Showing posts with label talent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label talent. Show all posts

Monday, May 15, 2023

transformation deficit


Business transformation will remain at the forefront in 2023, as organizations continue to refine hybrid ways of working and respond to the urgent need to digitalize, while also contending with inflation, a continuing talent shortage, and supply-chain constraints. These circumstances, which require higher levels of productivity and performance, also mean a lot of change: In 2022, the average employee experienced 10 planned enterprise changes — such as a restructure to achieve efficiencies, a culture transformation to unlock new ways of working, or the replacement of a legacy tech system — up from two in 2016, according to Gartner research.

While more change is coming, the workforce has hit a wall: A Gartner survey revealed that employees’ willingness to support enterprise change collapsed to just 43% in 2022, compared to 74% in 2016.

We call the gap between the required change effort and employee change willingness the “transformation deficit.” Unless functional leaders steer swiftly and expertly, the transformation deficit will stymie organizations’ ambitions and undermine the employee experience, fueling decreased engagement and increased attrition.



Cian O Morain and Peter Aykens

"Employees Are Losing Patience with Change Initiatives," Harvard Business Review. May 9, 2023

Thursday, November 3, 2022

see what they can do


Once a year, all Navy ships undergo a thorough assessment, in which outside inspectors validate the ship's readiness. The ship as a whole and the crew's abilities and proficiencies are rated in twenty-four categories, on a scale ranging from basic Level One to advanced Level Four. 

The purpose is to determine who much additional training the crew needs to be ready for combat. But if you assume that the higher a ship's level, the less time it would spend training at sea, you would be wrong. In fact, regardless of its readiness rating, every ship spends the next six months training at sea. 

Thus there was no incentive to reach Level Four, and in fact, no ship ever did. Level One was the required minimum, and that was usually considered good enough. 

Then Benfold came along.

Originally, my goal was to reach an overall rating of Level Two, but when I recognized the enormous potential of my crew, I raised the bar to Level Three, much to the chagrin of those who saw it as a quantum leap in their labor and my hubris. 

I must also admit that, in addition to my noble motive of making the ship as good as it could be, I wanted to blow my archrival out of the water. Their assessment was scheduled to begin the basic Level One. The CO had no idea that we were laying the groundwork to shake things up a little. In fact, we were about to rock his world.

Our first challenge was finding enough senior people to supervise the twenty-four areas of testing. My combat systems officer hit me with the unexpected news that we had only twenty qualified people who were not involved in other critical operations. 

Thinking fast, I said, "Fine - pick supervisors from the next group down. You don't always need a senior person in charge. It could be a young, third-class petty officer."

"That's never been done before," he said.

"See what they can do," I said. "The alternative is to do nothing, right? Let's assign senior people to the most demanding areas and work our way down to the junior ones. If we don't get Level Three in some categories, so what? We will get Level One or Two. We have nothing to lose."

As it turns out, the third- and second-class petty officers were so honored to be chosen that they worked hard enough for several of their teams to outshine those supervised by senior people. The search-and-seizure team was particularly impressive. We assigned it to one of the ship's most junior sailors because we suspected he had the ability to honcho it. The outside inspectors protested, saying they could not validate the work of an important team that wasn't headed by a commissioned officer. But I insisted, and the young sailor did such a fantastic job that the inspectors ate their words and placed us at Level Four in that category.

Breaking out of our stratified systems to trust the people who work for us, especially those at or near the low end of the hierarchy, was a useful, progressive change. It let us unleash people with talent and let them rise to levels that no one had expected, simply by challenging them: Make Benfold the readiest ship afloat. In that context, how could we not have done well?



D. Michael Abrashoff

It's Your Ship: Management Techniques from the Best Damn Ship in the Navy by D. Michael Abrashoff. Grand Central Publishing. 2007. p.146-148

Thursday, October 13, 2022

taking accountability for culture


I think it's about time that organizations and their senior leadership really start taking accountability for their culture. There has been a war for talent for years now, but it’s only getting worse. It’s easy for the finger to be pointed towards recruiting or human resources, or towards broken processes or compensation and benefits not being correct, but overall, for many organizations the culture of leadership needs to seriously be addressed. Research has shown for years that money is not what motivates most people. It definitely contributes to attraction and retention of course, but one of the biggest drivers of retention is leadership and accountability within a culture. Until leaders start turning inwards and reflecting on their own behaviors, stop leading from a place of their own fears and insecurities, start setting expectations upfront with employees, have open, direct and honest conversations, address issues immediately, focus on removing roadblocks for employees to get their jobs done instead of creating more roadblocks, and ultimately be objective enough to support their development and career progression (including giving the tough feedback with their best interest at heart), then the revolving door of talent will continue to become an even larger problem for organizations.



Kerrie Campbell

Is Quiet Quitting and Quiet Firing really a new phenomenon? LinkedIn Article. September 10, 2022.

Saturday, December 14, 2019

i may fail to use all the talents


I am not afraid of any individual ever injuring me, but I am afraid that perchance I may fail to be as faithful and diligent as I ought to be; I am afraid I may fail to use all the talents God has given me, in the way I ought to use them.



Sunday, September 16, 2018

broaden our notion of the spectrum of talents

The guiding visionary behind Project Spectrum is Howard Gardner, a psychologist at the Harvard School of Education. “The time has come,” Gardner told me, “to broaden our notion of the spectrum of talents. The single most important contribution education can make to a child’s development will be satisfied and competent. We’ve completely lost sight of that. Instead we subject everyone to an education where, if you succeed, you will be best suited to be a college professor. And we evaluate everyone along the way according to whether they meet that narrow standard of success. We should spend less time ranking children and more time helping them to identify their natural competencies and gifts, and cultivate those. There are hundreds and hundreds of ways to succeed, and many, many different abilities that will help you get there.


Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman. Random House LLC, 2006. 358 pages, p.37

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

a growth mindset

Individuals who believe their talents can be developed (through hard work, good strategies, and input from others) have a growth mindset. They tend to achieve more than those with a more fixed mindset (those who believe their talents are innate gifts). This is because they worry less about looking smart and they put more energy into learning. When entire companies embrace a growth mindset, their employees report feeling far more empowered and committed; they also receive far greater organizational support for collaboration and innovation. In contrast, people at primarily fixed-mindset companies report more of only one thing: cheating and deception among employees, presumably to gain an advantage in the talent race.


"What Having a “Growth Mindset” Actually Means". Harvard Business Review. January 13, 2016.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

roots and mission

While the young Springsteen honed his craft every night in bars on the Jersey Shore, he enjoyed his growing popularity but felt that something was missing. “Part of getting there,” the most elusive of all Springsteenian ideals, “is knowing what to do with what you have and knowing what to do with what you DON’T have,” he writes.

That Springsteen’s work never defines there might have helped fans give it the meaning they most wanted. For him, the book suggests, there is a combination of taking a stance, making it last, and having freedom to run. Holding on to what is precious without losing the open road. But if there is vague, one thing is clear: Getting there takes hard work. You can hone your craft and let purpose find you. But you can’t hone your purpose and hope that craft will find you.

And purpose is what he did not have, for many years — the drive that comes from knowing your work is meaningful to you and valuable to others. “By 1977,” he recalls, “in true American fashion, I’d escaped the shackles of birth, personal history and, finally, place, but something wasn’t right…. I sensed there was a great difference between personal license and real freedom…. I felt personal license was to freedom as masturbation was to sex.” It is a good reminder that purpose has a long gestation, and is borne of actions and encounters, not just ambition and doubts.

Within the next few years, a major shift in Springsteen’s relationship to his work occurred. “By the end of the River tour,” he writes, “I thought perhaps mapping…the distance between the American dream and American reality might be my service, one I could provide that would accompany the entertainment and the good times I brought my fans. I hoped it might give roots and mission to our band.”

That is what purpose does. It gives a craft its roots and mission, a story to remember and imagine, a place to go from. Springsteen grasps the distinction between the work his music has to do, getting people turned on in Jersey bars or big arenas around the world, and its purpose — keeping the American dream alive — and never lets it go.

Purpose gives sense and direction to a working life spent on the road but, Springsteen’s story cautions, does not spare you torment. There is plenty throughout his life and work: the torment of depression, a struggle with his inner demons; the torment of talent, a struggle with the sense that he could always do more; the torment of service, a struggle with shouldering others’ pain. If he often fails to make sense of that torment, at least he succeeds in making use of it.


Wednesday, June 22, 2016

deep investment

"Leaders need to both give a lot and expect a lot .” Most leaders know they have some role in cultivating the talents and ambitions of those they lead. But if you followed them around in an average day to see how much time they spend actually doing it, what you would see belies whether they believe it’s a core part of their leadership. People who’ve been managing others for a while think they’re already “investing” in their people because they buy pizza once a month or approve funds for a training program. But deep investment means that “you are personally spending ample time ensuring people are learning, growing, and thriving. You have a high bar for performance expectations, and you are personally helping people reach it. Every. Single. Day.” 


Tuesday, March 1, 2016

most effective leadership development

According to a Boston Consulting Group survey... "improving leadership development" and "managing talent" are top priorities for the companies surveyed, yet the respondents--more than 4,000 senior business leaders from around the world--also ranked these two areas as their greatest weaknesses.

Debbie Lovich, the leader of BCG's Leadership and Talent Enablement Center, says the trouble is that training become separated from companies' objectives.

"Senior executives often think that they must focus on the business and delegate talent development--which they see as 'training'--to HR or someone else without continued involvement," Lovich said in a press release. "With that approach, leadership development instantly becomes disconnected from the business priorities. The training that employees receive does not develop the skills that will enable them to have a meaningful impact on colleagues, customers, and business results."

The main reasons leadership development seminars, events, or workshops do not produce results is the same reason cramming for a skills-based test doesn't result in you mastering a skill.

BCG found three main reasons leadership and talent development programs do not produce results:

  1. Many companies have one-off events and workshops, but "true capability is developed over time and regularly reinforced."
  2. Programs that are aimed at "broad, generic themes" like success or leadership do not help to develop specific skills. Instead, programs should focus on two or three areas that your employees can work on.
  3. The success of most programs is measured by attendance and attendee satisfaction. The best way to see if a workshop was successful, however, is to assess the skills attendees developed.

"People don't develop skills from simply reading a book or going to a one-off workshop," Lovich said. "They build skills by having to do something, failing, and trying again and again."

The most effective leadership development involves daily in-the-field experience with opportunities to practice and reinforce new skills, Lovich said. Regularly practicing new skills while working helps to make training relevant to the company's business.

"A few simple things done consistently well across daily routines can drive cultural change," she said. "By teaching through practical daily routines and providing simple tools to practice and observe leadership at work, organizations can give their people a practical way to improve every day."


Monday, February 29, 2016

great teams win

Leadership is all about team. It is easy and somewhat understandable to get self-absorbed when you are responsible for a project in crisis. During those Xbox trials, I certainly fixated on what I should do differently and why I was failing. I took a sabbatical shortly after the launch of the first Xbox, and with the help of some fabulous advisers, I realized that I was not the secret to success. Instead, the team around me held all the keys required to unlock our potential. My job was to give them the necessary strategy framework and direction and then allow them to apply their unique skills to improving our results. Great leaders find a way to attract the right people, and the right people form great teams, and great teams win.


Saturday, February 6, 2016

thoughts for managing a creative culture

John Lasseter and Ed Catmull, VES Awards. 2/28/2010
Here are some of the principles we’ve developed over the years to enable and protect a healthy creative culture. I know that when you distill a complex idea into a T-shirt slogan, you risk giving the illusion of understanding – and, in the process, of sapping the idea of its power. An adage worth repeating is also halfway to being irrelevant. You end up with something that is easy to say but not connected to behavior. But while I have been dismissive of reductive truths throughout this book, I do have a point of view, and I thought it might be helpful to share some of the principles that I hold most dear here with you. The trick is to think of each statement as a starting point, as a prompt toward deeper inquiry, and not as a conclusion.

  • Give good idea to a mediocre team, and they will screw it up. Give a mediocre idea to a great team, and they will either fix it or come up with something better. If you get the right team right, chances are that they’ll get the ideas right.
  • When looking to hire people, give their potential to grow more weight

Thursday, February 4, 2016

the role of accidental events

When I look back on Pixar’s history, I have to recognize that so many of the good things that happened could easily have gone a different way. Steve could have sold us – he tried more than once. Toy Story 2 could have been deleted for good, bringing the company down. For years, Disney was trying to steal John back, and they could have succeeded. I am distinctly aware that Disney Animation’s success in the 1990s gave Pixar its chance with Toy Story and also that their later struggles enabled us to join together and ultimately merge.

I know that a lot of our successes came because we had pure intentions and great talent, and we did a lot of things right, but I also believe that attributing our successes solely to our own intelligence, without acknowledging the role of accidental events, diminishes us. We must acknowledge the random events that went our way, because acknowledging our good fortune – and not telling ourselves that everything we did was some stroke of genius – lets us make more realistic assessments and decisions. The existence of luck also reminds us that our activities are less repeatable. Since change is inevitable, the question is: Do you act to stop it and try to protect yourself from it, or do you become the master of change by accepting it and being open to it? My view, of course, is that working with change is what creativity is about.


Thursday, December 10, 2015

being a good boss

I’ve learned a lot over the past ten years about what it means to be the boss of people. In most cases being a good boss means hiring talented people and then getting out of their way. In other cases, to get the best work out of people you may have to pretend you are not their boss and let them treat someone else like the boss, and then that person whispers to you behind a fake wall and you tell them what to tell the first person.


Bossypants. Reagan Arthur Books. 2011.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

the better you were

Some bandleaders I’ve known and worked for, when you had a solo and you got a real big hand, you didn’t get another solo. I worked with one: I won’t call names, but he played clarinet. Everybody in the All Stars got a chance, your spot where you went out and did your thing, your solo spot. He wanted you to go out there and get a standing ovation if you could, stand on your eyelashes and get a standing ovation – he loved that. Because he knew that all he had to do was walk right up behind you, smile, unfurl that handkerchief and look at the audience and he’d wash you away! And it wasn’t an ego thing, it was just the way it was. Because he realized the better you were the better it made his band.




As quoted in Armstrong by David Bradbury. Haus Publishing. 2003. p. 92

Monday, October 26, 2015

talented people are restless at their core

Q: You’re in an odd position, because the better your employees perform, the more likely you are to lose them. How do you handle that tension?

A: Talented people are restless at their core. It’s the nature of the beast. The more talented move on sooner or later, and quite often the least talented are the most loyal. When I advise people about leaving the show, I always use the same metaphor: I tell them to build a bridge to the next thing and, when it’s solid, walk across. Don’t leave a national platform, where everybody in the industry can see you reinvent yourself each week, too early. I know there’s a lot of pressure and the hours are awful. It’s the hardest job in show business. But the real world of show business is much rougher than ours. I think Kristen handled it well. After Bridesmaids, which really established her, it was time to move on. But until her last day, nothing was a priority but the show.


Lorne Michaels
Interview with Lorne Michaels. Harvard Business Review. September 2013

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

hire people more talented than you

It's an oft-quoted refrain from hiring textbooks, and one equally often ignored in practice. How often do egos get in the way in traditional business and startups, let alone in narcissistic Hollywood? How tempting it can be -- for all of us -- to go for the self-image boost of engineering teams so that we are always the sharpest tool in the shed rather than collecting the absolute best talent possible? 

Stewart successfully and consistently hired correspondents more talented than he is. From Steve Carrell who has gone on to become an international movie star to Stephen Colbert who's notoriety has arguably eclipsed Stewart's in moving on to the CBS Late Show, to John Oliver who now hosts his own show on HBO, The Daily Show boasts an incredible alumni network. And it doesn't stop with these big names -- he's surrounded himself with comics with sharper wit -- Lewis Black -- and better acting chops -- Samantha Bee -- as well.

This talent was made abundantly clear when every former correspondent returned to his final show, filling the stage with unbelievable star power. Stewart has identified talent and The Daily Show has served as a 'rocket ship' for dozens of careers.


"3 Leadership Lessons Learned From Jon Stewart." Huffington Post. 8/10/2015

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

building an effective team

Building an effective team begins with a brutally honest process of self-evaluation and reflection. The leader must be open to a humble assessment of his or her own strengths and weaknesses mapped against the qualities, knowledge and experience necessary to succeed. There are numerous consultants and assessment tools available to assist in this process, but the most effective leaders I have known grasp this aspect of team building intuitively, naturally gravitating to partners and advisers who “make them whole” and who make the team-leader appear almost super-human by placing a vast array of talents and information at their fingertips.

Leadership teams should be comprised of the most talented people you can attract; they are not merely there to row, but also to help you steer. The sincere respect that the leader shows for each team member is critical to maintaining equilibrium within the group. In general, members of the this kind of team are less prone to competition and have superior cohesion because each member is explicitly recognized for bringing a unique and essential skill to the table. A team comprised of people with distinct talents and perspectives is also less likely to succumb to ‘group think’ and will engage in honest and open dialogue with the team leader. Over time, this frank give-and-take builds an atmosphere of trust within the team, which increases the members’ willingness to surface uncomfortable concerns in a timely manner.