on bottom-line growth Power to those who value status quo Influence based on position power Values that are not meaningful 70% 64% 61% 42% 45% 44% 45% 32%
( R )evolution Point 4 Innovating the Way We Manage
Management Culture Revolutionized <ul><li>Management processes are a competitive advantage </li></ul><ul><li>Values are shared and meaningful </li></ul><ul><li>Merit-based influence </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation opportunities for all </li></ul><ul><li>Strategic decisions open for discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Flexible, nimble structure </li></ul><ul><li>Power held by those who value innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Goals of growth, sustainability, and social significance </li></ul>
0-2 = Low Effectiveness 3-5 = Medium Effectiveness 6-8 = High Effectiveness How Did Your Organization Stack Up?
Table Discussion: What part of culture can you control? Where could you influence? What would be the impact?