Organisation

The 9 box model explained

Posted on by Blog

The nine box model exists in most companies. Some have twelve, some have sixteen. Because they’re greedy. You may not know it, but each year you’re being evaluated and put in to a box on a grid. And each box has a definition. Here’s what they say. And what they really mean:

What it’s called:  Enigma

What they say: Individuals with high potential but low performers. They are either wrongly placed or could be working under the wrong supervisors who have not been able to tap their potential. They are totally wasted in an organisation. To help them perform, external intervention is required and open communication and feedback between employees and supervisors might be able to yield good results.

What they mean: We’ve screwed up. So it’s time to outsource the problem. Thankfully there are suckers out there to help us. Coaching anyone?

 

What it’s called: Dilemma

What they say: Individual with average potential but low performance levels. The reasons for this are many but to boost their performance, motivation, inspiration and encouragement, proper opportunities and communication can certainly yield the desired results.

What they mean: Can’t they get a new job? Have a mid-life crisis? Fall down a ditch? Get me the hit men. Or a training course.

 

What it’s called: Under Performer

What they say: Individuals with low potential coupled with low performance levels. Management provides them time to prove themselves but if they still continue to under perform and to not show scope of improvement, they may be asked to leave the organisation.

What they mean: Pond life. Call the undertakers.

 

What it’s called: Growth Employees

What they say: This category has people who show high potential but do not perform up to the mark. Upon motivating, providing challenges, opportunities, and words of encouragement, such employees deliver at a higher level, move forward and often turn into valuable assets for an organization

What they mean: Lazy bas***ds. Bring the bull whip. And the caffeine shots. For the eyeballs….

 

What it’s called: Core Employees

What they say: Just like dilemma category, these individuals have high potential levels and are average performers but can be very promising. They need to be constantly challenged and pushed into giving their best.

What they mean: Cannon fodder. Thank you.

 

What it’s called: Effective

What they say: Individuals with high performance levels but low potential. Such employees have reached their full career potential and need to be engaged and motivated to keep going.

What they mean: Dumb cannon fodder. We don’t even need to thank you.

 

What it’s called: Future Leaders

What they say: Best possible options for succession at senior positions. They score highest on performance and leadership skills. Such employees should be motivated, rewarded for their efforts, promoted and trusted with more roles and responsibilities.

What they mean: Suck-ups. Of the highest order. Avoid at all costs. Or put on an expensive management course to distract.

 

What it’s called: High-impact Performers

What they say: By grooming and motivating, such employees can become future leaders.

What they mean: Deploy mushroom management, these are the enemy my friends. Treat with contempt and caution in equal measure.

 

What it’s called: Trusted Professionals

What they say: People score much higher than the potential because of their capabilities and talent. Such employees should be rewarded and recognized and their capabilities should be used to mentor other upcoming talent in an organization.

What they mean: These guys run the business. At no cost let them know it. Keep them thinking that they’re on the way out and less valuable than you know they are.

 

Notes: Thanks to Wikipedia for the original definitions. The comments here are for fun only, we recognise and understand that the talent review process is actually a highly scientific and complex affair that warrants no humour whatsoever.

True choice is sacrifice

Posted on by Blog

The simple truth is that we cannot have everything. Too often we sell the idea, the dream that it is possible to have a little bit of everything and reach the ultimate state of perfect happiness.

Sadly it just isn’t so.

I saw this drawing recently and it whilst it raised a smile, it also highlighted a perfect point:

IMG_0915

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Somewhat coincidentally, the same diagram (with different choices) came up in a conversation I was having with the brilliantly clever Deborah Rees from Innecto. This time in relation to compensation (I paraphrase).

IMG_0917

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps the biggest area that I see this most obviously manifest is in work life balance. I’d draw it something like this:

IMG_0916

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the point isn’t one about work life balance.

The point is that choice is about sacrifice as well as it is about selection. When we positively opt for one thing, we ultimately reject another. Whether we can accept this, that is our challenge.

Too often we place the responsibility on others, the company we work for, the government that runs our country, our friends and family.

To much of our organisational focus has historically been on trying to pretend that everything is possible and we can provide and fulfil employee needs on every level, even when they’re conflicting. That we can offer everything, without sacrifice and, as an unintended consequence, ultimately disempowering the individual.

When, logically, choice should be wholly individual, have resultant consequences and require sacrifice. And as HR leaders, our job is to explain and facilitate that, not try to pretend that it isn’t so.

As we set about designing the organisations of the future, we should be creating environments where transparency, choice and genuine empowerment flourish, where individuals are aware and accepting of the pros and cons of their decisions.

The choice that you make will be different from the one that I make and that’s absolutely fine. The challenge is to understand and be personally accepting of the compromise that we will inevitably have to make.

Because we can’t be and we can’t have everything, we will always have to choose.

We are our choices

Posted on by Blog

Can you imagine being told by your supermarket what you had to buy? Or your hairdresser telling you how your hair should be cut? How about local bar or pub deciding what you wanted to drink? I know for one that I wouldn’t put up with it and I guess is that it wouldn’t take long for you to get fed up either.

Because we like the choice. We like the feeling of control. We like to be in charge of our own destiny. Now of course, we could debate for hours, whether we are actually in control, or having the living daylights manipulated out of us on an hourly basis. But stay with me.

It’s well known that the idea of a “war for talent” makes me want to self castrate with a rusty set of hair clippers. I’m also not going to go down the Gen Y debate, because there are too many haters out there and I can’t be arsed.

But. And this is a big but (no jokes please). I do think the relationship is changing between employers and employees.

Yet, so much of what we do is still grounded in the paternalistic past where the boss knew best. How we pay, how we offer benefits, how we train and develop. How we promote and manage careers.

We provide very little choice in organisations, very little flexibility and very little responsibility. Instead we standardise, homogenise, process and commoditise the employment relationship. Partly because it makes things easy for us, partly because it retains control.

But it misses a trick. If the future of employment relationships is less permanent, less linear and generally more two-way. Then shouldn’t we be designing our organisations to genuinely give choice and ownership to employees? Not merely paying lip service to it.

It is nice to talk about the way that management is going to change. The way in which the organisation is going to change. The way in which careers are going to change. But how is the organisational infrastructure going to change and who is thinking about it?

That’s what I’d like to know.

Because you’re worth it. Aren’t you?

Posted on by Blog

The nature of my life is such that the topics of conversation can verge from the sublime to the ridiculous, to the completely unexpected. A case in point is that last week I managed to discuss the array of deviant sexual practices and the financial model of HR services within the same 24 hours.

Go figure.

Whilst I’d love to tell you all about felching spoons and the fetishistic objectification of nuns, I’m not sure that would be the best use of your time, please the internet censors, or be particularly wholesome. That said, if you catch me over a glass of wine or two, who knows what could happen….

But that’s not the point. Or maybe it is. But it’s not THIS point.

Most HR teams are set up as cost centres. They’re overheads. Essentially this means that as a user, you get what you’re given. And you pay for it, whether you like it or not. There are advantages to this. Sometimes we have to do things that people don’t want, or don’t know that they want. Sometimes we need to do things a little bit differently to how people want.

But what if we were profit centres? What if we charged for our services and then other departments could buy them? How would that work? And why are companies increasingly looking at this?

I can immediately see some advantages. Instilling a mindset within the HR team to focus on value generation would be helpful. Allowing managers to define the value they want from the HR team could be insightful. And perhaps most of all, reducing the number of pointless and failed initiatives that drive employees and managers up the wall would be a huge benefit.

Still, it can’t counter the unease I have about the whole idea. Firstly it assumes that procurers are experienced, educated and knowledgable. And that isn’t always the case. Secondly, it creates unnecessary internal markets that detracts attention away from the real purpose of the organisation. Finally, and for me most importantly, it suggests HR is there to serve the budget holders and not all employees. Which worries me.

I think HR can gain all the benefits that are derived from this way of operating, without having to change the financial model and incur the associated down sides. It doesn’t seem to me a huge leap of faith or thinking to do that.

Ask yourself, every day, “Would I pay for my service?”

And if that doesn’t work and if things get really bad. Console yourself that what ever might happen, “we’ll always have fisting”.

Yeah. That.