When we think about the notion of “talent” — all the thousands of things that human beings do well — and how our personal talents interact with what we do at work, we often discover a few gaps.
And by “a few gaps,” I really mean “A HUGE GAPING HOLE.”
Most organizations are built for the 19th Century, not the 21st. We’ve gotten rid of almost all the assembly lines (at least here in the US) but we’ve clung tightly to the mindset that powered them.
This is a problem because today, in order to achieve the outcomes desired of us at work, we can’t do things in task-driven, predictable, or linear ways. Unfortunately, though, because of that lingering old-world mindset, this is the only kind of work that “fits” into how our companies are structured. So, work that is inherently creative, unpredictable, and holistic gets sequestered into functional “departments” and stuffed into a “job description.”
Do you see the dissonance?
…If you don’t see it, can you feel it?
There is much dissatisfaction at work, and this is the reason why: the work is shifting, but the way we’re doing it is not. And no amount of “change management” can fix the problem, because we’re not changing the right things.
For all the innovation that’s currently happening in the world, where’s the innovation in our organization design? Why do we keep defaulting back to the old structures? Do we really think we can generate new life-giving work in old soul-sucking environments? (I even seem to recall a parable which might have some relevance here.)
I think there’s a lack of innovation simply because there haven’t been enough new ideas in this sphere. To an extent, it’s easy to see why: structures and systems aren’t very sexy. But I’ll tell you what is: environment design and ecosystem creation — and that is precisely what this is actually about.
This is the future of would-be company builders, leaders, and entrepreneurs: to become environment architects who deliberately fashion environments which bring life to the people who give so much of their time and energy to work there.* Leaders of these tribes aren’t the greedy, CEO-turned-despots of the (recent) past, but instead are the kind of person who gives you the credit for their success, and sees their job as helping you be a better person by fashioning a vibrant, healthy workplace.
Sexy enough? (I’d work there.)
//
*NOTE: Despite the incredibly sexy office picture above, I’m not just talking about updated office furniture. Is that stuff important? Hell yes (and check out this amazing post for some great examples). But while a lack of focus on workplace design is a huge lost opportunity, if your org design ends with a trip to IKEA, you’ve (almost) entirely missed the point of this article.
//
Today’s post is a chapter called “Train! Train! Train!” from Tom Peters’ book Essentials: Leadership. This is a fabulous little book, absolutely stuffed full of wisdom and insight (and creative usage of fonts/punctuation) on how the world of work is changing. If you have any desire to future-proof your career, I hope you will go buy it and read it. Like, now.
In preparation for a speech to the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), I discovered data that pegged the average annual hours in the classroom for the average American worker. The number: 26.3.
TWENTY-SIX-POINT-THREE.
THAT IS THE MOST OBSCENE NUMBER I HAVE COME ACROSS IN A LONG, LONG, LONG TIME.
We live in an age of “intellectual capital” — and 75 percent to 90 percent of what we college-trained white-collar workers do will be usurped by a $239.00 microprocessor in the course of the next ten or so years. What are we doing to become … better and better … more valuable … and more valuable still? It sounds to me, based on the ASTD data, that we are spending a … full … six minutes a day working on improvement!
As I prepared for that ASTD speech, I turned lawyerly and kept a record of my own activities for three weeks in May 2001. I performed 41 hours of “work” — seminars ranging from an hour-anda-a-half to seven hours in length. Life being life, I devoted 17 hours to what can only be classified as “other” (mostly petty bullshit, which dogs us all). And my “training” (which is to say, preparation) time ran … 187 hours.
That is, the ratio of “training” to “work” for the average worker is 0.01. For me it was 4.67. Almost a 500-fold difference.
I’m not bragging. Not at all.
To the contrary, I believe that I am increasingly “normal” for a “creative-intensification worker.” For a group of people who we typically call “Talent.”
OF COURSE YOU CAN’T.
Why is it?
Why is it … that divas do it, violinists do it, sprinters do it, golfers do it, pilots do it, soldiers do it, surgeons do it, astronauts do it … and only “businesspeople” don’t seem to think it’s necessary?
I think it’s a disgrace, which is one thing. (ONE BIG THING.) I think it is going to catch up with us — as individuals and enterprises — which is far more important.
//
P.S. Of course, Tom doesn’t mention Tiger Woods here, but I thought it personalized our topic in a clear way. I can’t think of many things more ludicrous than picturing Tiger on the greens for six minutes a day and then expecting to win the Masters. So why do we do this in business? Particularly with our senior leaders?
Please pick up this book. You’ll be glad you did.
//
I have a few thoughts I want to share with you today, and I promise they’re all related. The big umbrella idea is this:
Science knows an awful lot about human behavior.
Business ignores almost all of it.
Now, before you send me emails, I’m well aware of the amount of discussion about latest scientific theories around management that occur in training sessions, leadership magazines, and executive meetings. That’s not the problem — the problem is: most of this talk never translates into action.
I want to talk about WHY it never changes.
As an example, let’s discuss recruiting. When done internally or externally, this process is mostly terrible. And it’s not because of the recruiters, many of whom are amazing people (I know quite a few). The problem is the process itself. And I am talking about the entire process here — the big picture of how we find great people and then put them in the right places.
There’s a popular theory in talent management that says past performance is the best way to indicate future success. This is outdated science. Believe me, if a person is stuck in the wrong role, their failures in that position have absolutely no bearing on their ability to be successful in a spot that truly fits them.
What dictates that we must search/filter this way? It’s easier, sure, but it hurts us all in the long run.
In recruiting, we also often fall back on things like “years of experience.” But this is dangerous — and to be honest, pretty lazy. Why? Because the amount of years someone has done something says virtually nothing about how much they’ve learned doing it. As one of my invisible mentors has said, “Nine years of experience is very different from one year of experience, nine times.” Most times, “the process” doesn’t allow us to be very concerned with telling the difference.
Why do we continue doing things this way when we clearly know better?
If we’re being really honest, the reason WHY is that many of our companies have “policies” and “procedures” that actually inhibit us from treating people like human beings.
In that case, perhaps we should spend more time on working to change the policies.
I’m not placing the blame on any individual in particular here (other than the people who read this and continue to be blinded to it… I feel pretty good about blaming them). In many cases, it’s the way we’ve designed our organizations that’s the real culprit here.
//
Additional reading: Korn/Ferry has done some great work around “Agile Learning” that provides some insightful clues on how to reinvent recruiting. Check it out here.
//
Copyright © 2005-2012 Josh Allan Dykstra
