Monthly Archives: October 2011

Who Are You? Take Two.

Posted on by
Reply

The second chorus in the famous song by The Who states, “Well, who are you? I really wanna know. Tell me, who are you? ‘Cause I really wanna know.” And while I don’t have the great vocals of Roger Daltrey, let me try and point out some of the interpretation that the IACCM data provides.

Here are some worrisome trends:  Clearly, given that 50% of you are over 46 means that this is an aging profession.  And if it is not attracting a younger demographic currently, it will continue down this trend. It also means that we will soon have a major KCM (Knowledge Continuity Management) problem on our hands as we all suffer from severe brain drain.  This aging of our profession has some serious implications…both for the short term and the long term.

52% of you feel there is no career path while the same percentage also feels that their company will not invest in their development.  46% feel that there are no clear and meaningful rewards for high performance.  You dislike poor leadership and lack of clarity.  I’ll stop there as the picture is sounding bleak already.  Imagine having to recruit against that backdrop.  And not only will you have trouble recruiting people but an even harder time in retaining them.  This is why focusing on recruiting challenges is only attacking the symptom and not the cause.  We must understand that to solve these issues, we have to approach it as a system and address all the domains of Talent Management.

The four most important skills identified included communications, problem solving and negotiation skills yet you have very little confidence that your organization will actually train you on these.  Unfortunately, most training programs these days focus on process, analytical or technical skills and stay away from the dreaded “soft” skills….exactly the opposite of what they should be doing.  You also dislike the lack of investment in people by your company.  In addition, most training programs are not focused on acquiring competencies (application of new skills and behaviors) which require not only training but some form of coaching to actually apply them.

The content of your job is apparently administrative in nature while you crave much more meaningful and challenging work.  Given that most of you are also individual contributors that combination leads to a fairly high level of dissatisfaction.

Lack of a career path also means that you have no high motivation for development activities.  It also points to a general lack of succession planning activities inside your organizations.  Limited career paths coupled with lack of succession planning means very little mobility (vertical or lateral) and that will always lead to stagnation in the group as well as recruiting challenges.  Lack of motivation coupled with lack of mobility will almost always lead to your best and brightest choosing to go elsewhere.

While it was not all bleak, it is fairly obvious that the state of Talent Management has been fairly precarious and continues to be right now.  The situation may be fairly dire given the kinds of recruiting numbers that we are starting to hear from some of our clients.  Unfortunately, those types of recruiting needs point to some systemic issues across the various domains of Competency Based Talent Management.

What solutions to do you propose for these challenges?

Dalip

PS: If you are interested in continuing the conversation with us, we have a few upcoming initiatives that might interest you.

  • Results of the Executive Forum we just facilitated at IACCM Global Forum for Contracting & Commercial Excellence on Talent Management.
  • On November 4th, the Next Practices Xchange hosted by us is exclusively focused on Competency Based Talent Management
  • 6 part blog series on CBTM
  • Major research project to not identify the problem one more time but to identify Next Practices to solve the problems
  • Webinar with IACCM on CBTM
  • White Paper to focus on Next Practices in CBTM
Did you like this? Share it:

WHO ARE YOU?????

Posted on by
Reply

For those that are classic rock fans, that is the title of one the iconic hits of that genre. But that’s not what we want to talk about today. I recently ran across a survey conducted by my good friend Tim Cummins at the International Association for Contract & Commercial Management (IACCM) and it paints a picture of YOU. Well, perhaps most of YOU at least. Because Talent Management continues to be a very high priority for our community and profession, we thought it would be interesting to answer the question that Pete Townshend asked in 1978….WHO ARE YOU??

• 54% have been in a contracting, negotiation or procurement role for 11 years or more.
• 41% have a Master’s degree
• 33% are over 50 years old
• 40% support both sales contracting and procurement
• 46% are individual contributors in their job role, with no direct reports.
• 52% would characterize themselves as having no career path or a very limited one.
• 60% say they like their job and are satisfied with their current position.
• 65% say they plan to work 5 or more years in their current career path.
• 40% said they liked their pay, the flexible hours, and location.
• The four things that people liked best about their job: Challenging work, Negotiating with customers or suppliers, Drafting and reviewing contracts, Managing customer or supplier relationships
• The three things that people disliked most about their company: Failure to invest in its people, Company culture, Pay
• The four things people disliked most about their job: Poor management/leadership, Administrative responsibilities , Lack of career path, Lack of clarity in roles/responsibilities
• The four most important skills and attributes for performing your role: Communication skills, Problem solving ability, Negotiation skills, Attention to detail
• 57% believe their company will help them acquire the skills and knowledge for a future in their profession.
• Out of a high score of 5 for what motivates people at work, Personal objectives received a score of 4.21; Company performance (bonus schemes) received a 3.51; Company control standards (audits, etc) received a 2.93; Company collected cycle time (metrics) received a 2.73; External professional standards (certification) received a 3.02.
• Compared to others in their profession, 75.5% consider themselves a high performer.
• 46% DON’T believe there are clear and meaningful rewards for high performance contract professionals in their company. (Click here for the full survey results)

Next week we will interpret the data and see what challenges and issues this information presents. In the meantime, let me know what you think of the data.

If you are interested in additional details, I am hosting an executive session at the IACCM Global Forum for Contracting & Commercial Excellence to discuss these very issues in Talent Management. On November 4th, the Next Practices Xchange hosted by us is being held at the Oak Brook Hills Marriott in Oak Brook, IL. All of our research will end up in a white paper that will consolidate all this research and try to make some sense out of it. Stay tuned!

Regards,

Dalip

 

Did you like this? Share it:

Hewlett-Packard and Seeing the Bigger Picture

Posted on by
Reply

Back in August, Hewlett-Packard announced a complete overhaul of their business by lessening the company’s reliance on PC and splitting the company in two. The Chief Executive Officer at the time, Leo Apotheker, wanted to lessen the company’s reliance on PCs as tablets and cloud services have started becoming more popular. In many ways the announcement made sense as Michael Gartenberg, an analyst at Gartner Inc. stated “The hardware business has become a difficult business. In many ways it’s a commodity-driven business. This is a major strategic shift for HP.”

Fast forward two months and now there is a new CEO in town and she is looking at the change in a whole new light. According to the Wall Street Journal, Meg Whitman, the new CEO has been looking at the numbers and things don’t seem to be as cut and dry. The new analysis shows that the company might be better off keeping the division which contributes $40 million in annual revenue. The reasoning, however, goes beyond the revenue numbers. Separation would lessen the company’s economy of scale and diminish their buying power AND leverage with their supply base. The supply chain could also become more complicated and decrease profit margins on their other products as well.  Some feel that because of this, the spin-off isn’t worth it.

Let’s take a look at this situation beyond a cost perspective and focus on Value.  HP sold 14.9 million PCs in the second quarter of 2011 alone, which means they are a huge player in the marketplace – particularly with their suppliers.  That scale gives them leverage that can and should go way beyond cost.  They should be using that leverage with their suppliers to help them manage risk, increase innovation (which should impact H-P’s top line not just their bottom line), expand their product offerings, etc.  H-P should be using this “leverage” to help move away from being viewed as a commodity to their customers and start viewing themselves as a “Value” provider.  When approached from a value perspective H-P would be foolish to exit the PC market.

So what, if any, is the lesson here? For one, it shows just how far reaching and influential the supply chain organization can be.  In times when we constantly hear that sourcing and supply chain organizations are losing their influence, H-P shows that there is still some bite left in those functions.  I wonder whether Supply Chain even had a seat at the table when the original decision was made.  I guess they do now, which is a VERY good thing!

Did you like this? Share it:

Hitting a Strategic Sourcing Home Run

Posted on by
1

I’m not a huge baseball fan, but my daughter gave me the book Moneyball (used at many leading business schools) by Michael Lewis and I was eager to see the movie.  Brad Pitt takes a break from his jet-setting life with Angelina Jolie to play Billy Beane, the General Manager of the Oakland Athletics baseball team. Billy Beane is well-known for fundamentally redefining the way baseball teams make decisions and challenging the way teams had been managed for over a century.  He essentially changes the decision criteria used to select players to a much more fact-based model, which focuses on the real value the players bring toward the Intended Consequences (getting a win).  Once he redesigns the consonants (People, Process, Technology), he quickly realizes that getting to the expected results is still far away. It’s not until he focuses on the vowels (Adoption, Execution, Implementation, Optimization and Utilization) that the results start showing up.  The constraints he faces should sound very, very familiar to everyone.  Follow the trail and tell me if you agree that we all need to be a Brad Pitt (no that does not come with Angelina Jolie).

  • Faces resource constraints in terms of total budget available – SIGNIFICANTLY less than the competition
  • Entrenched resistance
    • Scouts who still evaluate talent the way it’s been for decades (decision models and processes)
    • Salaries of players based on old metrics (reward system)
    • Players who define their roles based on those metrics
    • Middle management (Manager) a TOTAL barrier to change
    • Players totally fighting the change
    • An organizational attitude that accepts failure
  • An environment (the entire sport of baseball) that is openly hostile to every move he makes
  • Changing the entire Value Chain and redefining the way value is created(getting on base leads to wins)
  • Dealing with early losses and still getting the organization to stay committed
  • Getting rid of some of the players to set an example
  • Create value from a supply market (players) that has been sourced by the competition already

The parallels continue.  By the way, those of you not familiar with this particular story or baseball in general, a parallel might be what Lionel Messi and Barcelona have done in terms of redefining soccer away from long kicks and passes to short passes and a possession game.  Even though they have clearly proven that it is far superior to the competition, others have been very slow to adopt.  This concept is why you need Next Practices as a way to create an advantage while others chase Best Practices.

The more interesting question is what you do to stay on top while others adopt the same style and strategy.  And if you think I’m stretching the argument, you will find that since a large portion of baseball has adopted Billy Beane’s vision, his old techniques no longer provide the leverage.  In fact, he cannot compete because he does not have the resources that the other teams do.  And since they are sourcing the same pool of players using the same techniques, his leverage (exploiting market inefficiency) is gone.  This is no different than Supply Chain/Sourcing organizations going back into the supplier market using the same techniques that everyone else is using (Best Practices).  In fact, the best model of that are now the Milwaukee Brewers, not the Oakland A’s.  And even they have had to continuously adapt because everyone has adopted the same tools.  And oh by the way, we all assume in the Supply Chain world that the supply market has not adjusted to the techniques that we have been using?  If you think of it as a system that seeks equilibrium, that assumption just does not hold true.  If you would like a more detailed presentation on this, let us know.

Did you like this? Share it: