44
author interview
RApport 62
A very particular set of skills … Understanding the language of work
F
By Chris Watson
or the last 16 years I’ve worked exclusively on delivering behaviourally-based learning and development – focusing not on what people do, but the way they go about it. During this time, I’ve picked up some unexpected insights in terms of the most effective ways to develop people, and a number of proven, provocative and (at times) perverse ways to extend capability and commitment in the workplace. Much of my approach has been shaped by my experiences as an HR practitioner in the 1990s, working within large, complex organisations, supporting line managers to extend the performance of their people. Without exception, all of these fast-moving businesses used competency frameworks to help them assess individual performance requirements in a structured and consistent way. However, over time I began to suspect that while the original driver for many of these frameworks was to define the behavioural expectations required at job level, they rarely succeeded in accommodating the complexity of evolving job requirements. The problem was that the competency model appeared to be based on a rather outdated myth that an ‘ideal employee’ could actually be found. It suggested that it was possible to define a set of standards required for effective performance and that this ‘magic formula for success’ could be captured, articulated and shared in order to create some kind of blueprint for superior performance. These days, I often run a simple exercise when working with diverse work groups, asking people to create a short job advert for their own job using just ten words to capture the critical skills, knowledge and work requirements of a peak performer for that role. I tell the
The competency model appeared to be based on a rather outdated myth that an ‘ideal employee’ could actually be found
delegates that their future professional reputation and personal income will be determined by the success of their advert. After a few minutes, I invite feedback from everyone on these most prized attributes. The results are always the same. Regardless of role, sector or seniority, each person consistently uses the same descriptive words to express the factors critical for success in role. Terms such as collaborative, persuasive, flexible, empathetic, creative, decisive and resilient are commonly applied. What never fails to surprise each of the groups, when you review their collective list, is just how few of the items (if any) are ever technical skills or knowledge-based qualities. It reflects the fact that what organisations tend to value initially during onboarding is rarely what gets valued after someone has started working for them. Invariably, companies recruit based on technical skills, knowledge and experience, but then make informal judgements about capability, and even promote people based on how they go about what they do. In the words of the Fun Boy Three, ‘It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it.’ While technical skills certainly remain important, if you ask employees themselves about what adds the greatest value in their role, they intuitively know
that it is a combination of interpersonal approaches and human skills which will make the difference, not the technical skills which are so frequently given priority when defining role requirements. This is why so many people are unfortunately put through what’s called a ‘magic weekend’ at work. It happens when an individual is without doubt the best operator, with extensive knowledge of their particular operating practice, and so is promoted on the Friday afternoon. By Monday morning they are supposedly transformed into a really effective supervisor, team leader or manager, and that’s when all the problems start because they simply aren’t equipped with the skills they now need. It isn’t just this exercise that demonstrates the significance of these skills. Take Google, for example – one of the most technical environments you could ever imagine. After scouring years of performance reviews, feedback surveys and one-to-ones, their much publicised ‘Project Oxygen’ identified