Enhancing HR

7/30/2019 Enhancing HR

1/60

Enhancing HR Value to the CEO:Strategies for Matching Strategy to Capability

Laske and Associates, LLC

Otto Laske, PhD PsyD, Manager

Medford, MA, USA781.391.2361

[email protected]


2/60

This seminar takes a comprehensive, systemic view

of the organization and its readiness for

intervention.

It addresses the people power paradox: most

companies seek their future outside of themselves,

not in their own people.

Copyright Laske and Associates, LLC, 2002


3/60

Workshop Objectives

At the conclusion of this workshop, participants will beable to:

better understand the relationship of strategy and capability

see their own role as HR Director in a new, proactive light, as

guarantors of a balance between strategy and capability

advise the CEO on how to expand current HR evaluation levels to

measuring capability underlying performance

advise the CEO on how to improve asssessing the realism of

company strategy in light of existing capability

discuss the allotment of capability resources needed for fully

realizing present strategic objectives.



4/60

Assumptions of this Workshop Achieving strategic objectives is more than ever dependent

on the capability of individuals and teams

Much more in-depth knowledge about human capability is

available in social psychology than has so far been

appreciated by CEOs and HR Directors We need to open a window on new and highly stratetgic

data sources that heighten the realism of strategic decision

making at the highest level of management (in particular, a

Capability Metric)

We address CEOs and HR Directors alike, focusing on

human capability.



5/60

Workshop Topics Part I: The Relation of Company Strategy and

Work Capability Performance is based on Capability

Relevance of Capability in the Strategy Map

Part II: Building and Using a Capability Metric

Opening a Time Window on Capability

How CDREM works

What a Capability Metric Tells Management

Part III: Wrap Up

Benefits of CDREM

New Tasks of the HR Director

Case Study Deliverables



6/60


7/60

Performance

is Based on Capability



8/60

Human Strategy Regards Work Capability


Vision

Business Strategy

Organizational

Strategy

Human Strategy:

Capability


9/60

Your Human Strategy Should be Guided by

Insight into Work Capability


When you need a high-level view of human

resources available to meet strategic

objectives, you need to understand current

and future work capability


10/60


11/60


12/60

Five Dimensions of a Strategy Map(adapted from BCS Collaborative, Inc., 2001)

Human CapitalEffectiveness

Human ResourceEfficiency

Shareholder Value

FinancialPerspective

Customer

Perspective

Internal Process

Perspective

Learning &GrowthPerspective

Customer SatisfactionEmployee

Satisfaction

ManageOperatingEfficiency

Two Tiers of Learning and Growth

CompetenciesStrategic

Alignment /

MotivationCultural Climate Team

IntegrationLeadership

Deliver WorldClass services

Manage CustomerRelationships

WORK CAPABILITYCopyright Laske and Associates, LLC, 2002

Enablers

Meta-Enablers


13/60

Impact of Capability on Performance

Meta-Enablers Measure Capability

Competence Leadership Alignment Culture TeamSynergy

Internal Business Process

[short-term]

Customer Relations

[short-term]

Financials[long-term]


CAPABILITY


14/60

To improve the short- as well as long-term realism

of company strategy, we need to expand the

number of HR evaluation levels.

By doing so, we take into account a companys

actual work capabilities that determine its level of

current and future performance.



15/60

Expanding HR Evaluation Levels


Evaluation Level Brief Description of

Measurement/Evaluation

Reaction Participants reaction to an HR

initiative

Learning Motivation, knowledge, orattitude changes

Implementation Changes in behavior on the jobthrough HR initiative

Enablers Survey answers regarding

Leadership, competence,

personal alignment, team

synergy, cultural climate, etc.

Work Capability Measured in terms of three

kinds of meta-enablers

(current applied, current

potential, future potential)

Business Impact Business impact of thecompanys meta-enabler

profile

Financials (ROI) Monetary value of intervention

results against cost of the HRinitiative


16/60

Part II:

Building and Using

a Capability Metric


17/60

Opening a Time Window

on Work Capability


To analyze and measure work capability insufficient depth means to open a time

window through which to view capability

now, in the near future, and the far future.


18/60

Capability Evolves in Time


Current Applied Capability

Current Potential Capability

Future Potential Capability

Now Near Future (0.5

to 2 years)

Far Future (2-5

years)


19/60

Assessing Work Capability with CDREM

CAPABILITY

METRIC

Strategic

Objectives

Current Applied

Current Potential

Future Potential

WHO: Repr.

SampleIndex

Variables

WHAT: Enablers

Copyright Laske and Associates LLC, 2002

2.

3a.3b.

4a.

HR

Deliverables

1.

4b.

5a-c

6.


20/60

Three Kinds of Work Capability(adapted from E. Jaques, 1994, p. 7)

Now: Current Applied Capability (CAP): the level of

capability a person is actually applying at a given moment in

some specific work

Near Future: Current Potential Capability (CPC): the

maximum level of work a person could carry out at any given

point in time, in a domain of work they value and given

environmental support

Far Future: Future Potential Capability (FPC): the

predicted level of potential capability that a person will

possess at some specific time in the (near or far) future FPC grows throughout the life span along predictable maturational

pathways, and therefore can be reliably predicted.

CDREM measures all three kinds of work capability.



21/60

Definition of

Different Kinds of Capability(researched by Jaques, Kegan, Basseches, Laske, 1955-2000)

Current Applied Capability = Systemic grasp &

developmental level & *personal need & energy sinks

Current Potential Capability = Balance of critical vs.

constructive thinking (complexity of processing)&

developmental level & *personal aspiration

Future Potential Capability = Developmental level &

potential, & systemic grasp & balance of critical vs.

constructive thinking (complexity of processing).

* comprising self conduct, task focus, and interpersonal perspective.



22/60

Index Variables, Current Applied Capability


CAC

Systemic Thinking Developm. Level Personal Need Energy Sinks

Critical Constructive Risk Potential Self Task Interpersonal

Thinking Thinking Clarity Conduct Focus Perspective

Self concept Autonomy Affiliation

Risk taking Drive to achieve EmpathyChange Flexibility Resourcefulness Helpfulness

Need for power Endurance Dependency

Need for visibility Quality of Planning Bias

Confrontationalism Need to Self Protect Relationshipto Power

Change Relationship

Structure Structure under

transformation


23/60

Capability Potential Detailed

Future Potential Capability (determined by

developmental level) developmental level (level of self awareness)

developmental potential (for reaching subsequent level)

developmental risk (for regressing to lower level)

systems thinking capacity (critical, constructive, systemic thinking)

Current Potential Capability (determined by personal

aspirations and developmental level)

task focus (autonomy, endurance, risk taking, drive to achieve,

motivation, quality of planning, follow-through, etc.)

self conduct (self confidence, flexibility regarding change, need tocontrol and direct, need for visibility, etc.)

interpersonal perspective (capacity for affiliation, bias, dependency

on others, etc.)



24/60

Capability Is Measured

in Three Time Dimensions

Capability is measured in terms of variables definingpeople properties (sometimes called meta-enablers)

In CDREM, variables together form an index

An index is specific to a particular enabler, such as

leadership or team synergy

Each enabler is measured in three different but

interrelated time dimensions of capability: current

applied, current potential, and future potential.



25/60

Capability Index for Leadership


Leadership

Enabler Index Variables

1. Current and futurepotential, Developmentallevel (maturity)

2. Future potential,Developmental risk vs.potential

3. Current and future,Systems thinking capacity

4. Current and future,Change flexibility

5. Current, near future, andfar future interpersonal

perspective6. Current, near future, andfar future self-conduct

7. Current, near future, andfar future approach to tasks(task focus).


26/60

How CDREM Works



27/60

Steps Toward Building a Capability Metric

Company Strategy

Map

HR Deliverables, from Strategy

Define Target Population

Define Representative Sample

Define Index(es) based on

Capability Standards


Measurement

Objectives


28/60

Definitions

Representative samples comprise individuals orteams who, as groups, have certain work

capability levels critical to company performance

An index comprises a set of variables used to

measure the work capability of a repr. sample

Indexes measure a samples work capability levels

against validated normative standards

Standards stipulate current and future workcapability levels defined in harmony with requisite

HR deliverables.



29/60

Steps in Building a Capability Metric


HR CONCERNS

Indexes WORK

CAPABILITY

HR DELIVERABLES

Representative Sample

CORPORATE

STRATEGY

Assessment of

Capability interms of Index

Variables


30/60

How to Define a Representative Sample

The Company

Division A

Division B

Division C

Target

Population

Sample


Note: Divisions

can also be cross-

functional groups


31/60

Structuring a Representative Sample


TYPES OF SAMPLE

A. Pure Samples B. Mixed Samples

1. Executive team only (=E) 1. Balanced sample (E, M, T,

I=25%)

2. Middle management [groupleaders] only (=M)

2. Management sample (E=10%,M=50%, T=20%, I=20%)

3. Critical teams [and team

managers] only (=T)

3. Team sample (E=0%, M=30%,

T=70%, I=0%)

4. Individual contributors only (=I) 4. Workforce sample (E=0%,

M=30, T=0%, I=70)


32/60

Indexes and Their Capability Standards

A CDREM Index is entirely customizable; it refers to

any aspect of capability HR decides to measure

An index measures capability levels with a focus on a

particular enabler (e.g. leadership)

An index is composed of a set of pertinent variables each

of which is associated with a standard (customized tocompany strategy and HR concerns flowing therefrom)

CDREM capability standards derive from current social

science research

Each index measures all three time dimensions of workcapability: current applied, current potential, and future

potential capability.



33/60

Capability Indexes are Composed

of Meta-Enablers Measuring Capability Levels

Six Classes of

of Meta-Enablers

Any number of

customized

indexes

25 Capability

Criteria

Future

Capability

Current

Capability


Customized to

Company Strategy


34/60

Example: Variables of aLeadership and Change Flexibility Index

Developmental level (16 levels)

Developmental potential and risk

Strength of complexity awareness (transformational capacity)

Strength of systems thinking

Self conduct self concept

flexibility for change

need for power and control

Task focus autonomy

resourcefulness under stress

quality of planning and order

Interpersonal perspective

empathy helpfulness/supportiveness

capacity for affiliation

Energy sinks (gaps between personal needs and aspirations)

Culture climate index (gaps between Personal aspirations and actualorganizational experience)


Future potentialcapability

Current potential and

applied capability


35/60

Current and Near-Future Capability Standards


Dimensions of Current CapabilityFactors ofCurrent Capability

Personal Need Aspirations Org.Experience

Self Conduct: how

people perceive

themselves

Task Focus: how

people perceive their

workInterpersonal

Perspective: how

people perceive their

co-workers

Energy Sinks: gaps

between need andaspirations

Culture Climate

Index: gaps between

aspirations and org.

experience

Validated

managerial

standards of

personal and

ethical needs tobe satisfied by

work

(e.g., drive to

achieve)

Validated

managerial

standards of

aspirations held

for ownorganizational

functioning

(e.g., aspired-to

achievement)

Validated

managerial

standards of

actual ex-

perience ofthe organ-

ization

(e.g., ex-

perience of

managements

achievement

orientation)


36/60

Far-Future Capability Standards


Factors ofFuture Potential Capability

Manifestation

Level of developmental maturity 16 levels between ages 20-100, each

associated with a different degree of

leadership capability

Near-future developmental risk andpotential

Likelihood of advancing frompresent level, getting stuck at present

level, or regressing from level

Strength of systems thinking Overall capability to see the

organization systemically, rather

than by personalization

Strength of critical vs. constructive

tools (transformational capacity)

Balance of multiple perspectives in

organizational situations


37/60

What a Capability Metric

Tells Management


CDREM outcomes are stated in the

format of a Capability Metric

The metric reveals the hidden work

capability of a representative sample.

Results are stated in terms of potential-

to-risk ratios for all variables includedin the index measured.


38/60

Format of the Capability Metric


Index Variable Standard

Chosen

Risk

(ProportionMissing

Standard)*

Potential

(ProportionExceeding

Standard)*

Risk-to-Potential

Ratio

Future Potential Capability

Variable 1

Variable n

DevelopmentalMedian

Current Applied and Potential Capability

Variable 1

Variable n

Behavioral

Median

Capability Mean

* Those adhering to standard are implicitly represented by 1.0.

Important Link


39/60

L d hi C bilit M t i


40/60

Leadership Capability Metric

Adherence/

STANDARDMissing/

RISK

Exceeding/

POTENTIAL

(Future Potential Capability)

(Current Applied Capability)

Dev. Level

Dev. Potential

Change Flexibility

Systemic Thinking

Self Conduct

Task Focus

Interpers. Perspective

Energy Sinks


-1.0 +1.0

CDREM

Index

Present State

Future State

Unused current potential


41/60

High-Level Summary for Leadership


Negative Findings Positive FindingsOverall: Risk Outweighs Potential

Risk 1: There is a large deficit in far-

future potential capability (developmental

level and systemic grasp) that cannot be

alleviated by training

Potential 1: There are pockets of sample

members exceeding the standard set for

developmental potential, but they are not

sufficient to offset the overall lack of far-

future developmental capability

Risk 2:a. Whatever current potential capability

there is, is presently not used (energy

sink)

b. The area of greatest current deficit isself conduct (i.e., self concept, risk

taking, change flexibility, need for power

and visibility); this reflects a lack of far-

future potential capability

Potential 2: There are pockets of sample

members exceeding the standard set for

interpersonal perspective (emotional

intelligence), but they not sufficient to

offset the overall lack of far-futurecapability


42/60

Actionable Detail, Example

Index Criterion ProportionMissing

Standard

ProportionAdhering to

Standard

ProportionExceeding

Standard

Prognostic Findings

Degree of

systemsthinking

33% 50% 17%

Diagnostic Findings

Conduct (self

concept,

flexibility forchange, need for

power)

45% 37% 18%



43/60

Reaction of a Manufacturing Firm

Repr. sample regards the middle management level

High future potential capability is too long-term to beactionable

High energy sinks require immediate harnessing of current

potential in all ways possible (e.g., reward structure)

Available options: start a massive management development effort geared to harnessing

existing behavioral and developmental potential

diminish unused potentials

by wide-scoped job re-assignment and work place restructuring by firing parts of middle management, and either rehiring or

outsorcing managers showing high current & future potential

capability



44/60


45/60

Example 2

Team Synergy Metric of a pharmaceuticalcompany with good capability potential


46/60


47/60

High-Level Summary for Team Synergy


Negative Findings Positive Findings

Overall: Potentials Outweigh Risks

Risk 1: Lack of maturity level and

resultant systems thinking deficit of team

members presently pose the greatest risk

to team synergy; risk is not outweighed

by potential

Potential 1: There are large potentials for

developmental advance and change

flexibility that need program support

(coaching, mentoring, team restructuring)

Risk 2:

Self conduct risks exaggerated or low

self concept, lack of flexibility for

change, need for power and visibility

are considerable, but outweighed by

adherance to, and exceeding of, standard

Potential 2: There is a huge potential for

developing interpersonal perspective

(emotional intelligence), and a more

balanced self concept.

Risk 3: Existing potentials of team

synergy are currently unused.

Potential 3: future potential (far future)

solidly supports current potential (near

future),


48/60

A Capability Metric Facilitates:


1. Applications for Venture Capital

2. Merger and Acquisition Decisions3. Re-Visioning of Organizational Strategy

4. Change Management Initiatives

5. Human Capital Readiness Reports

6. Restructuring of Reward Systems

7. Outsourcing Decisions

8. Automation and Web Transfer Decisions

9. Management Development Programs

10. Employee Development Programs

11. Culture Climate Enhancement

12. Internal Business Process Enhancement

13. Customer Relations Enhancement.


49/60

Following-Up Capability Assessments

Results:

Following up assessments enables comparisons against a base line

established by the initial capability metric

Follow up delivers insight into the effectiveness of developmental

programs for all three aspects of capability

Timing:

Current and future potential is followed up annually

Current applied capability can be followed up in periods shorter

than a year.



50/60

Part III


Wrap Up


51/60

What CDREM Delivers

CDREM is a tool for calibrating the quality of human

capital in organizations in terms of work capability

CDREM provides a Capability Metric detailing present,

near-future, and far-future work capability

A capability metric reveals the hidden potential of a

companys workforce

Findings in a Capability Metric heighten the realism of

strategic decision making at the highest level of

management.


A C bilit M t i


52/60

A Capability Metric

Scores Hidden Company Intelligence


CompetenciesStrategic

Alignment /

MotivationCultural Climate

Team

IntegrationLeadership

Developmental(long-term)

Potential

Behavioral(short-term)

Potential

Financial

Perspective

Customer

PerspectiveInternal Process

Perspective

Work Capability

Enabler

Intelligence

S l t d B fit f C bilit A t


53/60

Selected Benefits of Capability Assessment

A Capability Metric:

is based on objective (social-science) standards of

work capability in organizations

is customized to current company strategy

extends the time window on capability into the

future

strengthens and broadens the role of the HR

Director at the strategy table

introduces a heightened realism into HR programdesign and intervention, including e-HR

(personalization of information).



54/60

New Tasks of the HR Director


Th P i i l T k f th HR Di t


55/60

The Principal Task of the HR Director

Is To Answer to Work Capability Concerns

Strategic

Company

Objectives

Insight into

Work

Capability

CONCERNSAssessment

of Work

Capability

CDREM

HR Solutions

and Deliverables


Th N d f I t ti T A h


56/60

The Need for Integrating Two Approaches

to Human Capital Management


Ad hoc &

situational:

Opinion-survey

based Best

Practices

Grounded in

social science:

Assessment-

based Capability

Metrics

State of Human Capital

The old way The new way


57/60

The best way to explore the utility of a

Capability Metric is to carry out a

CDREMcase study targeting some high-

level company concern.


C St d D li bl


58/60

Case Study Deliverables

A CDREM case study by Laske and Associates accomplishes:

translating HR capability concerns into measurable indexes

structuring and sizing one or more representative samples

defining capability standards appropriate to the companys

present strategic objectives and cultural climate

carrying out the assessment proper (developmental interviewing,

behavioral questionnaire)

calibrating the Capability Metric for one or more indexes

interpreting capability findings with attention to actionable

insight

suggesting appropriate CDREM follow up assessments.


H L M


59/60

How to Learn More


References

Becker, B. E., M.A. Huselid, & D. Ulrich (2001). The HR scorecard. Boston, MA: Harvard BusinssSchool Press.Fitz-enz, J. & Phillips, J.J. (1998). A new vision for human resources. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp.Kaplan, R. & D.P. Norton (2001). The strategy-focused organization. Boston, MA: HarvardBusiness School Press.Jaques, E. (1994). Human Capability. Falls Church, VA: Cason Hall & Co.Kaplan, R. & D. P. Norton (1996). The Balanced Scorecard. Boston, MA: Harvard Business SchoolPress.Laske, O. (2002a). How will you deliver strategic human resources beyond domain competence?Human Capital Online, Delhi, India.Laske, O. (2002b). After competence, emotional intelligence, and learning and growth:Whats the next step? HR.com, February.

Laske, O. (2002c). The place where work happens. Submitted to The OD Practitioner.

Laske, O. & B. Maynes (2002). Growing the top management team. A. & N. Korac-Kakabadse (Eds.),Journal of Management Development, 21. Cranfield, Bedfordshire, U.K.Laske, O. (2001a). Linking two lines of adult development: The Developmental Structure/ProcessTool. Bulletin of the Society for Research in Adult Development (SRAD), 10.1, 8-11.Laske, O. (2001b). A learning and growth metric for strategy-focused organizations(http://www.balancedscorecard.org/wpapers.html).Laske, O. (2001c).The CDREM readiness report(http://www.balancedscorecard.org/wpapers.html).Laske, O. (2001d). CDREM for managers (http://www.balancedscorecard.org/wpapers.html).Laske, O. (2001e). What lies beyond alignment with strategy and other HR enablers? HR.com,Nov. 16, 01.Laske, O. (2001f). What do meta-enablers add to your insight into the workforce? HR.com, Nov.30, 01.

Laske, O. (2001g). How do you access and assess intangible human-resource assets? HR.com,Dec. 14, 01.Laske, O. (2000a). Foundations of scholarly consulting. Consulting Psychology Journal, 52.3,178-200.Laske, O. (1999a).Tranformative effects of coaching on executives professional agenda. Ann

rbor, MI: Bell & Howell Company (www.bellhowell.infolearning.com; order no. 9930438)Laske, O. (1999b). An integral model of developmental coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal,51.3, 139-159.

L k d A i LLC


60/60

Laske and Associates, LLCSpecialists in Human Capital Measurement

Otto E. Laske PhD PsyD

Founder & Manager

51 Mystic St.

West Medford, MA 02155, U.S.A.

(781) 391-2361

[email protected]

Consultation on strategic human-resourcesmanagement, including web-based systems

Design of Capability Metrics

What gets measured, gets managed

Documents

Enhancing HR