High potentials and crazy talk
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•1,046 views
Four counter intuitive observations on how to build and leverage high potential talent for effective talent management today.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (16)
Similar to High potentials and crazy talk
Similar to High potentials and crazy talk (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
High potentials and crazy talk
- 1. High Potentials and Crazy Talk Kevin D. Wilde January, 2013 www.kevinwildeonline.com
- 2. Taking GOOD notes … • “Working Knowledge” Column Talent Management Magazine www.talentmgt.com • Dancing with the Talent Stars: 25 Moves That Matter Now – Talent Management – Learning Strategies – Executive Development – HR Excellence www.amazon.com • Collection of book chapters, etc www.kevinwildeonline.com
- 4. The #1 job of a High Potential isn’t to contribute to the business or build personal capabilities.
- 5. The #1 Job of a High Potential is to find other high potentials.
- 7. Defining it isn’t hard.
- 9. A study of leadership behaviors + potential judgments
- 10. Big Differences Seen In Leadership Effectiveness Of Promotable Incumbents 4.10 4.05 4.00 3.95 360 Score 3.90 3.85 3.80 3.75 3.70 Directors Most Expandable Promotable Officers Suitable
- 11. Potential: Accelerators Subset of Leadership Competencies which are most directly correlated to potential, bundled in 3 observable traits 1) Sees the future – Sets compelling sense of direction – Develops winning strategies – Anticipates problems 2) Navigates the organization – Influences the organization by breaking down barriers – Collaborates across boundaries 3) Invests in people – Provides employees coaching and feedback to enhance performance – Builds a strong team Look for those, IF ANY, that are consistently recognized as key areas of strength for this employee
- 12. Case Study: What to do about Jose, Edward and Christina?
- 13. Talent Assessment Framework *aspiration and willingness to move up should be considerations in final assessment • Business results • GMI Leadership Model • Sees the future • Results Agility • Performance against • Navigates the organization • People Agility objectives • Invests in people • Mental Agility • Change Agility Absence of • Lacks Org Savvy/Influence • Hasn’t Developed Strong Team • Lacks Executive Presence • Cracks in Character Derailers • Lacks Strength in Key Skill • Lacks Strength in Both Strategy & Execution
- 14. Case Study Part 4 Read Part 4 of your case study materials and answer the discussion questions: 1. Which of the 3 employees would you choose for this open position? What factors contributed to this decision? 2. What will you do to continue to develop the 2 employees you do not choose for this open position? 3. What would be the next assignment for each of the 3 employees after the Region Sales Manager role?
- 15. Don’t Let Hi Potentials Manage Their Careers.
- 16. Cross-Training
- 19. No-Stick
- 20. Tooth-Pick
- 21. Golden Brown
- 22. Avoid making a Hi Potential Feel Special.
- 25. Individual Development Plan INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORM Name: Date: • Everyone has one PROFESSIONAL GOALS/MOTIVATIONS • Separate from performance appraisal TALENTS OR STRENGTHS DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES • Ask about it in Climate Survey FOCUSED IDP OBJECTIVES AND ACTION STEPS
- 26. Career Planning Example Note: Other Experiences Removed Note: Other Roles Removed
- 27. “I believe I have the opportunity for personal growth and development.” % FAVORABLE 82% Agree 80% 77% 75% 73% 73% 70% 99 02 03 04 05 06
- 30. Derailment Lessons Learned Hi Pots Finding Hi Pots Builds a Stronger Pool
- 31. Derailment Lessons Learned Invest in Study, Calibration and Training
- 32. Derailment Lessons Learned Bring strategic perspective, creative options and personal mentoring to guide Hi Pot growth
- 33. Derailment Lessons Learned Balance Star Treatment with Star Teams
Editor's Notes
- The threshold is high for this… i.e. John Doe is well known as a person who sets VERY CLEAR direction – it is a well understood towering strength.
- Focus of study was on Directors and Officers who, during the period of 2007 to present, either:Involuntarily left GMISaw a significant (2 column) drop in potential as noted in the P&OR 9-blocksInternational employees in scope of study for first time in 2010Reviewed 19 individual instances of derailmentData was collected on derailment factors using the following sources of qualitative and quantitative data:Interviews with the employee’s boss and/or HR VP/Director who were involved in the decision to terminate the employee Talent Summary data from annual P&OR process (2007-2010)Overall, two themes emerged from the study: our leaders derailed either because they failed to achieve results or achieved results in a destructive fashion. The most recent findings had a equal balance of either theme.When probing beyond this “surface cause” we found six patterns of derailment. Each derailed executive had one or more of the following:Lack org savvy – failed to effectively influence across the organization to solve problems and achieve results.Lacked Exec Presence – a subset of the org savvy issue leaders also acted in very unprofessional ways which compounded the issue, such as being too emotional, negative or overly focused on blaming vs. solving problems.Hasn’t selected or developed a strong team – some leaders did not attract, select or invest to build direct report skills and abilities. In some cases ,the leader seemed to want to be the star and didn’t allow others to shine. This caused many issues, including the inability to deliver results over time because his or her team lacked the competence to perform.Lacks Strength in key skill – Some derailed exec didn’t have a job specific skill that became a performance issue, such as business planning.Lacks strength in both strategy and execution – one specific skill gap was a lack of complementary leadership strengths in strategy/vision and execution. Either the leader could see the future but not put an action plan in place or over focused on execution and didn’t lead innovation or have a higher level view of where the team needed to go.Cracks in Character – in a few cases, the leader had all the right job competencies and performance track record, but stepped over the ethical line and violated an important General Mills policy or value.
- Focus of study was on Directors and Officers who, during the period of 2007 to present, either:Involuntarily left GMISaw a significant (2 column) drop in potential as noted in the P&OR 9-blocksInternational employees in scope of study for first time in 2010Reviewed 19 individual instances of derailmentData was collected on derailment factors using the following sources of qualitative and quantitative data:Interviews with the employee’s boss and/or HR VP/Director who were involved in the decision to terminate the employee Talent Summary data from annual P&OR process (2007-2010)Overall, two themes emerged from the study: our leaders derailed either because they failed to achieve results or achieved results in a destructive fashion. The most recent findings had a equal balance of either theme.When probing beyond this “surface cause” we found six patterns of derailment. Each derailed executive had one or more of the following:Lack org savvy – failed to effectively influence across the organization to solve problems and achieve results.Lacked Exec Presence – a subset of the org savvy issue leaders also acted in very unprofessional ways which compounded the issue, such as being too emotional, negative or overly focused on blaming vs. solving problems.Hasn’t selected or developed a strong team – some leaders did not attract, select or invest to build direct report skills and abilities. In some cases ,the leader seemed to want to be the star and didn’t allow others to shine. This caused many issues, including the inability to deliver results over time because his or her team lacked the competence to perform.Lacks Strength in key skill – Some derailed exec didn’t have a job specific skill that became a performance issue, such as business planning.Lacks strength in both strategy and execution – one specific skill gap was a lack of complementary leadership strengths in strategy/vision and execution. Either the leader could see the future but not put an action plan in place or over focused on execution and didn’t lead innovation or have a higher level view of where the team needed to go.Cracks in Character – in a few cases, the leader had all the right job competencies and performance track record, but stepped over the ethical line and violated an important General Mills policy or value.
- Focus of study was on Directors and Officers who, during the period of 2007 to present, either:Involuntarily left GMISaw a significant (2 column) drop in potential as noted in the P&OR 9-blocksInternational employees in scope of study for first time in 2010Reviewed 19 individual instances of derailmentData was collected on derailment factors using the following sources of qualitative and quantitative data:Interviews with the employee’s boss and/or HR VP/Director who were involved in the decision to terminate the employee Talent Summary data from annual P&OR process (2007-2010)Overall, two themes emerged from the study: our leaders derailed either because they failed to achieve results or achieved results in a destructive fashion. The most recent findings had a equal balance of either theme.When probing beyond this “surface cause” we found six patterns of derailment. Each derailed executive had one or more of the following:Lack org savvy – failed to effectively influence across the organization to solve problems and achieve results.Lacked Exec Presence – a subset of the org savvy issue leaders also acted in very unprofessional ways which compounded the issue, such as being too emotional, negative or overly focused on blaming vs. solving problems.Hasn’t selected or developed a strong team – some leaders did not attract, select or invest to build direct report skills and abilities. In some cases ,the leader seemed to want to be the star and didn’t allow others to shine. This caused many issues, including the inability to deliver results over time because his or her team lacked the competence to perform.Lacks Strength in key skill – Some derailed exec didn’t have a job specific skill that became a performance issue, such as business planning.Lacks strength in both strategy and execution – one specific skill gap was a lack of complementary leadership strengths in strategy/vision and execution. Either the leader could see the future but not put an action plan in place or over focused on execution and didn’t lead innovation or have a higher level view of where the team needed to go.Cracks in Character – in a few cases, the leader had all the right job competencies and performance track record, but stepped over the ethical line and violated an important General Mills policy or value.
- Focus of study was on Directors and Officers who, during the period of 2007 to present, either:Involuntarily left GMISaw a significant (2 column) drop in potential as noted in the P&OR 9-blocksInternational employees in scope of study for first time in 2010Reviewed 19 individual instances of derailmentData was collected on derailment factors using the following sources of qualitative and quantitative data:Interviews with the employee’s boss and/or HR VP/Director who were involved in the decision to terminate the employee Talent Summary data from annual P&OR process (2007-2010)Overall, two themes emerged from the study: our leaders derailed either because they failed to achieve results or achieved results in a destructive fashion. The most recent findings had a equal balance of either theme.When probing beyond this “surface cause” we found six patterns of derailment. Each derailed executive had one or more of the following:Lack org savvy – failed to effectively influence across the organization to solve problems and achieve results.Lacked Exec Presence – a subset of the org savvy issue leaders also acted in very unprofessional ways which compounded the issue, such as being too emotional, negative or overly focused on blaming vs. solving problems.Hasn’t selected or developed a strong team – some leaders did not attract, select or invest to build direct report skills and abilities. In some cases ,the leader seemed to want to be the star and didn’t allow others to shine. This caused many issues, including the inability to deliver results over time because his or her team lacked the competence to perform.Lacks Strength in key skill – Some derailed exec didn’t have a job specific skill that became a performance issue, such as business planning.Lacks strength in both strategy and execution – one specific skill gap was a lack of complementary leadership strengths in strategy/vision and execution. Either the leader could see the future but not put an action plan in place or over focused on execution and didn’t lead innovation or have a higher level view of where the team needed to go.Cracks in Character – in a few cases, the leader had all the right job competencies and performance track record, but stepped over the ethical line and violated an important General Mills policy or value.