Over the weekend, Jonah Lehrer wrote an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal on “Learning How to Focus on Focus.” The essence of his piece was that in an age of information overload, focus or attention is a scarce commodity.  Instead of being enlightened by vast volumes of information available at our fingertips, we often become overwhelmed.  His point is that it is possible to become more effective in dealing with the excesses of information and proceeds to describe how we can develop higher level capabilities in the area of executive focus.   This is an interesting challenge for corporate learning functions as they develop the next generation of leadership.  How do you help executives learn how to manage the flood of content in an effective way?  As I interface with c-suite executives, I’ve noticed a subtle change in the way in which they are interfacing with organizations like Moxie Insight.  As Jeff Cobb points out “there is such a flood of new content pouring through the Internet pipes these days that being aware of all of it and sorting it out in meaningful ways is simply not possible.” Yes, there are powerful search tools, social bookmarks and community review options but they are no longer adequate.  We are finding that executives tend to rely on colleagues or experts to “curate” content in areas of interest. 

So what makes a great curator?  Harvard Business School Assistant Professor Ray Weaver suggests we use the museum curator as the model … “Many museums have enormous collections, so the possibilities are endless, he says.  And most patrons don’t know anywhere nearly enough to make these decisions on their own, and even if they were armed with some relevant information, most don’t have the time or inclination to pour over it.  So while we sometimes think that particular curators have missed the mark, in general we understand the role and appreciate that an expert who functions as our decision making proxy makes for a much better museum-going experience.”  Good curators don’t randomly put “stuff out there.”  They expertly review a particular field and make choices about what to put in front of the executive.  Furthermore they educate the executive as to why they should care or why it matters in the context of their specific business. 

While there are different models of content curation, we are finding that executives are looking for their content “experts” to be capable of:

• Aggregation:   The most common form of content curation is aggregation.  In this case the curator “aggregates” the most relevant information about a particular topic into one location on an on-going basis.  The value of aggregation or bundling comes from the act of locating information, evaluating it, tagging and easing the information consumption for the busy executive.   
• Chronology:  In creating a chronology, the content curator brings a historical perspective to the topic or field.  This perspective is most useful when our understanding of the topic has shifted over time.  Using informational artifacts, an effective curator can bring a different level of insight or understanding about a topic by re-telling its history over time. 
• Distillation: Executives often look to others to distill the vast amount of information in a way that only the most important or relevant ideas are shared.  To Jonah Lehrer’s point, rather than being consumed by the vast pool of information available, executives value the distillation of information because it creates a focused view. 
• Elevation:  The most challenging and perhaps valuable type of content curation is elevation as it requires deeper expertise on the part of the person doing the curating.   In elevating content, the curator is identifying new insights or trends from the disparate the pieces of information they are constantly collecting.  Expert curators are able to create a new or unique view on a particular topic or set of topics.  For an executive this becomes quite valuable as they try to find “over the horizon” insight that will help create future competitive advantage. 

I think our (Moxie Insight’s) combined work in the “generations” space is a good example of all four curation models.  We have certainly aggregated a great deal of information about generations for member use.  We’ve documented those insights in a variety of ways … on-line and in person, in reports, and in books.  The work is on-going.  As the generations have moved through various career stages we’ve revisited our assumptions and insights.  This fall we are starting work on the newest generation, the Re-Generation (or Gen Z/Gen Next).  Next year we will revisit Boomers as they enter a new career stage. We’ve distilled our insights, applying different lenses, enabling members to apply the information in the context of their unique organizations.  Generations also benefit by a chronological view.  In doing so, one understands that on a global basis, generations differ by geography.  This fall we published a popular “Generations in Geography” series.  Finally, we’ve elevated our understanding about generations to create new and unique insights.  By way of example, we just finished research on Gen X and their development needs now that they are entering leadership roles; in another piece we explored the impact of Gen Y’s digital activism on the workplace.

As the amount of information created continues to explode how will you increase your ability to focus?  Are you, like other executives, relying on others to curate your information flow?  If so, who are you consciously or unconsciously relying on to sort information and share in a meaningful way?   Is your “curation” network sufficient for the requirements of your business… now and in the future?  Who do you need to add to that expertise network?  Are your curators not just “aggregating” but also “elevating” the content?  And are you actively consuming the curated material provided … or are you letting important insights pass you by because you are too busy. I think Jonah Lehrer is right; one of the most important executive competencies we need to develop is “focus.” What and to whom are you paying attention to?

As is the wont of air travel these days I arrived at the session late and to avoid being rude or conspicuous I slipped into the back of the room.

The presenter although polished in style, and aggressive in expressing “my point of view”, was bereft of any recent data to support their conclusions.

In point of fact their data would have been more aligned with the times if their attire had been a lime green leisure suit.

As I was settling in thinking, “well this was a brilliant idea” and wondering “can I get an earlier return flight”, I had an epiphany.

I realized many in the audience were entranced with the “facts” being put forward…..they were lacking in context and how no clue that the data was no longer even useful in the context of a) a global workforce, b) engagement levels that were declining even before the recession, c) the challenges of managing a workforce with four cohorts all of which desire different levels of support from an employer, and d) the emerging complexities of managing the digital tribes promoted by the emergence of social media.

How did I know, psychic that I am not, it was the “tell” from watching people nodding their level of interest and agreement.  MANY of the HR professionals in this particular audience were learning of the aforementioned human capital challenges for what appeared to be the first time(look for the nodding of yes and neck leaning forward)

Be reassured that there were those like me who had the glaze of boredom and were also unobtrusively looking at their watches (look for the head dropping straight down or to the left to look at the wrist).

The torture ended eventually and insincere as I am I was gracious in my thanks and compliments…..yet I was struck by a line from Michael Douglas in the American President (don’t go there), “serious problems require serious people to create serious solutions”.

Like a lot of Consultants I have been on the platform and candidly live in dread fear that my audience is in possession of more relevant or timely data than I therefore making my effort pedestrian.  It is the intellectual curiosity of the audience I rely upon to keep me honest.

My conclusion from this unscientific polling technique is that those of us in leadership positions, particularly in Human Resources have to have higher standards for what constitutes “thought leadership”.   The alternative is we will be treated to a steady stream of presentations by those who really have nothing to contribute in pushing us to address some very serious issues.

 As Daniel Pink pointed out in Free Agent Nation, contingent work has evolved into a deliberately chosen non-traditional employment arrangement.  Contingents may want to acquire new skills, experience different types of work environments, or build resumes using a broad spectrum of assignments.  They may want balance in their work and professional lives. Experienced workers may want positions that have a specific endpoint because they prefer to work only part or the year or a limited number of years in a particular project based assignment.  Younger workers may be using contingency to build a skill portfolio or pursue a personal passion.  The new reality is that contingent work has become a free-form career strategy that stems from an individual’s desire for flexibility, autonomy, and freedom.  Supported by new advances in technology knowledge workers, in particular, see contingency as “Plan A” NOT “Plan B.”     

 To take full advantage of this emerging cadre of workers, employers will need to change the common perception of contingent workers as being less important, less skilled, or less committed than “permanent” employees.  More importantly, they must abandon the idea that contingent workers are simply an economic play to handle temporary swings in employment. Contingent workers bring unique experiences, fresh thinking, and new approaches to problem-solving. Furthermore, research shows that contingents tend to be more satisfied and engaged with the work they do than full-time employees.  Independents recognize that completing the project on time in a successful manner is the key to gaining future assignments. 

 Indeed, organizations will need to change their fundamental mindset about talent to be successful in the future.  As John Boudreau points out in Retooling HR, “the idea that employment is the primary way organizations and their contributions interact is so instinctive that it many blind organizations to an alternative form of engagement.”  The role of contingency in organizations is still being defined and their importance being assessed, but as the numbers grow, employers stand to benefit if they include contingent workers as a permanent part of their overall talent strategy.

Shortly before this reminder of my dotage, I had visited my daughter and her family inclusive of 9 and 7 year old granddaughters.   When I inquired about how they were enjoying a notebook I had given them for the holidays was working, they referred to it as “too slow”.

I realized the “old and slow” references were more insightful than I deemed, despite prompting my desire to just drive straight to Happy Valley to check myself in

Those of us in our late 50’s, 60’s and older weathered a revolution that candidly we underappreciated.  Communication as we practiced it as people and workers no longer exists. 

The above would have remained intellectual musings absent a venture currently underway at Discussion Partner Collaborative, where we just completed a global survey of 150 CEO’s on their near term Human Capital aspirations.  This is the second year of our survey and the “constructive use of Social Media” rose from #7 to #3. 

When this first surfaced as a finding in 2010 we were surprised.  As we look at the factors of the success of the “Facebook Movie”, the potential IPO value of same, performance of the recent Social Media IPO’s, and the given that global communication is now instantaneous, we are no longer surprised: moreover we are encouraged.

The 2010 survey indicated that CEO’s were concerned about “misuse and abuse” of Social Media to the detriment of their enterprises.  This year, 2011,  their sentiments are focused on constructive endeavors, “communication, research, and collaboration”.

The most recent edition of the Harvard Business Review was principally devoted to Social Media and its power.

It appears that the CSuite is starting to get caught up with Kate and her younger cousins Ada Zane and Zohy Dakota.

What became abundantly clear during our research was that the current model for the HR function where Talent Management is at least 2 if not 3 levels down from the CSuite and with enterprise wide role architecture is suboptimal. 

This has led the Discussion Partner consultants to the conclusion that the current organization model in Human Resources impairs innovation, accountability, and sustainability for Leadership Effectiveness at the highest level of an organization.

To have a dedicated HR function for the most senior levels of an organization is not new.  General Electric and many other organizations have dedicated resources for the “Top 200”.  Essentially this approach focuses mostly on the high potentials possibly to the exclusion of B players, in critical roles or assigned mission essential projects.

Our point of view is there needs to be a more generous interpretation of this effort, one that requires a new title, reporting relationship, role architecture, and competency.

Our model for consideration aligns in the following way.

One could reasonable assert the following two viewpoints:

1. These Positions Exist in HR Already-True….but our point of view as to focus the importance of this effort it should be out of HR for practical reasons
2. The credentials of this role exist: but among various incumbents-True again….but our point is that having this body of expertise and outlook resident in one senior position optimizes effectiveness

The hypothesis of the Discussion Partner consultancy is the time to debate the upgrading of heretofore sub processes into one role is timely.

Staffing IT infrastructure projects is getting more and more problematic. Demands between system support and specialized technical undertakings have increased, while the pool of talent itself evolves before our eyes. “Infrastructure” efforts – a new data center, upgraded network, installation of servers, and desktops, e-mail and voice systems – require trained staff, pulled between providing ongoing service and episodic – though critical – input to technology efforts. This situation will be more complicated as the talent pool changes and the younger technology savvy worker emerges. Writers in recent years have suggested that – in the digital age – the talent geared to work on these technical projects is maturing in a manner not conducive to effective project planning and tracking.

Development roles generally operate within an adopted System Development Lifecycle – Agile, Waterfall, etc. – for a new software product or release. Companies invest heavily in metrics that are continually refined, in part, to protect investment in talent. This practice reinforces the importance of the software engineer in product development. The infrastructure resource, however, roams in the realm of support (ITIL or company custom version) and is periodically assigned to program management (PMO or variation). Specific skills are required for a short time, with tight interdependencies.  For example, the upgrade to web or database servers is often on the critical path of many enterprise wide initiatives, corporate or commercial.  Product an program managers cast a nervous eye at the Dev or QA “environment” build schedule– an amalgam of expensive network switches, racks, storage devices, and servers that have to be nestled,  IP’d and ready to go to meet a strategic schedule.

But, senior stakeholders, the project manager (PM) and the shared resource, the IT infrastructure engineer, are too often reminded that “production is king” and a key milestone may pass if an engineer is delayed in completing a task in order to address a problem affecting services. Most companies – even in good times – do not devote IT staff specifically to capital projects, observing the adage to “not build a church for Easter Sunday.”

The network engineer or system administrator, consequently, is perceived to be “on loan” for specific tasks on a “best effort” basis. The project is just another form of short term work authorization. The engineer may never even look at the plan; the PM is left to gauge the impact of a build or configuration, if missed, with little or no mitigating options. Many have emphasized the multi-tasking – gaming, internet mastering– capabilities of the Net Gen resource. This adaptability could work to the benefit – or the detriment – of the IT infrastructure project.  With a generally short horizon to realizing the product or service, the resource could embrace the repetitive service based tasks… or reject them entirely.

In managing technical project resources in the coming years, we can make some qualified observations to see if they become trends, with the maturity of Net Gen (aka, Gen Y) talent:

-          The Net Gen resource of “Growing Up Digital” (Tapscot) may embrace the episodic nature of IT project work – multiple projects with different stakeholders – but not the repetitive service oriented tasks themselves. (e.g., Build Server, Test circuit.)

 -  Value expressed through core Systems Assurance and Service Delivery disciplines will likely shift as Net Gen staff rises to prominence in IT and resists traditional adherence to standards.

 -  This value shift – and the need to incorporate Net Gen tendencies in the formulation of IT project tasks and the service catalogue may tax companies, led by traditionalists and boomers, in the coming years.

In “Growing Up Digital,” Daniel Tapscott focused on “bathed in bits” children – those between 2 and 22 in 2000. He favorably characterized them as “tolerant of diversity, self-confident, curious, assertive, self-reliant, contrarian and flexible”. These traits, he points out, are a result of this generation’s exposure to the Net, the fluid interchange of information and interactive modes of communication. In cyberspace, he says, there are no hierarchies and the readily available access to information has created in its young “netizens” the quest to search for and be critical of information.

This portrait, no doubt, is a celebration of emerging individuality, the profile of an engaging, sophisticated generation. However, it does not suggest the discipline and sublimation of self needed to build, for example, a required set of 20 Windows 2008 servers in a three day period. Such work is specialized, repetitive and often tedious. It does not allow for diversity, curiosity and a contrarian spirit.

In his follow-up book, “Grown Up Digital,” Tapscott dedicates a chapter to the “The Net Generation Brain.” Exploring “multi-tasking,” he cites an Oxford Future of the Mind Institute study. Net Geners, 18 -21 years of age performed 10% better than a group aged 35 – 39 (a range which includes many current IT engineers.)  Factoring in interruptions from communication based messages (phone call, call text message, or IM), Net Geners lost their competitive advantage. “The thirtysomethings caught up in speed and accuracy.” Despite thinking quicker (spurred by games and internet paging), the Net Geners are “less effective at recovering from disruption when faced with a complex cognitive task.” This is but one study but the author doesn’t really attempt to refute it expect with references of Net Geners’ focus with games and electronic matters that interest them. Attention deficit traits are not a concern but a choice.

In “The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don’t Trust Anyone Under 30),” Mark Baurlein presents s different picture. While IQ scores have gone up consistently – 3 points a decade since WWII – he contends that Net Geners are “culturally ignorant” while being “mentally agile.” He feels that they don’t read the great works of literature. The digital age, he feels, is fostering ignorance.

Whether or not one agrees with Tapscott or Baurlien, the underlying concern here is the need to evaluate how the talent in this emerging generation may behave differently in an already underemphasized sphere of work, the IT Infrastructure. The nature of the work, while technical in nature, may not appeal to the curious Net Gener described by Tapscott.

Infrastructure generally isn’t sexy; it’s, at best, reliable. It’s not that infrastructure isn’t noticed – if we were to walk into a room, flip a switch and see that a bulb is out, we might consider Edison. We just don’t consider that his invention is now successfully indivisible, that “light,” is easy enough to engineer and provide, regardless of the function of the room it sheds on.  

Infrastructure staff enjoys a flexible though often secondary role in the business hierarchy. They are often tempered professionals who, after years of repetition and observation, are likely to shake their heads in deference… after completing the task. They would agree, of course, that emphasis should remain with the products and commercial services the company presents.  Studies in recent years suggest that a PM’s ability to effectively manage less compelling or product oriented projects with the “Net Gen” resources may replace rumblings with indifference. 

International organizations such as the Project Management Institute (PMI) have taken devoted bodies of knowledge to the fieldof Resource Management.  This orientation includes discussions on functional vs. cross-functional resource allocation; resource management is a key element to activity resource estimating and project human resource management. These components of a comprehensive project plan are recognized and practiced by PMs worldwide. The PMI has promoted “resource leveling,” a technique aimed at smoothing available resources, reducing excesses and shortages. With a goal of 100% utilization, the underlying principle is to invest in resources as stored capabilities, and then unleash the capabilities as demanded.

To the qualified observations, expressed earlier, and whether or not they may lead to trends, one could conclude that the future “stored capability” known as the Net Gener, poised at the technology gate, may not easily lend it to “leveling” or other techniques that promote standardization and uniformity. The IT Project Manager will need to appreciate that the diversity of the stakeholders and interests served may entice interest while the repetitive nature of the tasks may dispel the future worker described by Tapscott.

To maintain the gains in quality and service oriented disciplines of recent decades, senior managers will need to invest effort and skill in evaluating program management options with respect to diversity – and age – of talent in project resource management. The values and inclinations of the Net Gener may not favorably cast them for IT Infrastructure projects.

What became abundantly clear during our research was that the current model for the HR function where Talent Management is at least 2 if not 3 levels down from the CSuite and with enterprise wide role architecture is suboptimal. 

This has led the Discussion Partner consultants to the conclusion that the current organization model in Human Resources impairs innovation, accountability, and sustainability for Leadership Effectiveness at the highest level of an organization.

To have a dedicated HR function for the most senior levels of an organization is not new.  General Electric and many other organizations have dedicated resources for the “Top 200”.  Essentially this approach focuses mostly on the high potentials possibly to the exclusion of B players, in critical roles or assigned mission essential projects.

Our point of view is there needs to be a more generous interpretation of this effort, one that requires a new title, reporting relationship, role architecture, and competency.

Our model for consideration aligns in the following way.

Title-

Chief Leadership Effectiveness Officer (CLEO)

Reporting Relationship(s)-

Direct Line-Board of Directors

                                                Dotted Line-CEO

Role Architecture-

• Succession Planning Top 3 Levels
• Recruitment/Replenishment  Top 3 Levels
• Development Strategy Top 3 Levels
• Executive Compensation Strategy and Administration Top 3 Levels
• Workforce/Continuity Planning Enterprise Wide
• Thought Leadership Facilitated Access-Board, CEO and CEO Direct Reports(facilitate access to thought leaders for education/edification purposes

Desired Competencies-

1. 1.   Strategic Planning Expertise
2. 2.   Executive Coaching/Facilitation Experience
3. 3.   Leadership Assessment Orientation(not necessarily Practitioner)
4. 4.   Working Knowledge of Executive Compensation Strategy and Programs
5. 5.   Thought Leadership Credentials(writing, academia, other)

One could reasonable assert the following two viewpoints:

1)   These Positions Exist in HR Already-True….but our point of view as to focus the importance of this effort it should be out of HR for practical reasons

2)   The credentials of this role exist: but among various incumbents-True again….but our point is that having this body of expertise and outlook resident in one senior position optimizes effectiveness

The hypothesis of the Discussion Partner consultancy is the time to debate the upgrading of heretofore sub processes into one role is timely.

                             Question                                             Respondents

1. How many of you were born outside the US?                0
2. How many of you have had 10 years as an Expat?      0
3. How many of you have had 5 years as an Expat?        0
4. How many of you have had 1to2 years as an Expat?  2                
5. How many of you are fluent in a second language?   3
6. How many of you spend at least 60 days Int’l travel 5
7. How many of you like Italian food?                                     13

Although the quiz can be construed as tongue in cheek humiliation, it is also a proof point.  As a general rule the HR leadership of US centric “global companies” for the most part is rather parochial we would submit even if they travel extensively outside the US.

In our research for the book Talent Readiness-The Future Is Now! we conducted a survey of 150 CEO’s on their aspirational expectations of the Human Capital function. 

Among the top 10 responses was “assist leadership in becoming a truly global enterprise”.  31 of the CEO’s were headquartered outside the US.

We are not sure that there is sufficient time for every senior HRM to master the advanced levels of a Rosetta Stone course, or persuade the 2 outliers of the benefits of mozzarella….yet there is a need for the domain to respond to this deficiency in orientation, outlook, in order to satisfy CEO expectations. 

There are 5 practices that are emerging that may be useful.

1)   90 Day Wonders-It is somewhat of a military model whereby Officer Candidate School is this duration.  Our recommendation is that the most senior HR managers be required to spend at least 90 days on business travel.

2)   Knowledge Transfer-Use of Executive Coaches whom have lived and worked in the regions who can advise executives on mores and approaches for assimilation

3)   Rotation-Reverse the model of sending Americans overseas in favor of having high potential targets coming to the US for semi-permanent placement as part of a longer term HR Succession Plan.  

4)   Non Exclusionary Development-Look for opportunities for HRM’s from outside the US to participate in company sponsored events/training in the US even accompanying their cognizant manager vs. relying on them to have knowledge be communicated

5)   Change the Hiring Profile for US HRM’s-Embed into the desired qualifications.  Basically change the game!

For a Global HR entity to set as a goal “in five years 50% of our staff to come from outside the US or have an international orientation through their family or education” is ambitious.  Yet compare that to the revenue stream that is expected to be derived from non US operations.  This compare and contrast exercise has its merits.

Our research would indicate that the CEO’s do not expect their US centric HR mangers, or we hasten to point out would those CEO’s who were from outside the US, “become global by exporting practices and processes”.

One Canadian CEO stated it well “To be Global HR need to Be Global”.

In the recent past we have worked with a number of global clients on their HR Operating Model.  The CSuite research we have been undertaking clearly points to the need for not only a more global orientation, simplified processes and practices: but also a measurement of internal customer satisfaction. 

The CEO’s have it right….as we emerge from the Global Recession; a strong Employer Brand is the threshold for workforce replenishment.  The progress thereto must be tracked.

Unfortunately one, if not the, most critical role in the HR model to satisfy this interest is that of the Business Partner.  Yet time and time again we are saddened in the prosecution or our client work to discern that the loyalty of this group fulfills the metaphor of “Elvis has left the building”.

When we probe deeper, it is not an issue of competency!  Moreover it is a lack of affiliation with, or loyalty to, their HR colleagues!

The question is not why…that is unfortunately clear during these difficult times when the function for the most part is being criticized while focused on unpleasant tasks such as restructuring, SSO creation. benefits modification, curtailment and elimination of services.  In these times  who wants to be “one of them”!  Yet whether it be dotted or straight line reporting, distant or proximate location….get used to it…..you are one of them!

Our client work, beyond the antipathy  this phenomenon prompts, mostly concludes, that the mantra from an HRBP of “if only HR” diminishes not only the Business Partner incumbent, it complicates the Functional Strategic Intent.

So what do we mean by diminishment of the Business Partner? We refer to this outcome as one of “Organizational Hostage”.  The leaders/clients to who you have been assigned to serve, ultimately feel distrustful of someone who is not an advocate of their own function and colleagues.  We would submit even more emphatically that this positioning leads to manipulation of the HRBP with the reputation of the HR function being disenfranchised.

We do not see it advantageous to the HR function if the Business Partner promotes the most likely criminal defense of a guilty party ODDI (the other dude did it)!

The reinvention of the HR Operating model this millennium is of paramount importance in a global economy.  It will require HR incumbents to educate, confront, resolve, and collaborate as truly in this function, the power of the whole is the sum of all of its parts.

To be clear…and acknowledged provocative….our recommendation when we unearth Organizational Hostages is to a) transfer them immediately, b) keep a close look on their objectivity and advocacy, c) at the first hint of the replication of bad behaviors, displace.

The end of the recession and all of the growth opportunities that portends will require the energies of serious people, not those who find it convenient to forget they are the “other dude”.