One Page Talent Management- is there really such a thing?

Recently read the book with the same title, written by Marc Effron and Miriam Ort.

Their concept at the core is simple. All organizations take a process (in their case, they are analyzing talent processes), dissect the process, redesign it, place it up on a system and then build all kind of rules around the process. What the final result is, is an overly complex, unwieldy set of tools that try to anticipate every variation and hence add to the pain and headache for employees who need to comply with the new process.

So, their mantra is a simple three steps:
- start with the science of the intent
- eliminate complexity, add value
- create transparency and accountability

For each of these, they describe their methodology and thought process and how to apply these to every talent management process. For example, adding value, how do you simply do that? Adding value means making it easier to use, eliminating redundancies, obviously inferior choices, so that the process will be used the correct way and yield actionable results.

Eliminate complexity, let's look at SMART goals. They suggest that 5 steps to creating a SMART goal is wasteful, they do it in 3! Specific, important and Measurable are all that matters.

Using the science in a 360 assessment, creates accountability. Too many questions from too many people require a science degree to interpret the results. They say, why not just ask each rater to recommend what the person should do more of (positive reinforcement) and what that person should do less of (changing out of bad behaviors)...makes sense, but I never saw anyone do it that way.

Finally, I'll talk to how they look at competencies. We all know that there are 20,30,40+ competencies out there that really define 90% of the knowledge worker's universe. So if all my people are competent in 'buiness acumen' but all of my competitors are as well, so what. So if all my people are competent in 'sales execution' and all my competitors are as well, so what. You get the picture. What they say is they you need to define what behaviors in YOUR company make up the culture, make things work and provide for the competitive advantage that your competitor doesn't have and cannot replicate.

Take GE- their behavioral anchors were: imagination, expertise, inclusiveness, clear thinking and external focus. They didn't get these from a book.  They used these to build their competency model which framed the behaviors that new hires needed to be successful and that their competitors could not replicate. But it was so much simpler that the FYI 67 competency model that makes everyone the same as everyone else.

read the book, it's fun and different.

Kirkpatrick model turned upside down...? Level 4 to 1

Interesting article in November's edition of CLO magazine (www.clomedia.com) by Donald Kirkpatrick's son, Jim and his wife, on how the Kirkpatrick evaluation model which seems to have turned upside down like everything else in this crazy world.

It use to be that you would conduct a Level 1 evaluation survey on the training that you provided in order to gauge people's reaction to the event. Then follow up with level 2 to check their knowledge, then level 3 evaluation to determine what they have retained and finally a level 4 survey to poll the actual results that were produced as an output...logical, yes?

Well, their new theory is: when thinking about the entire training process, let's start with the expected results, quantify them (the level expected output) and then drill in reverse down the food chain. So, once you have the intended results that are expected to be achieved, then determine (Level 3) what behaviors you want the people to exhibit that will produce those results. Drill down again and determine what information or knowledge (level 2) you will have to impart to them to get the intended behaviors. Finally, determine Level 1, what training do you need to develop and in what modality should it be delivered in order to get their positive reaction or commitment.

It's upside down, but it makes perfect sense!