L&OD INTEREST GROUP MEETING, NOVEMBER 4 TH 2014 POST-MEETING REVIEW NOTES BACKGROUND CRF was established twenty years ago to build a bridge between academia and practice in the HR field and to provide an evidence base to the HR work undertaken in organisations. Alongside its formal programme of research and events, CRF has periodically hosted peer to peer conversations to explore topics of particular interest to members. In response to Member feedback CRF will now convene two regular Interest Groups. One for Resourcing professionals and the other embracing TM, L&D and OD/OE practitioners. Attendance at an Interest Group will be by invitation and is open to those members who are actively experimenting with new ways of working and wish to have a confidential forum to share their experience with fellow practitioners. INTRODUCTION Interest Group meetings are intended to provide an intimate small group setting where Members can share experience and explore important topics in-depth. The topic for our most recent L&OD meeting was: Strengths-Based Development; The Story So Far. The aims of the session were to understand the background to strengths-based development approaches, to share experiences and opinions on its’ application within organisations, and to identify questions and opportunities for further consideration. ATTENDING FROM THE CRF: David North, Associate Consultant
Andrew Lambert, Associate Viktorija Verdina, Marketing & Events Assistant CRF MEMBERS AND GUESTS:
Suhana Anwar Sally Bibb Hannah Buckley Louise Byrne Jane Ferris Magali Gatinot Simon Gibson Olivia Gray Catherine Heritage Jo Kelly Tracey Lloyd Karen McKenzie-Irvine Ameet Thakkar Kristina Vestbø Nicola Wilkes
Talent Coordinator
Financial Conduct Authority
Director
Engagingminds
Mobility Associate Global Talent & Leadership Director Leadership Development & Talent Management HR BP, Global Strategy & Business Development Learning & Development Director Programme Manager, Goldman Sachs University People and Leadership Development Lead Head Of Partner Development Initiative Development Manager Group Learning & Development Global Capability Development Manager Vice-President, HR Senior Mobility Associate
Financial Conduct Authority InterContinental Hotel Group British Airways Statoil UK Ltd NBC Universal Goldman Sachs Statoil UK Ltd Waitrose Ltd Post Office Transport for London BP Plc Statoil UK Ltd Financial Conduct Authority
WHAT THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT The Strengths-Based Approach Strengths-based development is not a new idea. Peter Drucker, the management guru and author advocated it more than forty years ago in his book The Effective Executive: ‘The effective executive works on making strengths productive…one cannot build performance on weakness, let alone on something one cannot do at all.’
In recent years the approach has increased in popularity with the emergence of Positive Psychology. Books such as Martin Seligman’s Authentic Happiness and Marcus Buckingham’s Now, Discover Your Strengths have received widespread publicity and interest. The underlying premise of strengths-based development is that the only way to achieve excellence is by leveraging strengths. As organisations look for ways to consistently deliver the highest levels of performance, this philosophy has obvious appeal. Crucially, strengths-based development challenges two common assumptions of deficit-focused approaches:
That it’s possible for people to be good at everything
That the focus of development activity should be to identify weaknesses and follow a plan to fix them
In contrast, the goal of a strengths-based approach is to facilitate personal growth and outstanding results by enabling people to understand their strengths and build job roles and career plans around them. Applying Strengths Increasing numbers of organizations have, or are planning to introduce strengths as part of their approach to:
Performance management Potential assessment Leadership development Team development Career management
Some organisations focus on a single area, while others are adopting a more holistic approach. At previous CRF meetings, Debbie Whitaker described the processes adopted by Standard Chartered Bank as they strived to create a strengths-based organisation: Potential Benefits…The Evidence
Research studies have provided some solid evidence of the benefits achieved by companies introducing strengths-based approaches (see the reference section of this note). These suggest that employees who use their strengths:
Are happier Are more confident Have higher levels of energy and vitality Are more resilient Are more likely to achieve their goals Are more committed to their personal development.
At an organisational level, the benefits claimed include:
Higher levels of engagement Improved individual performance Increased productivity Increased customer satisfaction Reduced staff turnover.
Criticisms of the Strengths-Based Approach While there appear to be many advantages to be gained from playing to strengths, the approach is not without its’ critics. Psychologists and business consultants have challenged the value of a focus on strengths, and the efficacy of the strength-based development process. They find fault from three different perspectives.
Strengths-only is not viable: Just because one has strengths, they argue, doesn't mean that playing to those strengths will allow someone to be effective in their role or organization. Strengths can become weaknesses: Research from groups like the Center for Creative Leadership shows that leadership derailers—behaviors that negatively impact a leader's potential success—are often defined as overdone strengths. For example, attention to detail can become micro-management. Weaknesses matter: We typically fail because of our weaknesses, not because we haven't focused enough on our strengths, they argue. By ignoring our "dark side" and focusing only on our strengths we are guaranteeing our failure
WHY THIS TOPIC IS IMPORTANT There is a lot at stake. Introducing strengths could present an opportunity for significant benefits for organisations and their people. Successful implementation requires companies to avoid the pitfalls identified by the critics. More than this, a strengths-based approach has major implications for a wide range of HR processes and goes to the heart of leadership behavior and organizational culture. The Interest Group explored the topic from both a strategic and tactical perspective. The next section captures some of the experience of the group, issued raised and key questions that emerged during our discussion, and the responses provided by those present. Areas where attendees had experience using a ‘strengths approach’ included individual and team development, strengths-based coaching to bring out the best in people, and using a strengths tool as one module in a development programme.
One person reflected on the fact that we try to understand/build on the strengths of our children but when they get into the workplace we put most focus on what is wrong! QUESTIONS ARISING AT THE MEETING Culture and Organisational Development How do organisations that support the approach signal their commitment; how is the change of emphasis reflected in performance assessment and reward? Successfully introducing a strengths approach, like any other OD initiative, requires an integrated strategy. One–off interventions need to be followed-up quickly in order to capitalize upon the impetus created and to leverage the support of sponsors as champions for broader change across the organisation. The attached slide presentation from Standard Chartered Bank provides an example of a long-term, holistic approach. Definition and Identification What exactly is a strength, and how is it different to a competency, a motivator and a value? Definitions vary. However, most have these aspects in common:
Our strengths reflect a natural way of thinking, feeling and behaving Our strengths connect with our values and we feel positive about using them Using our strengths energises us
Our strengths are things we tend to be naturally good at, and therefore are the route to outstanding performance.
What is 'the gap' that competences are judged to miss, and that strengths are intended to fill? While competencies capture what we ‘can do’, strengths capture what we ‘love doing’ and are energised by. It’s the combination of the two that leads to excellent results and individual satisfaction. What different strength assessment tools are available, and how do they attempt to measure strengths? An attachment to this note describes the main tools on the market. Is there a 360 degree tool that identifies and validates an individual’s strengths? There are tools available, like Strengthscope 360 tool, but nobody at the meeting had experience of using them. Beyond traditional self and peer assessment tools, what other/more creative processes are available to help individuals to talk about their strengths? Several Member representatives had successfully used picture cards to enable colleagues to describe their strengths. Talent Development How much attention should be given to strengths when supporting an individual to prepare a development plan? One Member representative applies an 80/20 formula; where 80% of the focus is on leveraging strengths, and 20% on things that might trip a person up…which could be actions to avoid overplaying strength. What about weaknesses; how do we address a situation where an otherwise effective performer lacks a key strength for a job/leadership role? The strengths-based development approach does not ignore weaknesses. If a person is weak at something that is crucial for their job it’s essential that they either find a viable work-around, acquire the skills and knowledge that will enable them to be ‘good enough’, or move to a job that does play to their strengths. The strengths advocates contend that while it’s clearly possible to learn behaviours to fix a weakness, the individual will likely find the activity draining and will struggle to achieve excellence.
What does 'out of the comfort zone' mean when having a strengths-based development conversation? It could be applying existing strengths in new areas, for example a project or career transition or working on addressing important weaknesses relevant to the requirements of the role. However if someone is fundamentally unsuited to a particular type of activity, e.g. leading others, then it becomes counter-productive to expect them to perform well in it. So the real question to look at is ‘why’ someone is out of their comfort zone and is that ‘stretch’ a positive developmental activity or a counter-productive one. Is there a baseline toolkit that introduces strengths to employees, line leaders and HR professionals? Everyone present agreed that this would be helpful, although it would need to be customised to reflect the organisation’s definition of strengths and decisions about their role within people processes. The reference section includes a series of relevant resources. Talent Assessment How robust is the approach, and can it be used as part of potential assessment? It's widely used in recruitment, so there’s no reason why it couldn’t be used as part of a potential assessment process. Several Members attending the March 2014 Interest Group meeting mentioned their intention to use strengths in this way. What do you do if your talent pool doesn’t include enough individuals with all the strengths identified to be great performers in key roles? If you believe the application of strengths is the road to excellence and competitive advantage, then you have a difficult decision to make.
How do you measure, and compare, the degree of the same strength across individuals? A very good question. While some of the strengths-assessment tools offer comparisons to norm groups, nobody at the meeting had used these in practice. It would be very helpful to research this question further. Is it better to assess individuals against strengths profiles, whether generic or role-specific, or to work from an individual’s self-identified strengths ?
Another good question. Organisations that fully commit to the strengths approach do prepare and assess individuals against role profiles that reflect the strengths demonstrated by their great performers. Standard Chartered Bank, AA, NHS, Saga and Starbucks have all introduced role-specific strengths profiling. Strengths profiles are therefore used in the same way as competency profiles, in part to uncover a candidate’s ‘weaknesses’. The differences concern what is being assessed, passions and interests rather than behavior and experience, and how the resulting information is being used. In the case of strengths, to ensure that those appointed have everything they need to succeed in a role, or to help individuals find a different position that ‘plays to their strengths’ How do employees respond to strengths-based development? The experiences shared at the meeting suggests that the strengths approach promotes a feeling of personal responsibility amongst employees, i.e. they know what drives their performance and they can take ownership of their own development versus the organisation deciding. OVERALL REFLECTION It became clear from the discussion that there is a fundamental difference in the questions organisations ask themselves when adopting a strengths approach. Instead of ‘what do we want people to be able to do’ (the competency approach), a strengths approach asks ‘what are our excellent people actually like; what motivates and energises them?’ The first, can lead to the creation of an ideal template that all people have to aspire to, the second recognizes that talent comes in a variety of forms and not everyone can be good at everything. One Member quoted Goffee and Jones’ urging to ‘be yourself, more, with skill’ , recognising there is no one perfect model of leadership and that the best leaders understand and play to their strengths.
SUPPORTING RESOURCES AND REFERENCES Here is a list of relevant reading:
CRF Post-Meeting Review Notes. Using strengths based approaches to improve individual and organisational performance, July 2007 CRF Post-Meeting Review Notes. What’s New in Coaching and Mentoring, November 2008 Don’t Let Your Strengths Become Your Weaknesses. HBR Blog. Robert B. Kaiser and Robert E. Kaplan. 2 April 2013 In 2014 Are You Fixing Your Weakness, or Building Your Strengths? Here’s What Matters Most. Forbes. Joseph Folkman. 30 January 2014 Making Yourself Indispensable. Harvard Business Review. John H. Zenger, Joseph R. Folkman and Scott K. Edinger. October 2011. Now Discover Your Strengths. Marcus Buckingham and Donald O. Clifton. January 2001. The Gallup Organisation. Average to A+: Realising Strengths In Yourselves And Others. CAPP, February 2008. Welcome To The Strengths Revolution: An In-Depth Study Into The Benefits of Strengths-Based Recruitment. Engaging Minds. July 2013. What's more important: Talent or Engagement. Gallup Business Journal. Jake Herway and Nate Dvorak. April 2014. These resources support the notes from this Interest Group Meeting: Strengths-based Organisation, Standard Chartered Bank, January 2007. Link: http://www.crforum.co.uk/library/view/657.html Strengths Assessment and Development Tools, Corporate Research Forum (CRF) and Engaging Minds, November 2014. Link: http://www.crforum.co.uk/library/view/656.html
FUTURE L&D INTEREST GROUP MEETINGS These are the topics which Members have suggested as themes for our 2015 meetings. Please let us know what you think.
How do we build a learning culture and strategy that leverages what we know about 70/20/10, the learning preferences of the new generations in the workplace, and the trend toward social and informal learning?
How do we engage leaders to accept responsibility for their personal and career development?
How do we prepare leaders to have a forward-looking mindset?
Is there such a thing as a global leadership model, or are we in danger of imposing a Western leadership paradigm on managers in other parts of the World?
What’s new in potential assessment?
PLEASE CONTACT US Each Practice meeting will be hosted by a CRF Member, and they will have an opportunity to influence the meeting topic. If you are interested in hosting a future meeting and/or have a topic you wish to propose, please get in touch with Viktorija Verdina at the CRF Office at viktorija@crforum.co.uk or on 44 (0)20 7470 7104.