six mistakes that drive away your rising stars - wangowango.org/ngonews/february11/clc.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL®CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
CORPORATE EXECUTIVE BOARD
Six Mistakes That Drive Away Your Rising Stars
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
2
An employee’s potential is determined by his or her aspiration, ability, and engagement.
A NEW SYNTHESIS ON EMPLOYEE POTENTIAL
The Corporate Leadership Council’s Model of Employee Potential
Source: Corporate Leadership Council High-Potential Employee Management Survey, 2005.
DERF 09-4174
Catalog # CLC2229791937
Title LEGO 1029 CE ON
Ability Engagement
Aspiration
The High-Potential EmployeeAhigh-potentialemployeeissomeonewiththeability,engagement,andaspirationtorisetoandsucceedinmoresenior,criticalpositions.
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
3
Currently, a majority of employees have limited potential to truly excel at the next level.
■■ Nearlyhalftheworkforcehaslessthana5%chanceofbeingatopperformeratthenextlevel.
■■ About8%ofemployeeshaveatleasta75%chanceofbeingatopperformeratthenextlevel.
THE POTENTIAL GAP
Distribution of Workforce Probability in the Top Quartile in a More Senior Role1
Source: Corporate Leadership Council High-Potential Employee Management Survey, 2005.
DERF
Catalog # CLC13Q2WOA
Title
1 An employee’s probability of performing in the top quartile in a more senior or a critical role is based on the employee’s potential score, which is weighted according to the predictors of top performance at the level above him or her. An employee’s potential score was converted into the probability of being a top performer in a more senior, more critical role using logistic regression.
1% 5% 50% 75%25%
Current Probability of Success in a More Senior, Critical Role
Num
ber
of
Em
plo
yees
32% 15% 22% 13% 8%10%
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
4
No function or level has adequate number of high-potential employees.
Source: Corporate Leadership Council High-Potential Employee Management Survey, 2005.
DERF 09-4174
Catalog # CLC2229791937
Title LEGO 1029 CE ON
POTENTIAL DEFICITS EXIST IN MOST FUNCTIONS AND AT MOST LEVELS
Percentage of High-Potential EmployeesBy Function
Percentage of High-Potential EmployeesBy Level
13%12%
10%10%10%9% 9%
8% 8% 8% 8%7%
6% 6%
4% 4%
Per
cent
age
of
Hig
h-P
ote
ntia
l E
mp
loye
es
Per
cent
age
of
Hig
h-P
ote
ntia
l E
mp
loye
es
Ret
ail O
per
atio
ns
Cu
sto
mer
Co
nta
ct
Cu
sto
mer
Ser
vice
R&
D
Mar
keti
ng
Sal
es
Oth
er
En
gin
eeri
ng IT
Op
erat
ion
s
Co
rpo
rate
Ad
min
.
Fin
ance HR
Man
ufa
ctu
rin
g
Pu
rch
asin
g
Qu
alit
y C
on
tro
l Junior Level Mid Level Senior Level
9.1%
6.3% 6.2%
Althoughsomefunctionshousemorepotentialthanothers,nofunctionisfullyprepared.
Thepotentialgapisslightlyhigheratmoreseniorlevels.
Function
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
5
77% Immediate/Short-Term
Priority
HIGH PRIORITY DUE TO HIGH VALUEOrganizations are prioritizing HIPO identification due to the high value associated with the employees. Please Indicate the Priority of Effective HIPO Identification at Your Organization
How Much More Valuable Is a High-Potential Employee Than an Average Employee?
15.7% More Than 100% More Valuable
1.2% No Material Difference in Value
60.2% More Than 50% More Valuable
19.3% More Than 20%
More Valuable
3.6% More Than 10% More Valuable
19% Long-Term Priority
3% Not a Priority in 2010–2011
Source: Corporate Leadership Council’s HR Organizations’ High-Potential Employee Management Strategies Survey.
n = 83.
Note: Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
6
INCREASING INVESTMENTS, POOR RESULTS
Change in Investment in HIPOs’ Development1
Organizations report increased investments in high-potential employee development but less than one-third report significant returns.
33%
47%
16%
4%0%
Greatly Increased
Somewhat Increased
Stayed Constant
Somewhat Decreased
Greatly Decreased
Per
cent
age
of
Surv
ey R
esp
ond
ents
14% Minimal Returns
55% Moderate
Returns
31% Significant Returns
Returns on Investments in High-Potential Employees
Source: Corporate Leadership Council’s HR Organizations’ High-Potential Employee Management Strategies Survey.
1 Change in investment measured over past two years.
n = 88.
n = 86.
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
9
MISTAKE #1: ASSUMING THAT HIGH-POTENTIALS ARE HIGHLY ENGAGED
Percentage of Employees Who Admit They’re Not Trying Their Best
Engagement levels have decreased significantly–yet intent to stay has slightly increased for all non-HIPO employees.
■■ HIPOsareawarethattheirskillsarevaluedanddon’tsharetheneedtostickaround.
“Atthetimewhenweneedthemmost,myrisingstarsseemto
haveonefootoutthedoor.”General ManagerF100 Technology Firm
HIPO employees who believe they’ll be working for a different employer in 12 months
HIPO employees who believe their personal goals are significantly different than what the organization plans for them
HIPOs who admit to having little confidence in their coworkers
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Total HIPOs
25% 20% 40%
Source: CLC Human Resources Engagement Survey, September 2009.
10
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
BUILDING MANAGER AWARENESS ABOUT EMPLOYEES
Manager ChecklistIllustrative
Answereachquestionwith“yes”or“no.”
Scoring System
0–5 “No”s: Low Risk6–10 “No”s: Medium Risk11–15 “No”s: High Risk
Su
sie
Wo
ng
Ben
Pen
g
Lily
Wu
Gra
ce C
ho
u
Kev
in L
iu
Nu
mb
er
of
“No
”s
Source: Novartis; China HR Executive Board research.
Retention Risk Assessment—Manager Questions and ScoringPart I: Manager–Employee RelationsDo I maintain an open, trusting, and mutually respectful relationship with this employee? Yes Yes No No Yes 2
Do I know this employee’s objectives and work with him or her toward these goals? Yes Yes Yes No Yes 1
Do I know that this employee perceives his or her total rewards to be fair and receives recognition for achievements? No No No Yes Yes 3
Do I understand why this employee works at Novartis and not at another firm? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0
Manager–EmployeeRelationsRisk Low Low Med Med Low 6Part II: Employee’s Work–Life Balance SatisfactionDo I understand if the working environment fits with my employee’s personal and career needs? Yes Yes Yes No Yes 1
Do I understand and support this employee to expand his or her interests or hobbies? No No Yes No No 4
Do I know if this employee’s attitude, physical health, and overall status have been healthy for the past six months? Yes Yes Yes No Yes 1
Employee’sWork–LifeBalanceRisk Low Low Low High Low 6Part III: Employee’s Job–Interest AlignmentDo I know if the employee’s values are consistent with the organization’s values and culture? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0
Does this employee demonstrate passion and enthusiasm for his or her work? Yes Yes No No Yes 2
Do I know how satisfied my employee is with aspects of the work situation (e.g., projects, training, coworkers)? Yes Yes No No Yes 2
Employee’sJob–InterestAlignmentRisk Low Low Med High Low 4Part IV: Employee’s Career GoalsDo I know if the employee’s current work is aligned with his or her long-term goals? Yes Yes Yes No Yes 1
Have I discussed different career choices with this employee? Yes Yes Yes No Yes 1
Am I currently and actively working with this employee toward his or her career goals? Yes Yes Yes No Yes 1
Have I had a discussion with this employee about ways to contribute to the company? No No No No No 5
Do I proactively support this employee’s development through training and challenging learning opportunities? Yes Yes No Yes Yes 1
Employee’sCareerGoalsRisk Low Low Med High Low 9Retention Risk (Based on Number of “No”s) Low Low Med High Low
Retentionchecklistsincludefoursetsofquestionsrequiringmanagerstotruly“know”theiremployees.
Thechecklistprovidesarealitycheckformanagersontheirknowledgeoftheirteams.
Whencomplete,thechecklistprovidesaroughmeasureoftheteam’s—andkeyindividuals’—turnoverrisk.
11
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
Source: Novartis; China HR Executive Board research.
FROM AWARENESS TO ACTION
Manager “To-Do List”Illustrative
Su
sie
Wo
ng
Ben
Pen
g
Lily
Wu
Gra
ce C
ho
u
Kev
in L
iu
Retention Risk Category Step 1: Improve Team ManagementCareer Goals Create a development plan that focuses both on skills for the current job and for future jobs
Offer new types of projects across functional or divisional area to employee
Work with employee to ensure he or she can attend training events
Job–Interest Alignment Demonstrate the organization’s values and recognize employees for exhibiting them
Manager–Employee Relations
Recognizeemployee’saccomplishmentsbothpubliclyandprivatelyConductregularmeetingswithyourteam—formallyandinformallyStep 2: Target Action Steps to Areas of Concern
Career Goals Discuss the value the employee brings to the organization
Learn about the employee’s career goals and personal aspirations
Job–Interest Alignment ExpressyourownenthusiasmandpassionforthejobRegularlycheck-inwithyouremployeeandaskabouttheirworksituation
Manager–Employee Relations
Inquire about his or her work motivations—pinpoint why he or she is working here
Ask questions to learn what is important to him or her
Ensure employee understands communications about pay and feels open to ask questions
Work–Life Balance Satisfaction
Discussreasonsfornotedhealthorattitudechanges(e.g.,tiredness,moodswings)Learnabouttheemployee’spersonalinterestsoutsideofworkAsk how the employee works best
Discuss options for employees’ work hours, work style, work load, etc.
Directions:Identifyandincorporatethefollowingstepsinyourinteractionswithyourteam,basedontheirspecificretentionrisks.
Suggested follow-up steps focus on actions that are within the manager’s control…
…and can easily be incorporated into daily routines and interactions.
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
12
MISTAKE #2: EQUATING CURRENT HIGH PERFORMANCE WITH FUTURE POTENTIAL
Percentage of Designated Employee Population Who Are HIPOsBy Employee Characteristics
While being a high performer is almost a prerequisite to being a HIPO (only 7% of HIPOs are not high performers), current performance is, by itself, a poor indicator of employee potential.
■■ Tenure,experienceinturningabusinessaroundorevenleadershipcapabilitiescannotpredictanemployee’sprobabilityofbeingsuccessfulatthenextlevel.
Total Sample
Involved in Two or More Turnarounds
and Experience Managing at Least Five
People
Five or More Years of Tenure
Rated “Strong” or
“Very Strong” on People
Management Competencies
High Performers
Per
cent
age
of
Des
igna
ted
P
op
ulat
ion
Who
Are
HIP
Os
Source: Realizing the Full Potential of Rising Talent, CLC Human Resources.
Average EmployeeEmployees with Experience
or Strength in Leadership SkillsHigh-Performing
Employees
8.2% 8.3% 8.5%
17.2%
28.7%Identifying potential based on tenure or experience produces poor and inconsistent results…
…while reliance on competencies or performance are only moderately more accurate.
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
13
WHY HIGH PERFORMERS ARE NOT ALWAYS HIGH POTENTIAL
Probability of success at the next level: 44%
Probability of success at the next level: 0%
Characteristics■■ Engaged Dreamers are employees with a great deal of engagement and aspiration but only average ability.
■■ Unless the organization can develop requisite skills, the probability of success in the next level is virtually zero.
Characteristics■■ Unengaged Stars are employees with a great deal of aspiration and ability.
■■ They hesitate to believe that working for the organization is in their best interest and do not fully believe in their work or organization.
Characteristics■■ Misaligned Stars lack the drive and ambition for success at the next level.
■■ Despite their outstanding ability and commitment to the organization, they simply don’t “want it” enough.
Frequency: 10% of High Performers Who Are Not High Potential
Frequency: 43% of High PerformersWho Are Not High Potential
Frequency: 47% of High Performers Who Are Not High Potential
Probability of success at the next level: 13%
Engagement
Aspiration
Engagement Ability
Aspiration
Engagement Ability
Source: Corporate Leadership Council High-Potential Management Survey 2005.
Seventy-one percent of high performers have limited potential for success at the next level due to shortcomings in ability, aspiration, or engagement.
■■ Deficienciesinabilityaremostdetrimentaltoanemployee’schancesoffuturesuccess,followedbydeficienciesinengagementandaspiration,respectively.
Type #1: Engaged Dreamers Type #2: Unengaged Stars Type #3: Misaligned Stars
Aspiration
Ability
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
14
MISTAKE #3: DELEGATING DOWN THE MANAGEMENT OF TOP TALENT
Percentage of HIPOs Rating Their Managers as Effective or Highly Effective
Managers are becoming less effective at developing direct reports given business pressures and conflicting priorities.
■■ High-potentialemployeesareconcernedabouttheirdevelopmentandarelesstolerantwiththisdecreaseinmanagers’capabilities.
■■ Eventhoughmanagerswillcontinuetoplayakeyroleasaconduitbetweentheemployeeandtheorganization,theorganizationneedstotreatitsHIPOsasacorporateassetandmanagetheirdevelopmentaccordingly.
Distribution of Managers’ Time Spend per Week, 2008 Versus 2009In Hours
Percentage of Employees Who Experienced or Anticipate Change in Manager1
2008 2009
27
26
53
33
23
5637% No
63% Yes
2008 2009
56%49%
1 Change in manager or senior leader in the last six months or anticipation of change in the next six months.
Source: CLC Human Resources Manager Survey, CLC Human Resources Rebuilding the Employment Value Proposition.
People Management Activities
Non–People Management Activities
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
17
REFINE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
HIPO Development Review Board Agenda
Across the course of a 90-minute development review, senior leaders provide the HIPO with constructive feedback on their development goals.
HIPO Opening Comments
HIPOs present their goals, aspirations, and development questions, defining ideal outcomes from the meeting.
(20 minutes)
HIPO and Review Board Discussion
1. Assess Viability of HIPO Career Plans Group tests the achievability of HIPO career proposal in light of Barclays’ needs.
2. Generate Ideas and Insights into Development Plan■■ Board shares stories of past development successes and failures as they relate to HIPO’s goals.
■■ Board provides specific development suggestions—e.g., special projects, useful contacts, or personal effectiveness insights.
■■ Group determines how board members can offer ongoing career support.
(60 minutes)
All-Party Debrief
HR debriefs board and HIPO separately, ensuring that all parties have provided candid feedback and thoroughly understand next steps.
(10 minutes)
Source: Barclays Bank PLC.
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
19
60% No
15%14%
11%10% 10% 10% 10%
8%7% 7% 7% 7%
6%5% 5% 5% 5%
4%3%
(1%) (1%) (1%)
MISTAKE #4: SHIELDING RISING STARS FROM EARLY DERAILMENT
Rotational programs could have a significant impact on an employee’s potential. However, most programs don’t provide significant returns due to their short duration and failure to place HIPOs in a place where they need to make impactful decisions.
■■ Potentialgrowswhenemployeesarepushedoutsidetheircomfortzoneinnew,personal(andattimespainful)ways.
Imp
act
on
Em
plo
yee
Po
tent
ial
Mo
dif
y W
ork
to
Ad
apt
to
Ch
ang
ing
Cir
cum
stan
ces
Cre
ativ
ely
So
lve
Pro
ble
ms
Per
suad
e S
enio
r M
anag
ers
to
Take
Diffi
cult
Act
ion
s
Use
Sp
ecia
l Ski
lls t
o H
and
le
Wo
rk C
risi
s
Use
Sp
ecia
lized
Ski
ll fo
r D
aily
Tas
ks
Iden
tify
New
Way
s to
Wo
rk
Wo
rk w
ith
Oth
er D
epar
tmen
ts
En
gag
e in
Bu
sin
ess
Fo
reca
stin
g o
r P
lan
nin
g
Mak
e D
ecis
ion
s T
hat
Co
uld
D
amag
e O
rgan
izat
ion
Rep
uta
tio
n
Un
der
stan
d M
arke
ts, C
om
pet
ito
rs,
or
Cu
sto
mer
s
Co
nsi
der
Glo
bal
Cu
sto
mer
Nee
ds
Wo
rk w
ith
Th
ird
Par
ties
Acq
uir
e N
ew S
kills
to
C
om
ple
te U
nfa
mili
ar P
roje
cts
Mak
e D
ecis
ion
s O
uts
ide
Exp
erti
se
Mak
e D
ecis
ion
s T
hat
May
D
issa
tisf
y C
ust
om
ers
Han
dle
Wo
rk C
risi
s
Des
ign
New
Pro
du
cts
Acq
uir
e N
ew C
ust
om
ers
Inte
ract
wit
h E
xist
ing
Cu
sto
mer
s
Nu
mb
er o
f B
usi
nes
ses
Lau
nch
ed
Nu
mb
er o
f C
ou
ntr
ies
Wo
rked
In
Nu
mb
er o
f F
un
ctio
ns
Wo
rked
In
Jobexperiencethatpersonallychallengesemployeestomoveoutsideoftheircomfortzoneandbecomeactive“changeagents”willhavethegreatestimpactondevelopment.
“Iambeingaskedtocontributetomyfullpotential”
40% Yes
Source: Realizing the Full Potential of Rising Talent, CLC Human Resources.
From CLC HUMAN RESOURCES™www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CLC6372310SYN
43
HIPOs HAVE A LARGER APPETITE FOR RISK
Preference for Risk TakingHIPO Versus Non-HIPO Employees
To accelerate development, organizations should expose HIPOs to high-risk, high-return opportunities.
■ Rather than continuing to excel in their current role, HIPOs prefer to be in situations where they have increased accountability, need to develop new skills, and are working for higher stakes.
Per
cent
age
of
Em
plo
yees
Who
…
…Prefer to be Accountable for Decision Making
50%
42%
37%
32%30%
27% 27%25% 25%
20%
…Are Comfortable with Risk Taking
…Prefer Projects That Require
New Skills
…Prefer High-Risk, Unpredictable
Environment With High Returns
…Prefer High-Risk Projects With Unpredictable
Returns
Source: CLC Human Resources Employment Value Proposition Survey.
HIPO Employees
Non–HIPO Employees
From CLC HUMAN RESOURCES™www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CLC6372310SYN
47
EVALUATE BUSINESS CHALLENGES TO MEETINDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Criteria to Uncover New Crucible Roles
Leverage discrete business challenges to fulfi ll demand for crucible roles.
■ When HIPO demand outpaces crucible role supply, use these business-driven criteria to identify or create positions that match HIPOs’ strengths and development needs.
■ Dynamic crucible roles can be either temporary or permanent, depending on the specifi c business need.
■ Dynamic roles typically last three to four years and are most frequently used to increase organizational maturity at newer operating locations and during acquisitions.
Matching HIPOs to Business Challenges
1. Is there a senior position in the business unit that would be a crucible role if its risks were divided among two or more HIPOs?
2. Is there a lack of organizational maturity at an operating location, within a business unit, and/or function?
3. Do the leaders at this location have development needs that match HIPO strengths?
4. Is there a large unique or special project that could address HIPOs’ core development areas?
5. Is there a high-quality people manager who can oversee the HIPO in his or her new role?
Determining the Crucible Role’s Viability and Sustainability
1. Do we need to create an entirely new position or can the new role be an aggregate of select duties relating to existing roles?
2. Will this position be “deactivated” or be held by non–HIPOs once the HIPO moves on to a new role? Will it still be a crucible role?
3. If it is deactivated, can the position be reactivated if another HIPO needs a similar development opportunity?
4. Is the scope of the position signifi cant enough to create pressure to deliver, but not setting HIPOs up to fail?
At a new operating location, one HIPO did signifi cant upward coaching of a new-to-organization leader and instilled company values in the workforce while running back-offi ce operations for the fi rst time.
Methanex created a new crucible role by combining elements of four back-offi ce operations—Human Resources, Finance, Public Aff airs, and Safety—to create “Director of Corporate Resources.”
OVERVIEW DYNAMIC CRITERIA ROLE MATCHING SUPPORT NETWORK RESULTS
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
23
MISTAKE #5: EXPECTING STAR EMPLOYEES TO SHARE THE PAIN
Increase in Desire for Job Recognition During the DownturnOctober 2008–March 2009
Employees in general, and HIPOs in particular, show an increased desire for recognition in their work.
■■ Employeeswhoclaimthattheirmanagersareeffectiveatdifferentiatingrecognitionshoweffortlevels10percentagepointshigherthanthosewhosaytheirmanagersuseamore“democratic”approach.
■■ HIPOscaremoreabouttherecognitionitselfthanthesizeofanyreward,aslongastherecognitionisinlinewiththeircontribution.
■■ Only11%agreethattheirmanagersdifferentiaterecognitionaccurately,leavingahugeopportunityuntapped.
Per
cent
age
of
Res
po
nden
ts
Rat
ing
in T
op
Fiv
e
42%
36%
30%Oct. 2008
Nov. 2008
Dec. 2008
Jan. 2009
Feb. 2009
Mar. 2009
Employeedesireforrecognitionhasincreasedby15%.
Source: CLC Human Resources Rebuilding the Employment Value Proposition, CLC Human Resources Managing in the Downturn, CLC Human Resources HIPO Study.
“My Manager Differentiates Recognition Accurately”
44% Disagree
45% Neutral
11% Agree
DERF 10-4231
Catalog # ■■ CLC6055710SYN
Title ■■ HO: Six Mistakes to Avoid
25
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
DERF Thisisa2009CLCmerchthatdidnotgothroughCSG
Catalog # ■■ CLC9184848489
Title ■■ Low- and No-Cost Recognition Ideas
LOW- AND NO-COST RECOGNITION IDEAS (CONTINUED)
Top Ideas for Forms of Recognition
Top Ideas for Development Opportunities
■■ Give special assignments to people who show initiative.
■■ Ask people to present a summary of what they learned at a conference or seminar during a department meeting.
■■ Complete an on-the-job special assignment.
■■ Represent company at external event.
■■ Attend a leadership training workshop.
■■ Establish mentor relationships with senior executives.
■■ Provide opportunity to manage one or more direct reports.
■■ Manage a new project or initiative.■■ Work on a cross-functional team or taskforce.
Top Ideas for Tokens of Appreciation
■■ Post a thank you note on an employee’s cube.
■■ Create and post an “Employee Honor Roll” in reception area.
■■ Make a thank-you card by hand■■ Swap a task with an employee for a day—his/her choice.
■■ Establish a “Behind the Scenes” award specifically for those whose actions are not usually in the limelight.
■■ Give a shiny new penny for a thought that has been shared.
■■ Recognize employees who actively serve the community.
■■ Create an Above and Beyond the Call of Duty (ABCD) Award.
Top Ideas for Public Acknowledgment
■■ Publish a “kudos” column in the department newsletter, and ask for nominations throughout the department.
■■ Publicly recognize the positive impact on operations of the solutions employees devise for problems.
■■ Create a “Wall of Fame” to honor high achievers and special achievements in your organization.
■■ Make a photo collage about a successful project that shows the team that worked on it.
■■ At a monthly staff meeting, award an Employee of the Month and invite coworkers at the meeting to say why that person deserves the award.
Top Ideas for Awards and Perks
■■ Provide low-cost gift certificates (e.g., iTunes or Amazon MP3 downloads).
■■ Conduct an office outing, such as going bowling or to the zoo.
■■ Allow employees to leave two hours early one Friday afternoon.
■■ Take employees to lunch as a thank you and allow employees to choose the restaurant.
■■ Provide an assigned parking space for “Employee of the Month.”
■■ Offer concierge services, both on-site and off-site (virtual) to recognized individuals.
■■ Appoint a financial adviser to meet with selected employees and provide guidance on their financial planning issues.
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
26
MISTAKE #6: FAILING TO LINK YOUR STARS TO CORPORATE STRATEGY
Maximum Impact of Senior Executive Team on Discretionary Effort1
HIPOs are acutely aware of the organization’s health and direction. Their trust in senior leadership is critical for both their rational and emotional commitment.
■■ Whileemotionalcommitmentdriveseffort,itisrationalcommitmentthatdrivesretention—acriticalriskwithHIPOs.
■■ Employeeswhoseetheconnectionbetweentheirworkandthestrategyoftheorganizationshowengagementlevelsupto30%higher.
1 Each bar represents a statistical estimate of the maximum total impact on discretionary effort each lever will produce through its impact on rational and emotional commitment. The maximum total impact is calculated by comparing two statistical estimates: the predicted discretionary effort level for an employee who scores high on the lever and the predicted discretionary effort level for an employee who scores low on the lever. The impact of each lever is modeled separately.
Reciprocitypays:Seniorexecutiveswhoareopentoinputandcommittotheiremployeesreceiveheightenedeffortinreturn.
Maximum Impact of Commitment Type on Intent to Stay1
Source: CLC Human Resources Driving Employee Performance and Retention Through Engagement.
Astrongrationalcommitmenttotheorganizationleadstothestrongestincreaseinintenttostay.
Rational Commitment
Emotional Commitment
Imp
rove
men
ts
in In
tent
to
Sta
yIm
pro
vem
ents
in
Inte
nt t
o S
tay
Is O
pen
toN
ew Id
eas
Dee
ply
Car
es
Abo
ut E
mpl
oyee
s
Mak
es E
mpl
oyee
Dev
elop
men
t a
Prio
rity
Is C
omm
itted
to
Cre
atin
g N
ew J
obs
Mak
es E
ffor
t to
Avo
id L
ayof
fsSt
rong
in L
eadi
ng
and
Man
agin
g Pe
ople
Stro
ng in
Str
ateg
y
Sele
ctio
n an
d Im
plem
enta
tion
Stro
ng in
Pers
onal
Cha
ract
eris
tics
Stro
ng in
Day
-to-
Day
Proc
ess
Man
agem
ent
22.9% 20.7% 19.7%15.9% 14.4% 15.6% 15.6% 15.3% 14.0%
Rational—Organization
Rational—Team
Emotional—Organization
Emotional—Manager
Emotional—Job
Rational—Manager
Emotional—Team
50.0%38.8% 38.6% 33.7% 33.2% 30.0% 25.4%
DERF 10-4231
Catalog # ■■ CLC6055710SYN
Title ■■ HO: Six Mistakes to Avoid
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
27
SPONSOR YOUR BEST TALENT
Candidate Selection Process
Head of function or business unit nominate HIPO employees with final membership contingent on agreement of entire strategy committee.
■■ Selectionofparticipantsbasedonpastperformance,andpotentialvaluetocorporation.
■■ Strategycommitteemembersnominateemployeesbasedon(informal)assessmentofpastperformance,likelyfuturecontributionwithfinalselectionmadebyentirestrategycommittee.
Source: Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
Original
Recreate logo
BAnheuser-Busch
Strategy Committee
Jim Susan Lori Brad Katie Gina Jen Carol Jeff
Past Performance
Leadership Ability
Breadth of Thinking
Potential FutureContribution
Breadth of Experience
Yes No Yes No No No Yes Defer? Yes
Individualswithstrongpotential,pastperformancebutlackinginbreadthofexperiencemaybenefitfrommembershiponshadowcabinet.
Individualswithweakertrackrecordsrelativetooveralltalentpoolnotyetreadyformembershipinpanel.
Individualalreadypossessesstrongbackgroundandbreadthofexperience;maydefermembershipifothercandidateswouldbenefitmorefromopportunity.
SBU #1 SBU #2 SBU #3
Strong
Moderate
Weak
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
28
FAR FROM DAILY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
Shadow Cabinet Logistics
Participants exposed to corporate agenda, develop executive instincts through regular consideration of strategic issues.
■■ Monthlymeetingsscheduledimmediatelypriortostrategycommitteemeetingpromoteconsistent,ongoingattentiontodevelopmentactivities.
Typical Agenda Items
■■ Stock repurchase proposals■■ Capital appropriation request for expansion■■ Deciding international venture strategy■■ Researching special assignments from strategy committee (e.g., possible acquisitions, evaluating current policies)
■■ Due diligence research on potential acquisitions■■ Review of financial performance■■ Evaluating reengineering or refurbishment plans
Time Commitment
■■ Shadow cabinet meets 10 times per year, one day prior to scheduled strategy committee meeting
■■ Total (estimated) time away from job: 20–25 days per year (includes travel and meeting time)
Thursday 19 October
Shadow Cabinet Meeting
■■ Rotate meeting chair■■ Consider committee agenda■■ Formulate recommendations■■ Rotate three members to present
recommendations at next day’s strategy committee
Friday 20 October
Strategy Committee Meeting
■■ Present shadow cabinet recommendations during strategy committee meeting
■■ Take notes on discussion to report back to next month’s shadow cabinet
Source: Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
Original
Recreate logo
BAnheuser-Busch
30
From the CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ®www.clc.executiveboard.com
© 2010 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved. CEB6571710SYN-B
TEN CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF A TALENT-DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
A Core Set of Best Practices for Identifying and Managing Emerging Talent
1. Explicitly test candidates in three dimensions: ability, engagement, and aspiration.
2. Emphasize future competencies needed (derived from corporate-level growth plans) more heavily than current performance when you’re choosing employees for development.
3. Manage the quantity and quality of high potentials at the corporate level, as a portfolio of scarce growth assets.
4. Forget rote functional or business-unit rotations; place young leaders in intense assignments with precisely described development challenges.
5. Identify the riskiest, most challenging positions across the company, and assign them directly to rising stars.
6. Create individual development plans; link personal objectives to the company’s plans for growth, rather than to generic competency models.
7. Reevaluate top talent annually for possible changes in ability, engagement, and aspiration levels.
8. Offer significantly differentiated compensation and recognition to star employees.
9. Hold regular, open dialogs between high potentials and program managers, to monitor star employees’ development and satisfaction.
10. Replace broadcast communications about the company’s strategy with individualized messages for emerging leaders—with an emphasis on how their development fits into the company’s plans.