Organizations rattle on about creating high performers. I am examining this phrase (creating high performers) that, like many phrases these days, has become fashionable to use without our examining what it means actually ...
Can we actually create high performers ? I really wonder ... To me, it seems like the people with capability for sustained performance that exceeds workplace expectations (lets call them high performers) are already there in the system ... they do not need to be created anew ...
All that the org needs to do is to identify such people and create the conditions that sustains their excellent workplace performance. The shift in focus for leaders and talent managers is important. It has to do with the C word ... yeah, you got it ... Culture ...
On the other hand, I see L&D folks engaged in even more training, more workshops, more offsites, more "busy" days ... time for some double loop learning, don't you think ?
But, then, culture is an ambiguous thing to handle, its more long term, it has uncertainties, it is infinitely more complex than training .. so what gives ? We hear statements that leaders today need to be more tolerant of uncertainties and ambiguities, more embracing of complexity etc, why would we not give them culture on the menu ?
One of my hypotheses - actually two of them are as follows - (1) L&D folks maybe find themselves deficient in their knowledge and skills when it comes to Organization Development (OD), and (2) they maybe do not believe that they have the required authority (adhikaaram - a more precise Indian term) for this. And, maybe the two are intertwined - perhaps having the knowledge and skills would give them the adhikaaram ...
So, a clarion call then, for L&D folks to move beyond calendars and spreadsheets ...
kartik
8 comments:
Is L&D => Learning & Development?
I agree with your preface that one cannot create high performers. If this were so, Japanese would have put a process to churn out them.
The key to do this is to hire the best talent and create an environment (Culture) that helps them excel.
Cultural changes take time and today's management do not have patience. Doing training, offsites etc., are tangible actions that the management can claim that they are doing to create high performers. Whether these actions truly make a difference only time can tell and by then the leaders would have changed. These days means matter more than the end.
The culture creation aspect is more difficult in an engineering context; because this would require a focus on the means [development process, culture] and not so much on the goal. In a metric driven world the key challenge would be on of creating a leaders [or a leadership layer focused] who work on the means - enablers; I have found goal centric leadership traits have problems in maintaining the required balance for ensuring an appropriate means focus. In these cases, the goal or goal seeking / attainment becomes the 'culture'.
The problem is not one of a choice between ends Vs goals [tyranny of OR] rather the need to hold both the ends AND means as two equally critical aspects of your business. This balance is the real challenge to attain.
Good food for thought. Thanks.
BTW, I am familiar with the Engineering context; hence the preamble. May be this is valid across other domain; may be it is not. I do not know.
Karthik:
Maybe there is a big literature in the OD/LD literature which defines 'culture', but given your note I doubt it.
Isn't culture simply the norms and circumstances that make things work, and the issue at hand is, what are the norms and circumstances that make things work (in this case to bring out peoples' talents and creativity)?
This interests me because your post seems to be a specific case of a lager class of problems - how does one make folks reach their potential, which you believe is much greater than their present performance. I keep askng this question for a not so small slice of my students. And then I wonder whether I am simply delusional about their abilities, or whether I (and my colleagues) have not found the magic bullet.
Noconsensushere, Ramanujam, and Spinoza - Let me try and attempt a response that integrates the points you have each raised. First - thank you for your valuable posts. They provoke thought, and I am respectful of the fact that you took your time to think through and post your views ...
I agree with Ramanujam's view that there is low patience for culture gardening. Culture building is like organic farming, but corporates seem to want endosulfan ... but I do not share your final note of (and I may be presumptuous here) cynicism ? If some of us do not anchor in hope and a sense of positive spirit, nothing may change ...
I quite like Spinoza's thought on holding both ends AND means as a way of doing business. I also believe that goal attainment may well be a culture. But it will be interesting to study the deeper assumptions that lie under the "culture" of goal attainment.
In fact, that brings me to Noconsensushere's post - yes, at one level culture is about norms (not sure about what you mean by circumstances though) but there is also some interesting work by Edgar Schein where he talks of espoused values as a level below the norms (or artifacts), and the level of deeply-held-assumptions as being the base. So, when we encounter norms, we perhaps have to go down and ask what values are being espoused by the norms, and further to ask what deeply held assumptions are guiding the values ...
I feel for L&D people who are a part of the system, it is sometimes difficult to see their own reality. They may not be able to read the meaning of things which are so deeply ingrained in the organization, and there would be a tendency to take it for granted. The assumptions and beliefs are so deeply rooted, that to step back and take a look is challenging because they are a part of that system.
Even if you were to introduce a person who were to act as a change agent, he may be rejected and considered irrational because he is seeing things from a different lens. To challenge a system takes a lot of courage and a culture change would need support from at least some stakeholders in the organization.
Unfortunately the concept of culture is fuzzy and there are no clear metrics, timelines by which to measure success. It would difficult to get the ‘management buy in’ for this longer term investment. So, the heavy inclination towards trainings, workshops which give quick and relatively more tangible results.
I think it takes courage to step back and figure out what the 'hidden rules of culture' are in the organizations we inhabit. It is certainly about having the patience to figure this out, question it and strive to create a culture that people can define and articulate. The latter is not easy. I'm not sure we can create high performers, but we can certainly strive to set the stage where people work to their greatest potential. I'm reading a book called 'Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter' by Liz Wiseman and Greg McKeown about leaders who inspire others to stretch themselves and perform at a high level; leaders who attract talent to their organizations because of the positive conditions (culture) they foster. They create environments where people thrive. I agree with you that high performers are already in the system. Whether we give them wings to fly or snip their wings unwittingly does tie back to the culture of our organizations.
You've got me thinking!
Post a Comment