Ever upward

Source: Exec Digital UK

Date :24/10/2007 12:01:11

Companies that pride themselves on best practice in developing workplace and management career paths often give sketchy thought to how they assess and develop their senior leaders

By Philip Stiles

One of the famous findings from the McKinsey War for Talent survey was that only three percent of CEOs believed their organizations developed their employees effectively. This eye-opening statistic is extreme yet dissatisfaction with development is by no means uncommon. Even at executive levels, where one would assume attention and resources would be lavished, the story is not a happy one, with a recent survey by the CIPD showing that 60 percent of individuals highlighted as leaders or future leaders rated their companies’ support and development as ineffective .

A Darwinian response would be to say, ‘why worry? The cream always rises to the top’. There may be whinging about development, yet the best people will find their way through, so in the end, talk about development doesn’t matter. But though a few small-sized organizations may operate with this belief, it is extremely rare in well established organizations.

Peer judgements

It is easy to see why: the ‘cream’ model relies on networking and a high degree of political behaviour, since if there is no system then one has to make one’s achievements and profile very visible and ensure one’s talent is obvious to those with leverage. Though all transitions depend on visibility and to some extent political behaviour, most organizations try to be more ‘objective’ and opt to design systems that emphasise skills, knowledge, behaviour and attitude in a more ‘rational’ and transparent way.

Most organisations, particularly large ones, operate with a standard approach for executives. From our own work in global companies, involving such firms at BAE Systems, BT, Siemens, GE, IBM, we saw a great similarity of practice . First there are the leadership competences that determine levels of acceptable performance. Based on these, executives are then judged on their performance and potential, usually by a jury of their peers through multiple-inputs, assessed according to a performance/potential matrix and then personal development plans are constructed. Development opportunities are then arranged, the most important being new job assignments, new responsibilities, coaching, mentoring, and project-based work. So with all this boilerplate process, which, in most firms, has been in place for many years, why does development disappoint so often?

At executive levels, assessment and transitions to another level moves beyond performance and potential in the normal sense to embrace anxiety, stress and political activity. In many cases, executives say that assessment and development initiatives do not orient them sufficiently to move into a new role. The emotional changes that accompany a major transition can be significant and are rarely addressed by companies.

Expectations and image

Also bound up here are ideas of individual’s career timetable, and whether their assessment and development are in line with their implicit expectations. Fear of failure too is not to be underestimated. Assessment at executive levels is often portrayed as a tournament, and though the process is intended to judge individuals fairly, lobbying for support and deal-making for key positions are common behaviours.

Put simply, at executive level, the concern is not so much with performance, but with image (what do I need to do to look like and how should I behave at the next level) and exposure (who should now be part of my network, how can I best influence these key individuals). Skills in these areas are difficult to acquire and hone, and even to admit that attention to them is necessary can also be challenging (for example, why should how I look affect my prospects).

A realistic view of what life is like at the next level helps, so too a clear understanding of what really are the rules of the game in addition to high performance in terms of image and exposure. A rule of thumb used by GE is that what has made you successful in the past – certain skills and behaviours and knowledge - may not help you in your later career.

Thus the assessment and development of executives may focus not just on new talents acquired, but also on the unlearning of old ways of thinking and operating. For individuals who have risen close to the top using a certain management style and certain assumptions about effectiveness, this can be the toughest challenge of all.