For every organization a framework is being lived that guides direction, strategy, culture, relationships, behavior, and much more. Most frameworks are intentionally crafted, while others form organically.
The world’s best organizations are intentional about how their framework gets crafted. They then refine and modify their approach to shifts in market conditions, strategy, culture, and/or other factors. Some create their own model, while others solicit the participation of publishers, consultancies, or advisors who are known for this expertise. Most organizations strive to establish this framework as it directs critical workplace activities and behaviors, in alignment with strategic business priorities.
Organizations shape their frameworks based on who they are, why they exist, and where they want to go. These might be based on their mission, vision, values, strategic plan and more. Each organization’s framework is, therefore, unique.
What makes for a great talent framework
What we’ve experienced over the past 40+ years informs our view of what defines great talent systems. Research informs the rest, as the study of organizational behaviors and effectiveness predates our work, by decades.
A Common Language of Leadership matters
Six tenets can be used as definitive guides for establishing a sound behavioral framework for any organization:
- Research
- Objective
- Observable
- Measurable
- Developable
- Coherent
Research
We know what works and what falters because empirical evidence has proven these factors by validating the strong and meaningful correlations between behavioral variables and business outcomes. Home-grown and/or intuitive models often ignore what is already known in service to capturing organizational “uniqueness.” When published, they consistently lack valid and aligned tools to support scalable implementation. Why re-invent the wheel? The time and expense variables are hard to justify and always outweigh the savings of partnering with established publishers.
Objective
The behavioral tenets used to build a framework must be objectively and clearly defined. There must be no room for interpretation. Behavioral norms need to be equitably applied to (and for) all. Subjective interpretations lead to confusion and to the introduction of overt and unconscious biases. Neuroscientific findings have clearly illustrated these issues. Having a common language of leadership matters.
Observable
We’ve all seen organization frameworks that best serve only the annual report or the lobby wall. These can include an organization’s norms and values that provide a cultural tone. They convey a message that is not easily implemented across talent management practices–for interviewing, assessing, developing, rating performance, or rank-ordering top talent. Consider “act like an owner” or “win together”. Can these be objectively interpreted, observed, differentiated or rated with equal application from employee to employee? Simply, no.
Measurable
We’ve all heard it: What gets measured gets done. It comes from the management guru Peter Drucker who actually proclaimed “What gets measured gets managed”. Drucker established the concept of MBO—management by objectives.
The basic premise for Measurable is that if you’re measuring something, then the probability of you acting on the information is much higher. Inherent is one’s ability to compare objectively derived data (and candidates). Why do we rate candidate responses to behavioral interview questions? Why do we administer scientifically valid assessments? Why do compensation professionals and most managers prefer performance ratings (data!) to more qualitative approaches? Why might we rank-order our top talent using objective criteria?
Developable
Objectively defined behavioral practices in any organization should be both observable and able to be developed. Otherwise, we’d constantly be sourcing talent to fill any identified capabilities or behavioral gaps. If you source talent using a “you either have it or you don’t” mindset, you’ll constantly chase the golden goose. There aren’t too many out there, so a full range of desired and aligned behavioral practices must be agreed upon and developed. Imagine if you hired for only a very specific set of skills or capabilities, but then your product or business landscape changes. At that juncture, you have been left behind.
Coherent
This one may be the most often overlooked. We’re serving a client who came to us after a 4-year flurry of acquisitions. More than a dozen companies had become “one.” The challenges became manifest when the realization sunk in that “we’re using 9 unrelated and/or competing assessments, four management models, three operating models, language that is unique to each, and we have no clear path to reconciling them.” Further, many internal stakeholders are certain their way is the best. This scenario is more common than you think. M&A is often about gaining economies. System elements that drive decoherence inhibit the likelihood of achieving these.
Other than immediately deciding to unify under a simple operating model, the reasons for the other decoherent elements were understandable. Each organization had bright, graduate-trained practitioners who represented their unique organizations by using unique descriptors, the assessments they’ve been certified to use, and sometimes other obscure (but very interesting!) tools. Post-merger, what ensued? Chaos and dividing lines in the sand.
Decoherence leads to confusion, silos of practice that may limit internal mobility, one-ups-man-ship, the inability to objectively compare nominated talent for promotions or key senior-level succession decisions, and more. Why? Language matters.
A powerful Day One, Task One approach
One of the US’s largest employers begins Day 1 of new employee onboarding by having all new employees log on to an internal system. They are greeted with just three letters on the screen: C.L.L. Why? Their Common Language of Leadership is a powerful way to establish in any employee’s mind the language of the business, the level-specific and defined responsibilities each will be asked to deliver on or support, the objectively defined behavioral practices that become the language for how we get things done, how we talk about it, and why.
Having a common language of leadership matters. No interpretation necessary.
In The Leadership Machine, Mike Lombardo and Bob Eichinger, the originators of the organizational competencies movement, wrote the quintessential how-to playbook for talent management practices. Two of their guiding principles included creating or leveraging a common language of objectively defined, observable and measurable behaviors that best represent your organization, its mission and its competitive edge, and choosing only ONE publisher, framework and language to make it happen.