To name, or not to name, that is the question...

"Do you think that I should have announced my successor?", asked the Senior HR professional. This was my third 'encounter' with this gentleman (See 'Passion for work and anasakti ' & 'Appropriate metaphors for organizational commitment '  for the outcomes of my previous interactions with him). "Well, it depends on what you were trying to achieve", I replied in a 'consultant-like' manner. Similar to what had happened during my previous encounters with him, this interaction also prompted me to think a bit more deeply about the underlying issues.

In this particular case, the situation was something like this: This gentleman had created a structure in which many of his direct reports were at the same level – handling roles of similar size. This ensured that all of them could hope for moving into his role and hence contributed to their engagement & retention. However, this also ensured that when this gentleman moved on to another role, none of his direct reports were ready to takeover from him & hence his role had to be filled with an external candidate. With their illusions broken (and considering the fact that the situation could repeat a few years later), many of the direct reports started looking for jobs outside the company.

Now, there are multiple levels of issues here. The most basic one is the need for succession planning. There should not be too much controversy here, as most of us are likely to agree that succession planning (especially for critical roles) is a worthwhile endeavor (Whether the Head of HR role qualifies as a ‘critical role’ is an interesting issue – but that is another story/blog post!). The second one is the need for a structured approach to develop people who are in the succession plan so that they become ready for the role within a specified time-frame. Here also there should not be much disagreement when it comes to the validity of the need, though the implementation is easier said than done, as it involves quite a bit of investment/focus to ensure that the requisite capability building takes place within the timelines.  

Things get more complicated when we think about whether or not to tell the people who are in the succession plan that they are part of the succession plan. The problem here is that doing this can create high expectations (and even some sort of ‘entitlement mentality’) among the people in the succession plan and also create disengagement (or even attrition) among people who are not in the succession plan. The latter becomes a significant problem if they are very valuable contributors in their current roles, though they did not make it to the succession plan for the next level role. However, not informing those in the succession plan might defeat the very purpose of succession planning.

The purpose of including an employee in the succession plan for a position is to enable him to develop readiness for the position within an accelerated time-frame. It would work much better if the employee is aware of the purpose for which the development is being undertaken. It definitely helps to tell an employee that he is part of a succession plan, so long as the communication is done in the right manner. This would also avoid the risk of developing an employee towards a position that he is not interested in. Again, this would prevent the unfortunate scenario in which such an employee leaves the organization because he thought that he was not being developed for the next level role! 

However, the communication has to be done in the right manner. The communication should mention that the company sees the potential in him to develop towards the particular position and that the company will provide accelerated learning opportunities to enable him to develop readiness for the same. It has to be made clear that no promise is being made that the employee will be moved to the target position within a specified period of time. It should also be mentioned that there could be multiple people in the succession plan for the position and that the actual move to the position will depend on business requirement, vacancy and his relative readiness as compared to other possible candidates for the position. Stretch and discomfort are inherent in accelerated development. If an employee is aware of and is committed to the purpose behind the development, he will be able in a better position to derive meaning from the stretch experience, to learn faster and even to enjoy the ride!

Let us come back to our Senior HR professional. There are no easy answers to his question. However, let me hazard a guess based on our discussion so far. It  would have been better if he had done the succession planning for his role and told the people in the succession plan that they were being developed for his role. Of course, this would require that the identification of people for the succession plan was done in manner that was rigorous and fair (and also seen to fair!). For example, all his direct reports (at least those who were interested in developing towards  his role) could have been put through a well-designed Assessment Centre (see 'Assessment Centres and Leaps of faith' for details). 

Now, let’s look at the matter of deciding the ideal number of people in the succession plan for a particular position. Announcing only one successor (like the senior HR professional was mentioning) would have been a very risky option. It would have made the organization dependent on only one person and/or it could have made the person in the succession plan a bit complacent. Putting too many people in the succession plan also would have been sub-optimal. It would have made the investment required for developing all these people too high and also reduced the chance for any particular individual to succeed in moving to the target role. Hence the best option would have been to identify  a few (say, 2-3) people who were relatively more ready at that point (say, based on the Assessment Centre results) to be on the succession plan and to tell them they were being developed for his role. This would also allow the others direct reports to either make peace with this situation (as a fair process has been followed to identify the people in the succession plan) or to exit the organization gracefully - at a time of their choice (without any hurry and possibly with a very good offer). Yes, this is not a perfect solution. But, it seems to be the best solution available!.

Do you agree?

Using Assessment Centres for Evaluating Potential – A Leap of Faith?

“She is very bright”, said the first HR Manager. “She is the definition of a tube light - bright on the outside and hollow inside”, said the second HR Manager. Two senior HR professionals, and two very different inferences – about the same employee! I heard this conversation a long time ago. It came back to me recently, when I was thinking about Assessment Centres – the effectiveness of Assessment Centres as a tool to evaluate the ‘potential’ of employees, to be more precise. Usually, comments on 'brightness' of an employee have more to do with the perceived 'potential' of the employee as opposed to his/her performance!

As I had mentioned earlier (See Paradox of Potential Assessment), the basic issue in potential assessment (which sometimes does not get enough attention) is 'potential for what?’ Many answers are possible here. They include

1. Potential to be effective in a particular job/position
2. Potential to be effective in a particular job family
3. Potential to be effective at a particular level (responsibility level)
4. Potential to take up leadership positions in the company
5. Potential to move up the organization ladder/levels very quickly etc.

Logically, the first four answers should lead to the creation of a capability framework that details the requirements (functional and behavioral competencies) to be effective in the job/job family/level/leadership positions that we are talking about. Once this is done, a competency based assessment centre is often used to assess the potential of employees against that framework. This is where the trouble begins (Actually, the problems start earlier than this – with the definition of ‘potential’ and with the creation of capability framework. But that is another story).

Let us begin by looking at a couple of basic issues. An assessment centre is essentially a simulation*. Hence, there are always questions on the extent to which the simulation matches reality (requirements of the job//level). This becomes even more problematic in the case of international assessment centres (for global roles/with participants from different countries) as the cultural differences needs to be factored in when designing the assessment centres and while interpreting/evaluating the behavior/responses of the participants (e.g. what is an effective response/acceptable behavior in one culture might not be so in other cultures).  

Since we need to avoid a situation where the participant was able to give the correct answer/response in the simulation because he/she knew the correct answer/response based on prior experience/knowledge and not because he/she was able to arrive at the correct answer by himself/herself in response to the situation(and hence demonstrating the competency) the simulations often use a context that is different from the immediate job/organization context – while trying to test the same underlying competencies required. This can bring additional complications in ensuring adequate match between simulation and reality. By the way, this is one of the factors (knowledge of the correct answer without knowing how to arrive at the correct answer) that can give to the ‘bright on the outside – hollow inside’ kind of situation mentioned at the beginning of this post. Another factor could be ‘sublimated careers’ (See Career Development & Sublimation).

Each of the tools/exercises in the assessment centre is designed to test a set of competencies. This implies that each of the participants should have sufficient opportunity to fully demonstrate all the relevant behaviors corresponding to all the competencies during the exercise. Assuming that there are 4 competencies (each with 3 relevant behavioral indicators) being tested in the particular exercise, it would mean each participant should have an opportunity to demonstrate 12 behaviors. If the evaluation on the behavior is done using a frequency scale (e.g. always, most of the times, sometimes, rarely etc.) it would imply the need to demonstrate each of the behaviors multiple times during the exercise (e.g. demonstrating the behavior 3 times will get the participant the highest rating) and that would imply a total of 36 behaviors. Of course, if this is a group exercise, this number will get multiplied by the number of participants (e.g. 36*6 = 216 behaviors for a group of 6 participants). This is practically impossible to do in a 45 minutes group exercise! Of course, exercises can be of longer duration and there can be more number of exercises (requiring fewer numbers of competencies/behaviors to be tested per exercise). However, considering the cost and time pressures in most organizations, this becomes difficult. This implies that the very design of the assessment centres might prevent the participants from fully demonstrating their competencies/potential during the centre – leading to artificially lower potential evaluations.

Now, let us come back to problems specific to using assessment centres as a tool to measure potential. Even in a best case scenario, what the assessment centre is measuring is the degree to which the employee/participant demonstrates the behaviors corresponding to requisite competencies during the assessment centre. So, at best it can give a good estimate of the current level of readiness of the employee for a particular role/level. However, this does not really indicate the potential of the employee to take up that role/reach that level in the organization hierarchy in the future. This is because the employee has the opportunity to learn/develop the competencies during the intervening period. Assessment centre can’t give any indication on the extent to which (and the speed at which) the employee will further develop/enhance the competencies.

Assessments centres are based on competency models. As I had mentioned in 'Competency frameworks - An intermediate stage?',  one of the basic assumptions behind developing a competency model is that there is one particular behavioral pattern that would lead to superior results in a particular job(i.e there is 'one best way' to do the job). This might not be a valid assumption, in the case of most of the non-routine jobs. If there are other ways to be effective in the job (say, based on a deep understanding of the context/great relationships with all the stakeholders), it can lead to 'successful on the job  but failed in the assessment centre' kind of scenarios. Of course, it can be argued that such individuals won't be successful if they are moved to a different geography and hence a low rating on their potential coming from the assessment centre is valid. However, it still does not negate the fact that they can be effective in that role/level in that particular context. Yes, this (producing results without possessing the specified competencies) can sometimes resemble the ‘bright on the outside –hollow inside’ kind of situation mentioned earlier. 

Another problem is that the results of the assessment centres are rarely conclusive - in the case of most the participants. What you get as the result of the assessment centre is a score on each of the competencies (say on a 5 point scale). Converting these scores into a ‘Yes or No’ decision on whether the employee has the potential to move into the role/level often involves a many inferential leaps (similar to the ‘leaps of faith’ mentioned in the title of this post). It is easy to string these scores together into some sort of a decision rule/algorithm (e.g.  If a participant has a score of 3 and above on 3 of the 5 competencies, and an average score of 3 overall, the answer is an ‘Yes’ etc.). Of course, we can do tricks like assigning different weights to the individual competencies and specifying minimum scores on some competencies and come up with a decision rule that appears to be very objective (or even profound!) and that gives a clear ‘Yes or No’ decision (on if the participant has the potential or not) . But the design/choice of the algorithm is more of an art than a science and it can be quite subjective and even arbitrary (unless the organization is willing to invest a lot of time and money in full-fledged validation study)!

So what does this mean? To me, assessment centre is a tool; a tool that has certain capabilities and certain limitations. The tool can be improved (if there is sufficient resource investment) to enhance the capabilities and reduce the limitations to some extent. But, some basic limitations will remain. Hence, if one is aware of the limitations and the capabilities, one can make an informed decision on whether it makes business sense to use this tool in particular context – depending on what one is trying to achieve and the organization constraints/boundary conditions. If you push me for being more specific, the best answer that I am capable of at this point is as follows - ‘It is valuable to use assessment centres as one of the inputs if the objective is just to assess the current level of readiness of the employee for a particular role/level. If the objective is to assess the potential of the employee to take up that role/reach that level in the organization hierarchy in the future, assessment centres are of limited value when the intervening time period is long – say anything above 2 years’!!!

*Note: Assessment Centres need not always be pure simulations. Tools like Behavioral Event Interview (BEI) are often used as part of assessment centres. However, it becomes difficult to use BEI in an assessment centre designed to test the employee’s potential for a higher level role. This is because employee might not have had enough opportunities (till that time in his/her career) to handle situations that require the higher order competencies (required for the higher level/role and hence being tested in the assessment centre). Hence she/he will be at a disadvantage when asked (during the BEI) to provide evidence of having handled situations/tasks that require the higher level competencies.

Any comments/suggestions?

Of competencies and carbohydrates

Today I saw an e-mail message from one of my previous bosses. Actually, this person was my first boss in my career in HR. This mail brought back vivid memories of the 'interesting' interactions that we have had during my first year at work. While some of these interactions were 'not so peaceful' (because of the differences in opinion), almost all the interactions were very much intellectually stimulating. He was a person who could stretch me in areas that I am good at. Over the years, I have realized that I produce the highest quality work (also learn/enjoy the work most) when I am challenged in areas that I am good at.

While there are many interactions that I remember quite vividly, the one that comes to my mind first is the interaction on the approach for assessing behavioral competencies. Before I went to XLRI for my MBA, I was trained to be (and working as) a scientist. Thus, I was trained to question everything and to discuss/argue technical points comprehensively with all the people involved regardless of the level/position. While this worked fine in the area of physical science(where there is one correct answer/best solution for most problems), this habit got me into quite a bit of difficulties in a relatively 'fuzzy' field of human resources management(where there could be multiple 'acceptable'/'logical' solutions to the same problem - often based on different assumptions that can't be verified). It took me quite a bit of time to figure out the best modus operandi for me (that integrates my personal style with the nature of the filed) and this interaction happened before I made that transition.

We were discussing the different approaches to assess behavioral competencies for a group of people. Competencies are defined as a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes that lead to superior performance on a particular job. The approach that was being followed was to list out the knowledge, skill and attitude elements of each competency and to give an assessment on each of the elements. I was very new to the organization and I had joined the project mid-way. I felt that something was wrong with the approach though I could not articulate it well enough initially. Then it came to me in a flash. Competencies are like carbohydrates!. They are a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes. The key word here is 'combination'. The properties of a combination/compound (as opposed to that of a mixture) can't be explained in terms of the properties of its constituent elements (e.g. properties of carbohydrates can't be explained in terms of the properties of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen). Thus, we can't assess a competency just in terms of the assessments on its knowledge, skill and attitude elements. We have to look at the behavior that emerges from the combination of these elements and assess that behavior directly.

I still remember staying back late in the office and sending of an e-mail to the entire project team (including the boss) making this point in a rather colorful fashion. The mail had the subject line as 'Of competencies and carbohydrates...'. For rhetoric purposes, I had used a quotation from 'Through the Looking -Glass' (by Lewis Carroll) as the buildup to my argument. The lines I had quoted were

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--

and I then added 'Of competencies and-- Carbohydrates--' as the next line.

On hindsight, I realized that while this mail was logically sound, it was a quite tactless. The boss could have reprimanded me for sending such an e-mail. However, he did not do that. He actually wrote a mail back with the subject 'Why pigs have wings' (adapted from the same source , this particular line appears one line after 'Of cabbages-- and kings--' in the original text) providing another perspective on this issue. This lead to a good discussion and the issue was settled to the satisfaction of all the parties involved(For the curious - the solution was to assess only the behavior in the Assessment Centre and to but leverage the Knowledge-Skill-Attitude matrix as an input while facilitating the creation of Individual Development Plans to develop the competencies).

At that time, I did not fully understand the quality of his response (beyond the technical/ rhetorical merit of the argument, which I understood immediately). I came to appreciate the real quality of the response (in the overall context of the situation) only much later - when I was more experienced and I had started managing people (especially people similar to 'Prasad at the beginning of his career' ).