Change: managing the process

Because Change is inevitable and unpredictable in its consequences doesn’t mean that it can’t be manage as a process.
These are the stages in managing change:

1. Tell them why: Change is better accepted when people are given a compelling business reason.

2. Make it manageable: Even when people accept what needs to be done, change may just be too big for anyone to handle. Breaking it down into manageable bits can help overcome this.

3. Take a shared approach: involve people early, asking them to join you in managing change.

4. Reward success early: flag up successes as quicly as possible. Don’t wait for year-end or the appraisal cycle.

5. Expect resistance

6. Recognize that change takes longer than expected. Remember the 6 stages that people go through when experiencing change and hence the process takes so long. The stages are: immobilization or shock, disbelief, depression, acceptance of reality, testing out the new situation, rationalizing why it’s happening and then final acceptance.

But above all : Enjoy changes !

Top talents? High PO? Are companies mistaken?

Target talent at all levels

Following my MBA course this week, I have worked on market segmentation. Well, I am convinced that Talents should also be segmented.

Organizations can’t afford to neglect the contributions of other employees. Several authors in recent years have emphasized the valuable contributions of B players: capable, steady performers who make up the majority of any workforce. Research on social capital has also highlighted the importance of inclusiveness: top talent is more effective when it operates in vibrant internal networks with a range of employees. Performance suffers when such social networks are absent or withdrawn. Our experience has even shown that strong networks help retain young Gen Y professionals.

Companies must therefore address the needs of talent at all levels of the organization: frontline staff, technical specialists, even the indirect workforce, such as people who work for suppliers, contractors, and joint-venture partners—are often as critical to overall success as A players. Experience suggests that an exclusive focus on top players can damage the morale of the rest of the organization and, as a result, overall performance.

**A more inclusive approach involves thinking of the workforce as a collection of talent segments that actively create or apply knowledge.**

Image:

http://www.counterpoint-music.com/specialties/images/talentshow.jpg

Keep your staff mobilized… Some good ideas found on the web….

- Show your people that you have a plan.
- Communicate face to face.
- Involve your people.
- Show your compassion.
- Redefine success.
- Offer recognition.
- Keep on celebrating. Applaud every small success.

Do say: 'We will be honest and open with our people, and show them the way forward, but we will also be realistic about our prospects during this downturn.'
Don't say: 'We're all doomed.'

Image Flickr

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

Mark Twain

Talent is Worthless, Performance is Priceless

How Do Star Performers Work?

The key to converting average or mediocre people to star status lies, first, in determining their competencies and, second, in coaching them in the application of those competencies. The Bell Lab study identified nine strategies star performers use to get their work done.

They are as follows:

• Taking initiative: Star performers don't just inform someone of an error, they correct the error. The mediocre don't.


• Networking: Star performers anticipate their needs and solicit outside input prior to beginning a project. The mediocre wait until there's a need and then look for help.


• Self-management: Stars know that self-management goes beyond time management and includes management of effort and knowledge. The mediocre feel time management is all that's needed.


• Teamwork effectiveness: Star performers are comfortable being followers or leaders. The mediocre tend to push too hard for leadership roles.


• Leadership: Star performers know small leadership roles are as important as bigger, more visible ones. The mediocre often are disappointed with smaller, less viable leadership assignments and, as a result, perform at a level expressing their displeasure.


• Followership: Star performers are aware of the value of following, as well as leading, and understand the need to contribute to the leader and the team's performance. The mediocre often are difficult in a team setting and more focused on getting individual credit.


• Perspective: Superior performers understand how their immediate work fits into the "big picture." The star performer is invested in taking on other viewpoints, such as those of the customer, manager or other team members. The mediocre often see a world defined by the length of their reach. They tend to have difficulty accepting others' thoughts and ideas.


• Show-and-tell: Star performers are master presenters. The mediocre are PowerPoint specialists.


• Organizational savvy: Star performers understand how they contribute to the overall performance of the organization and are capable of navigating through an organization's competing interests. The mediocre often are perplexed with organization politics and hide behind the mantra of not being a "political person."

Understanding these strategies and defining them for the workforce is a powerful tool and is necessary to convert mediocre workers into star performers. It is not easy, but it is worth it. In these difficult times, adding the equivalent of seven average performers to the workforce by converting just one to star status is a strategy that addresses the pressing need to do more with less.

Image Flickr

When job seekers invade Facebook

The increasing popularity of online social networking is changing not only the way people manage their careers but social networking itself.

As the downturn continues, millions of corporate managers are rushing to join online social networks in a scramble to build their social capital. The popularity of sites such as LinkedIn is soaring: less than a year ago the site had little brand profile and was seen mostly as a venue for corporate suits trolling for professional contacts while plotting their next career move. Facebook, by contrast, has largely attracted individuals seeking a compelling site for fun social networking.
Today LinkedIn’s year-on-year growth is up nearly 200 percent in the United States and it now has more than 35 million members—many of whom were formerly employed within the hard-hit financial sector. And it’s just one of the many sites to which recession-struck managers are flocking…

This surging popularity of online social networking is transforming the nature of business networking, with profound implications for the way business people manage their careers. But it also augurs profound change for social networking itself.

With so many people stampeding into Web-based social networks, the line between social and business networking is becoming increasingly blurred. An important question is whether the values and codes of conduct specific to the virtual world will come into conflict with real-world values and norms. Facebook, where the idea of a “friend” is directly embedded in the interface, is increasingly cluttered with self-promoters, career artists, and marketing entrepreneurs.

What happens as this trend intensifies and those using Facebook exclusively for career networking invade ?

There are, of course, powerful economic reasons behind the trend. As sociologist Nan Lin puts it in his book, Social Capital,1 “Individuals engage in interactions and networking in order to produce profits.” These profits are based upon information, influence, social credentials, and recognition. The accumulated social capital, meanwhile, helps individuals to gain competitive advantages in the labor market as a result of privileged access to “resources” located on the social networks.

It’s a safe bet that if the economic downturn grinds on, we will witness further conflict between the nonrational instinct to connect socially and the rational calculation to build social capital for professional reasons. If so, it may put further strain on the notion of an online friend. We may find ourselves asking more frequently that age-old question, “What are friends for?”

About the Authors
Professor Soumitra Dutta is the Roland Berger Chaired Professor of Business and Technology at INSEAD, where Dr. Matthew Fraser is a senior research fellow. Their book, Throwing Sheep in the Boardroom: How Online Social Networking Will Change Your Life, Work and World, was published by Wiley in December 2008.

Making talent a strategic priority

Companies like to promote the idea that employees are their biggest source of competitive advantage. Yet the astonishing reality is that most of them are as unprepared for the challenge of finding, motivating, and retaining capable workers as they were a decade ago.

Too many organizations still dismiss talent management as a short-term, tactical problem rather than an integral part of a long-term business strategy, requiring the attention of top-level management and substantial resources. Everyone spends time on today’s business—and attribute very little value to doing anything else.

Senior executives frequently acknowledge their failure (and that of their line managers) to pay enough attention to these issues. Researches have highlighted the obstacles that executives face, including short-term mind-sets, minimal collaboration and talent sharing among business units, ineffective line management, and confusion about the role of HR professionals (Exhibit 1).

To manage talent successfully, executives must recognize that their talent strategies cannot focus solely on the top performers; that different things make people of different genders, ages, and nationalities want to work for (and remain at) a company; and that HR requires additional capabilities and encouragement to develop effective solutions. Only in this way will talent management establish itself at the heart of business strategy.