One of the thoughts that crossed my mind is the potential
contrast between black & white and coloured networks.

What do I mean by black & white and coloured networks? The rise in
networking, network analysis and the recognition that improved
relationships (and lower transaction costs) are drivers of better
performance has been gaining greater recognition in recent times.

This recognition and the use of the appropriate tools then leads to
the creation of diagrams such as the ones below¹.

While these types of diagrams are presented without context, they are
often used to represent paths of communication, trust, people who
connect groups and influence the flow of information. They also can be
used to show how a process is really carried out and by whom in a way
that can contrast or complement the traditional (or assumed)
organisational structure.

Another key feature of these diagrams is that the lines connecting
people tend to be black and white. There may be arrows to show flows of information and sometimes the line width varies too. Also, the
length of the line usually has no material bearing on the
interpretation of the diagram. My point in all of this being that the
black and white network diagram is exactly that, black and white.

By way of contrast, the use of 4G makes it possible to create network
maps that are coloured and show how each connection has different
qualities to it.

In other words, each connection or relationship can
be assigned a weight/colour to show the nature of a particular
relationship. In this case, green represents the most productive and
engaging relationships while blue, yellow and red require greater and
greater levels of time and energy to be as productive as the green
ones. This then adds a whole new spectrum of information to complement our understanding of the network and people’s relationships within it.

As a final note, it’s also worth making a couple of other
observations. Firstly, while there are just four colours in the
diagrams above, there are actually 14 different types of relationship,
suggesting far greater complexity and granularity than can be shown with just 4 colours. Equally, there is a whole series of tips,
suggestions and ways to improve and develop these relatonships from a
coaching and development point of view.

Finally, given that the information from 4G in its current state is
100 percent psychological and the information in other network
analysis diagrams is 100 percent contextual, the two make very
complementary bed-fellows, each one providing the other with
information that compensates for the other’s blindspot.

Notes

1. Image credit Wikimedia Commons

1. Focusing on the ‘unstructured, intangible and typically unmeasured’ will lead to the greatest increase in profits and problem solving over the coming years.
2. Benefiting from working on the ‘unstructured’ will only be fully realised when it is possible to see this in the context of new technologies, processes and practices. In other words, the emergence of a new paradigm or theoretical approach.

‘Unstructured, Intangible and Typically Unmeasured’

Gartner and others have suggested that

as much as 60% of an organization’s processes are unstructured – and probably also unmonitored, unmanaged, unknown and unruly

In a similar vein, John Hagel of Deloitte writes that

In a rapidly changing world, the knowledge that matters the most is tacit knowledge… Accessing this kind of knowledge requires long-term trust based relationships and a deep understanding of context

The CIPD then offers us the following

The intangible value of an organisation which lies in the people it employs is gaining recognition by accountants and investors, and it is generally now accepted that this has implications for long term sustained performance

There are of course many more examples, one of the most recent being the contrast between Israeli and US airport security. The Israeli’s focus on intangible, human factors, having established successful processes, while the US still focus on the tangible, to the detriment of the more subtle¹.

If only 40% of processes within organisations have been mapped, or are formal enough to commit to ERP programs, for example, that leaves the majority of an organisation’s activity which might be better tackled from a different perspective.

New Technologies, Processes and Practices

The obvious candidate to fulfil the brave new world of intangibles is Enterprise 2.0 and its collection of internet technologies. While the potential exists for E2.0 to be open, democratic, disruptive and transformative, the jury is still very much out on this.

By way of contrast, perhaps Gary Hamel best sums up the status quo. Quoting research from Towers Perrin on engagement, he writes

barely one-fifth (21%) of employees are truly engaged in their work, in the sense that they would “go the extra mile” for their employer. Nearly four out of ten (38%) are mostly or entirely disengaged, while the rest are in the tepid middle. There’s no way to sugarcoat it—this data represents a stinging indictment of the legacy management practices found in most companies

Interestingly, Gary’s recommendations aren’t a million miles away from other recent suggestions on the subject

We’ve got to get management’s dirty little secret out of the HR closet and into the boardroom. And second, if we’re going to improve engagement, we have to start by admitting that the real problem isn’t irksome, monotonous work, but stony-hearted, spirit-deflating managers

These thoughts reminded me of a point made by Rick where he writes

That the HR function needs to become more strategic is a mantra I first heard over twenty years ago when I started working in HR…

Just because senior executives are starting to see the importance of managing human resources it doesn’t mean that they will give Human Resource managers a seat at the top table. It might even be that the HR function never becomes strategic at all and that HR professionals are relegated to a support role while someone else does all the interesting stuff

I think Mark and Seth’s points light the way ahead, but I wonder how long it will be before people management benefits from something as exciting as ‘artists taking over from the technicians‘…

Footnote

1. Finding spending comparisons between Israel and the US is easier said than done.

The piece focuses on leadership, giving up power as a leader and witnessing corresponding improvements in performance. There are also case studies from CSC and ANADIGICS showing some attractive financial improvements as a result of this new way of working.

Over and above the financial improvements, perhaps the most interesting aspect of the article is the idea of “mutualism.”

Mutualism involves measuring workers not against revenue or other numerical goals, which we have observed to be ineffective as motivational tools, but against qualitative values such as trust, responsibility, and innovation.

And it implies that leaders don’t dictate vision or strategy; instead, they enable employees to create a common vision through, for example, off-sites for discussion of strategic issues and regular feedback and education. Hitting numerical goals has been the natural outcome.

It will be interesting to see if methods such as mutualism increase in popularity and adoption over the coming months.

• Shifting the Organisational Pyramid
• The McLeod Review on Employee Engagement
• The Leader/Manager Debate
• Line Managers who Lead
• The Intrinsic Motivation of Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose
• The Irrationality of Human Behaviour
• Tomorrow’s HR Professionals – A Multi-Disciplinary Background

Articles are included from the likes of Harvard Business School, Henry Mintzberg, HR Magazine, McKinsey, the McLeod Review, the Partnership Institute, Personnel Today, Strategy + Business and TED.

Tag Cloud

Shifting the Organisational Pyramid

The general consensus of commentators from a broad spectrum of disciplines is that the traditional organisational pyramid is not fit for purpose. See below to find out more. We are also seeing a notable increase in articles and blog posts focusing on recruitment in the upturn. Whether this is wishful thinking or a genuine sign of improving economic times remains to be seen.

On a continuing theme from previous updates, there can be no doubt that this year’s hot topic is employee engagement, whilst an acknowledgement of it’s importance is widespread, there remains considerable uncertainty around putting an effective engagement strategy into place. Furthermore as the discussion develops, it is becoming increasingly hard to separate engagement from other organisational issues such as; leadership, talent management and innovation.

The McLeod Review on Employee Engagement

July saw the release of the UK government backed McLeod Review looking into the impact of poor employee engagement in the UK. Undoubtedly this is a strong endorsement of the positive effect of engagement on performance. However, there has been criticism from some for the lack of new insight or practical suggestions. I think that this is slightly missing the point and the report is far from the “recycled rubbish” claimed by Nicholas Higgins. In a similar vein, Personnel Today explicitly criticises the lack of practical suggestions. In my view, the job of this report is to make CEOs sit up and take note and raise what is traditionally seen to be a “soft issue” up the corporate agenda. The report is also meant to raise the issue of engagement for businesses of all sizes, again I think this is something that it achieves. As a first step in an ongoing process, this report gives HR directors the evidence to support the case for taking a serious look at engagement.

Although short on new ideas there is no doubt that the Mcleod Review brings together lots of data and evidence supporting the argument for an increased commitment to engagement. A good summary by John Ingham can be found here. There is nothing revolutionary in the report and it is easy to see why some in the industry are frustrated by it’s lack of specifics. However as a document making the quantitative case for increased investment in engagement it is pretty solid and for those not directly involved in HR and its related disciplines, it is a good introduction.

Despite the shortcomings, the conclusions reached by McLeod are likely to resonate with many. In short, McLeod is calling for a more sophisticated approach to people management. The report openly argues that due to amongst other things changing demographics and technology, engagement is not something organisations can approach with a one size fits all mentality. True engagement is focused on the needs of each individual. Furthermore, if organisations buy into this assertion, the role of line managers has to evolve away from the traditional administration/assigning tasks role to a more collaborative/coaching type approach, as McLeod states;

“Many people we spoke to identified managers’ approaches and behaviours as key factors in disengagement – as one respondent said, they sometimes act as “a great impermeable damp-proof course.” Jeff Kelly, of the Partnership Institute, told us at a round table discussion for this review: “There is a territorial problem and a comfort zone problem. Many feel comfortable with managing staff on an adversarial basis and don’t want to give it up.”

My feeling is that what is being called for in the McLeod Review goes much further than encouraging organisations to adopt a formal engagement programme. If organisations are to fully realise the benefits outlined in the report it is going to require a complete rethink in the way corporations manage and engage their people.

Curiously enough there have been a number of other articles published this quarter that I feel more explicitly reflect the findings of the McLeod Review. Interestingly, these articles are all written by people from a variety of backgrounds or disciplines yet the underlying message is very similar.

The Leader/Manager Debate

To kick things off, Henry Mintzberg has created a buzz with a look at the perennial manager/leader debate. This was also a topic covered in the previous issue. In this article Mintzberg is critical of the traditional role of corporate leaders who he brands as aloof and disconnected from the workforce, therefore having little idea of what is actually happening in the organisation. It is this disconnection that hampers so many organisational initiatives. In Mintzberg’s view, corporate America is overled and undermanaged.

True leadership is something that may only be required on an ad hoc basis, in particular during times of uncertainty or dealing with specific challenges or unknowns. These are the challenges which we most associate and value strong leadership with such as charisma, determination and vision. Effective management on the other hand is something that requires a more mundane yet equally valuable approach.

“As Stanford University emeritus professor James G. March put it: “Leadership involves plumbing as well as poetry.” Instead of distinguishing leaders from managers, we should encourage all managers to be leaders. And we should define “leadership” as management practiced well.”

At the heart of Mintzberg’s criticism is that the traditional corporate pyramid encourages and supports this disconnection between leaders and the rest of the organisation. Jamie Notter has an good summary of the Mintzberg article and picks up on his assertion that organisations need to review the usefulness of the prevailing hierarchical model of organisational design.

Line Managers who Lead

The notion of line managers who lead is explored in this recent McKinsey article. An idea that is coming from a similar direction to Mintzberg, instead of training managers in process and administration, they can improve productivity by empowering the people around them. In this way managers can be seen as catalysts to creativity, innovation and devolved decision-making. In particular managers need to address the issues that are of particular relevance to them and their people. This can be anything from dealing with interpersonal issues to customer relationships. The article goes on to say;

“To unlock a team’s abilities, a manager at any level must spend a significant amount of time on two activities: helping the team understand the company’s direction and its implications for team members and coaching for performance.”

This prompts the question, is the traditional top down business model fit for purpose in the 21st Century? To highlight this confusion between management and leadership, one particular criticism outlined by Mintzberg in another article is what he refers to as leading through information or “deeming” as he terms it. This is where leaders deem that certain targets need achieving, such as sales need to rise by 10% or we need to cut 15% of staff. By any definition this is not leadership and as such is unlikely to engage or motivate employess apart from through fear.

Dismantling the organisational pyramid is also the topic of a Strategy + Business article. Ostensibly discussing talent management, the theme is the same as Mintzberg’s argument and calls for a fundamental reassessment of how organisations engage with their employees. The article argues that the traditional career progression structured through an organisational pyramid structure is outdated and not fit for current and future demographics. Instead organisations need to take a more sophisticated and flexible approach to career development based on the individual.

The Intrinsic Motivation of Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose

Further evidence to support a radical reappraisal in the way organisations structure themselves is outlined by Dan Pink who delivered an entertaining TED talk, well worth the 20 minutes if you have the time. In it he discusses the failure of bonuses and incentives to improve performance. Contrary to popularly held beliefs in the corporate world at least, the basis of Pink’s talk is that traditional monetary incentives fail to boost performance in all but the most mundane or mechanical tasks. Citing a number of scientific sources, Pink states that the traditional reward structure used by organisations is not an effective means of motivation. Clearly this view undermines many of the assumptions that organisations implicitly make about motivation and performance. In getting rid of the traditional carrot and stick approach, Pink focuses on three areas of what he terms “intrinsic motivation” of autonomy, mastery and purpose.

In discussing the role of autonomy, Pink is another to go against the orthodoxy and directly criticise the traditional organisational pyramid which concentrates decision-making in the upper echelons. By removing self-direction, organisations are undermining the ability of employees to fully engage with their work. At the same time feelings of unfairness are likely to grow. Clearly, Pink is suggesting that organisations need a fundamental rethink in the way that they motivate their employees. As Pink repeatedly summarises;

“there’s a mismatch between what science knows and what business does.”

The Irrationality of Human Behaviour

As if that isn’t enough, we are continuing to see an increase in articles focusing on the “irrationality” of human behaviour. In a posting on the Harvard Business School site Jim Heskett kicks off a decent discussion about a recent HBR article by Dan Ariely. Again, this has significant implications for our approach to management theory and assumptions about human behaviour.

“Reactions to our efforts as managers reflect what each individual receives in relation to what he or she perceives and expects. Because this is highly subjective, the argument goes, generalizations (many of them currently taught in conventional courses) about how to manage are practically useless. Instead, managers should encourage employees to set their own goals, appraise their own achievements, and reach their own conclusions about how to improve. Managers should also spend more of their time inspiring (through stories) and devising engaging activities from which employees may, to some extent, choose.”

Are you starting to see a theme here yet?

Whilst there is no shortage of new ideas being put forward, within the HR specific press, the focus has been more inward and arguably more pessimistic over recent months.

Tomorrow’s HR Professionals – A Multi-Disciplinary Background

In particular, HR Magazine in the UK has run a series of articles that have a generally pessimistic view of the furture for HR. The debate seems to have moved on from the rallying cry for HR to be provided with a seat at the top table to a questioning of whether the function can actually make a strategic contribution. For example, David Woods cites a Logica survey with the headline figure claiming that 70% of HR Directors feel that they do not have sufficient information to avoid a widening skills gap. Given new technology and information available to HR professionals, is there any excuse for this?

Elsewhere , Maurice Duffy muses on the future of HR. In a strongly worded article, he articulates a potential future for HR where it is able to contribute significantly to organisational effectiveness. Unfortunately, Duffy is sceptical whether the majority of current HR practitioners are capable of delivering this vision. As Duffy states;

“My view is that HR is populated with too many self-seeking, blame-shifting blockers and manipulators who kill the enlightened view and restrict and choke organisational progression. You know them – the pen- pushing administrators and positioners, who tell the business what it cannot do, build processes and systems that inhibit or dilute any sensible simplicity that is a key requisite in the current world where change, speed and innovation are the new business imperatives.”

On a similar note, Rhonda Eckert has a blog post asking whether HR is in danger of becoming extinct? She echoes Murray in her assertion that tomorrow’s HR professionals are going to come from a multi-disciplinary background. Maybe not the end of HR but possibly signifying a shift in the experience or requirements for HR professionals.

Likewise, Jan Kingsley at ASPEL talks about the fragmentation of learning and its possible resolution, saying;

“L&D is becoming more specialised with people developing specific competencies and skills in discrete areas, for example, becoming specialists in coaching, facilitation or learning design. This is being driven in part by customer and client expectations, but also the use of technologies which makes the whole issue of learning much more complex. Navigating this maze of information and techniques and overcoming their inherent complexities will be a major factor in making L&D much more effective.”

While debates on the specific themes will no doubt continue, the possibilities for HR and leadership going forward are intriguing and imply a number of changes. While the recession has almost forced people to reflect on their organizations and practice, the seeds of the future may well be taking route already.

We discussed the idea that people-based issues can be managed in a systematic and structured manner, something that Bruce is firmly in support of. 4G represents a proprietary approach developed by his company to understand and predict intangible aspects of people’s personality, interaction and values. However, our conversation was not so much about 4G itself but about taking a holistic approach and the how’s and why’s of it.

The full piece can be found here and our thanks go out to Rowena Morais and Isabella Chan for bearing with us!

The introduction is below.

Is 2009 the year the HR function finally enters its ascendancy as organizations place greater emphasis on talent management and putting strategic HR activities at the heart of the business? Or is HR destined to remain a transaction-based cost center as leaders still struggle to rise to the challenge?

If you’d like to read the full version, it can be found here.

Welcome to the first issue of the Four Groups Leadership, Intangibles and Talent review. The purpose is to try to distil and comment on some of the more interesting and articles shaping the field. That said, the subject matter is not strictly defined but takes into account wider economic issues, particularly given the challenging climate. In this issue, articles have been included from the likes of Deloitte, IBM, McKinsey, The Hay Group and Towers Perrin.

There is no set criteria for inclusion, just that an article, survey or blog entry should be thought provoking, challenging or state more than the obvious. Comments and feedback are of course welcome

Summary – Q4 2008

Unsurprisingly, many articles are focusing on what it will take to emerge from the current downturn in a position of strength. As such the main themes focus on;

• Is creativity and intelligence being filtered out of the system?
• The need to let go of many of HR’s traditional functions
• The need for senior level sponsorship
• The psychological change agenda
• Managing talent
• Ethics and employee branding

There seems to be considerable agreement that the organisations likely to manage and emerge from the downturn in the strongest position are ones which are; flexible, promote clear and consistent communication, are innovative and exhibit consistency between their internal and external behaviour. The theme tying all these attributes together is developing the ability to manage the intangibles of organisational behaviour, such as; social networks, collaboration, innovation and change.

Tag Cloud

Is creativity and intelligence being filtered out of the system?

Obviously the economic downturn is the hot topic. However, the article which really caught the attention, on the face of it, has nothing to do with the current economic situation. Bruce Charlton blogs about a book he is currently writing. Focusing on structural deficiencies holding back the pace of scientific progress, Charlton argues that the way the scientific process is organised is best suited to ‘plodders’ rather than the ‘creative’ but sometimes ‘erratic’ thinkers who may be capable of genuinely revolutionary insight. Charlton points to the fact that success in modern science is often down to an ability to navigate the bureaucracy of academia as much as scientific ability and this has a serious impact on the pace and levels of innovation. Indeed, this leads Charlton to argue that creativity and intelligence are being filtered out of the system.

“We can only conclude that science is dull mainly because its requirements for long term plodding, perseverance and social inoffensiveness have the effect of ruthlessly weeding out too many smart and interesting people.” Charlton, Why are Scientists so Dull?

This is all good stuff and got me wondering whether a similar dynamic is impacting the ability of organisations outside of the scientific community to encourage innovation and manage change? In particular do large organisations actively promote people to senior positions who are likely to struggle with the twin challenges of innovation and radical change? As will be shown below, the consensus is that change is the new normal and companies are going to have to exhibit an agility and flexibility that has historically been difficult to implement. Maybe one of the reasons for this inability is the presence of senior managers who are fundamentally unsuited to work in this type of environment?

The need to let go of many of HR’s traditional functions

Elsewhere, a number of broad themes are emerging. Many articles have sought to put a positive spin on recent economic events and articulate a number of opportunities which could potentially reshape the role of the HR function. One of the most comprehensive surveys (opens as a pdf) this quarter is the Towers Perrin, People, Change and Performance: Emerging Issues in HR Service, Delivery and Technology. This survey covers a wide range of HR issues, one of which concerns how the HR function could develop over the medium term. The report draws attention to a number of evolutionary issues which may shed light on the perennial conundrum of how HR can play a more strategic role in the organisation. For instance, the report provides evidence that the focus on HR technology is moving away from the process or delivery side and is more focused on managing talent and performance through systems. In effect, HR practitioners are no longer slaves to automation and time saving technology, but are instead are placing more focus on the systems and technology which can deliver on a strategic level. This is welcome news and potentially marks a key transition in HR being able to develop a more sophisticated and valuable dialogue within the organisation.

Before this can happen however, the Towers Perrin report argues that HR practitioners will need to let go of many of the traditional HR functions;

“HR must relinquish some control over mundane administrative processes and grow comfortable with line managers and others playing a more active role in decision making. Second, HR must learn to do more with the technology that it already has — making it more effective and more integrated across disparate HR processes or technology platforms. Finally, success requires a well-planned and well executed change management process. Unless these three key areas are adequately addressed, HR will continue to struggle to find the time — and the invitation — to make a more strategic contribution.” Towers Perrin, People, Change and Performance: Emerging Issues in HR Service, Delivery and Technology

The need for senior level sponsorship

This perspective is reinforced by an interesting interview in the McKinsey Quarterly with Beth Axelrod, head of HR at Ebay. In this interview, Ms. Axelrod discusses the difficulties that companies have in hiring and retaining women, strategies she has seen succeed, and her view of how HR can become a strategic partner with businesses.

Ostensibly the interview focuses on the difficulties companies have in hiring and developing women in the workplace. As a McKinsey alumnus and co-author of “The War for Talent” Axelrod unsurprisingly takes an analytical and research-based approach to the problem and urges organisations to focus on getting the basics right before anything else.

However, the most salient points focus on Axelrod’s assertion of the need for senior level sponsorship and support for HR initiatives, a universal theme in whatever you are hoping to achieve. Without this key component, HR is not going to be able to leverage any of its specific knowledge, insight or view of the organisation. There is no doubt that the level of senior level sponsorship and communication determine the success of any corporate initiative, the challenge in these tough times is for HR practitioners to ensure that their colleagues prioritise these issues highly enough.

Relationships are paramount to creating a connection between people and the organisation and Axelrod notes the importance of informal networks within the organisation in encouraging the development and success of individuals. The development of social networking is another theme emerging from recent articles which is seen as a key tool for leveraging expertise and collaboration throughout the organisation.

Dovetailing nicely with this theme, over at Deloitte there is an interesting discussion about the relevance and commitment of executives to the “our people are our greatest asset” mantra. The discussion succinctly highlights the additional challenges to living up to this statement which current economic circumstances present.

The psychological change agenda

The speed with which the unravelling of the global economy has taken placed seems to have focused minds on what I would loosely refer to as the new change agenda. In the current climate, change is not something which can be thought of as taking place on a periodic basis. In the future and in order to maximise flexibility and innovation, change is something which will be a constant and to achieve this organisations will have to engineer a considerable shift in workforce attitudes and perceptions.

Across the board there is acknowledgement that managing change is as much a psychological challenge as it is a procedural or systemic one. Focusing on behaviours and reaction to change is a key issue. This is likely to become more important over time as market conditions require companies need to constantly evolve. This is echoed by a couple of reports from IBM. In the first, the executives surveyed said that in the future successful companies will be “hungry for change and disruptive by nature”. Once again, the need for innovation and enabling greater collaboration across the organisation is widely acknowledged as a key component in the ability of organisations to successfully deliver strategic goals.

The second IBM survey focuses on what they describe as “The Change Gap”. This is the discrepancy between the CEOs expecting substantial change, a number increasing dramatically and the apparent effectiveness or outcome of change programmes, a number staying roughly the same. The report also discusses the relatively low level of success in change projects;

“What accounts for these vastly different rates of project success? We found in our detailed analysis of study results that achieving project success does not hinge primarily on technology – instead, success depends largely on people…..

Change challenges: The soft stuff is hard

The main obstacles identified were:

Changing mindsets and attitudes (58 percent)
Corporate culture (49 percent)
Underestimating project complexity (35 percent).” IBM, Making Change Work

Furthermore, the report goes on to echo the view that “change is the new normal.” As part of this assertion, people are going to have to get used to less hierarchy, control and supervision. Dealing with this is going to present considerable challenges, particularly when it comes to communicating information across complex organisational structures and geographies.

Managing talent

Another key aspect of managing in the downturn is likely to be the approach taken to talent management. The Hay Group published an interesting take on this particular issue . Advocating an approach based on the US Mutual Fund industry, the report highlights the danger of placing all your eggs in one basket rather than a more balanced broader brush approach.

Meanwhile a Towers Perrin report (opens as a pdf) on managing in the downturn advocates a three-pronged approach to managing talent.

• Effective senior management
• Taking a targeted and consistent approach to dealing with cost and risk issues
• Keeping employees focused and engaged

The report argues that organisations should see the downturn as an opportunity to focus on their most profitable activities and develop a consistent internal and external culture. All good advice but considerably easier said than done.

On a wider level and slipping somewhat under the radar is the Government sponsored DIUS report into developing our brains from cradle to grave. A wide-ranging report, it focuses on three key areas; learning in the early years, wellbeing at work and an ageing population. Of particular interest in the wellbeing at work, the report identifies absenteeism and presenteeism as particularly pressing problems in the workplace.

Ethics and employee branding

Another area which can potentially help organisations manage the downturn is employer branding and organisational identity. The argument goes; the companies whose values are either inconsistent or lacking clarity are going to struggle to effectively manage, communicate and engage with their people. Particularly when one takes into account the earlier assertion that in the future there is going to be less hierarchy and direct supervision. The first step in ensuring that information is understood across the board is to ensure that everyone is clear and understands the organisation’s key values and direction.

A good example of how an employer brand is likely to develop is the future role of CSR, most commentators agree that this is something which is likely to gain in importance and it is down to organisations to show employees that their words are backed up by their deeds. The role of ethics within the organisation over the coming years is discussed in a Deloitte webcast (registration required) . There is the suggestion that this is another key lever in the search for employee and customer engagement. This is an interesting area and again a key intangible, how best to measure the ethical climate of an organisation? Something that is likely to require considerable senior level commitment. The discussion advocates that now is a good time to put this theory into practice. Naturally there is a questioning of whether managers have the desire to engage in this subject at the moment. There are also some good tips on how to overcome resistance and apathy.

Finally, how important is innovation going to be during the downturn? Innovation is another of those key intangibles which are naturally difficult to measure and quantify. A McKinsey report gives it a go. The headline figures suggest that organisations which take a balanced portfolio approach to innovation are more likely to achieve high performance. There is also correlation between the number of metrics used to measure innovation and successful outcomes. Will companies spend the time and effort to pursue this?

Conclusion

The clear message from these articles is that HR is potentially in a very strong position to play a key role in developing the way organisations operate and how they will emerge from current economic difficulties. A focus on the intangibles such as relationships, networks, culture and change is also likely key for long term success. The big caveat however is the level of sponsorship and support that is available from senior management. At times like this, it is easy to see how issues not specifically tied to the bottom line may well be given short shrift.

‘But I thought google did search and ads, not word processing and spreadsheets..?’ Exactly!

While Google has a near monopoly with its excellent search and advertising business model, I imagine that stretching this to office like applications and meeting the needs of business users will be a serious challenge. This is not just because the two markets and models are arguably very different (the job I am doing as the end user/customer in both differs dramatically!) but that in Google’s case, having had such success with its first business model, translating that into a second may just stretch its processes and values too far…

Nick captures this succinctly when he writes;

And this is one of the big questions that remains to be answered about Google and its ability to sell to big companies: Is it going to be able to see the world through the eyes of its potential customers, even if that view does not coincide with its own philosophy?

Time of course will tell, but as a third party observer, I’d say that delivering a new business model against the values and philosophies of a currently successful one will be impressive to say the least. (This of course neatly side steps Microsoft’s own circumstance of partially or completely shifting its own business from desktop to the internet, but that is a discussion best saved for another day!)

You can find out more about the Carnival and submit a post here.