This might run contrary to our sense of fairness and equality. But in the end it's just good business.

Download this short whitepaper from eCornell and learn 3 reasons why focusing on developing high-potential employees is often a sound business investment. The arguments may give training and HR organizations a different perspective when making difficult decisions about where to focus and invest scarce resources.

This might run contrary to our sense of fairness and equality. But in the end it's just good business.

Download this short whitepaper from eCornell and learn 3 reasons why focusing on developing high-potential employees is often a sound business investment. The arguments may give training and HR organizations a different perspective when making difficult decisions about where to focus and invest scarce resources.

The importance of word of mouth has dramatically increased over time.  One of the key factors is the decrease in trust of big institutions and companies, and increasing trust in “people like me”.  In addition, McKinsey research shows that consumer purchases are primarily influenced by word of mouth, making it one of the most powerful trial generators.

“A brand is no longer what we tell the consumer it is – it is what consumers tell each other it is.” (Scott Cook, Procter & Gamble Board)

• Social Media amplifies and accelerates word of mouth

It can reach more people faster than offline word of mouth.  For the first time ever it’s possible to observe and participate in conversations that take place in real time.

• Social Media drives advocacy

The best use of social media for marketing purposes is to engage with loyal brand fans and help them become active brand advocates, motivating them to make recommendations and provide testimonials on behalf of your brand.  Advocacy will increase brand loyalty and influence others by increasing credibility (“it works”) and relevance (“it’s a brand for me”).

And here is where it is most useful: it helps convince high-potential customers to try your brand.

How Social Media can unleash Advocacy

1.    Set a clear objective

The main marketing purpose of social media is to use consumer advocacy to influence potential customers down the purchase funnel. So the first step is to set a clear objective focused on how to drive high potentials to try your brand.

Examples:

• Create emotional connection to build awareness (“People like us, but they don’t have us top of mind when shopping.”)
• Consumer education (”Why does it cost twice as much as my normal product?”)

2.    Know who are your brand fans and high-potentials

For advocacy to work you need to understand both your prospective advocates and the group of people you would like them to influence.

Understand each group in-depth: What motivates your fans?  Where and how do they express their opinions?  Where do high-potentials seek category and brand information? Who influences them?

3.    Identify and select the best forums to engage

The sheer volume of conversations in the social media space can be overwhelming.  Realize that not all conversations are relevant.  You need to listen and select the most appropriate forums where you want to engage with your brand fans and high-potentials.  Make sure to start from receptivity insights, if these are available.  When selecting the best forums consider the range of topics discussed, context of the forum, level of engagement, degree of influence and reach.  It’s important to be choiceful, it’s not possible to be everywhere.

4.    Engage and reward your brand fans

To engage your brand fans you first need to establish a presence that encourages interaction.  Your fans already want to engage, but you have to enable this.  There are many ways to do this, depending on the interests and motivations of your fans:

• Ratings & reviews
• Competitions to create content
• Participate in existing forums and communities
• Sponsor or create a community

Whatever you do, start modest.  Make sure to listen first to your fans, before you start any major activities.  They will be happy to tell how you can provide value for them.  Then gradually grow your efforts over time. Be ready to make a long-term commitment to your fan community. By energize your brand fans you’ll develop brand ambassadors.

5.    Unleash Advocacy

Once you have established a strong connection with your fans it is time to make the connection with the high-potentials.  Don’t assume these connections happen automatically – you need to facilitate this.  Make sure to do it with a clear purpose in mind: take down the barriers that hold them back from trying your brand.

Embracing brand fans in innovation or co-creation campaigns is one great way of accomplishing this, since the number of “creators” among brand fans is normally high. This facilitates connections between your loyal brand fans and high-potentials, who will become spectators and ultimately also join the conversation.

 What KPIs to measure advocacy?

The best KPIs to measure success of your social media campaign will vary depending on the objective and strategy you set. It’s important to choose the KPIs that will allow not just measuring success but also constant testing and optimisation. Remember that KPIs must always translate into action! The main ones to consider are:

• Interactions on social media: amount of likes, comments, tagging and shares
• Post impressions, views and % feedback
• Monthly and daily active users
• Amount of unlikes and unsubscribes
• Content engagement and % feedback
• Campaign response rates
• Campaign conversion rates
• Cost per acquisition
• Activity of retained visitors
• Heavy users share

Even in these economic times, employees are quitting their jobs and it may be costing more than you know!

At a recent cocktail party, I was pleased to hear a change in the buzz.  Finally, the conversations were taking a break from all the political campaigning.  Instead, the chatter was focused on the economy.  Several debated whether we were headed for major inflation or deflation.  Others underscored the need to create more jobs.   Many nodded in agreement to the various comments:  “People are lucky just to have a job.”  “Employees should just hunker down and ride out the storm.”  “We sure don’t need to worry about turnover right now – no one is going to leave in this bad economy.”

Really?  As usual, I had to chime in … people are changing jobs at high levels and I predict it will get worse.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that across all sectors, annual voluntary turnover is tracking at a bit over 20%.  That is pretty significant and pretty costly–the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) estimates that it costs a company $370K to replace one employee with a base salary of $90K per year.  This “replacement cost” number is much larger for: (1) top-performers, or (2) more senior positions.

Based upon the research, consider a company with 100 employees and an average $90K base salary:

        Replacement cost/person=                             $370,000

       20% of 100 employees=                                    x       20

       Total replacement cost for one year=           $7,400,000

That seems astronomical to me.  So even if the DOL is off by 50%, that number is still significant.  For a 100 employee firm, that could well wipe out the net profit for that year.  How much do you think it is costing your organization?

A key basic for companies is to hire the right people for the right positions and then treat them right so that they perform and stay.  Leaders need to realize that employees leave managers first and companies second.  Although they claim money or opportunity as a cause when asked in an exit interview, the real cause is their manager.  The real reason is captured through post interviews six months later – not feeling appreciated by my manager.

By providing human capital analytics and training for leaders and managers, companies can minimize the turnover and save those expensive replacement costs.  To me, there is nothing more rewarding then creating positive and high-performing organizations. 

Please share your comments and thoughts on Nancy L. Clark’s blog.

First, leadership development can be a question that asks, “who are the individuals we need to prepare to fill critical new roles in the organization.” This question leads to several questions that are much more simple to begin answering. What roles are we going to need to fill either through growth, new markets, or the natural flow of promotions, retirement etc. Then who are the people who we want to identify to begin preparing to fill those roles. Finally, what are we going to do to make them successful.  These are three easy questions that all lead to a simple and straight forward leadership development plan.

Second, leadership development can be a question that asks, “how do we need to do our work differently or better than we do today to continue to grow and compete as a company.” The answer to this question is less around getting certain people to prepare for and accept new roles. It is a question of general capability that you want to build within your people across the organization, or a segment of an organization. These can be a mix of skills, knowledge or observable behaviors that you want to build. Once you know what those desired behaviors are, you can begin putting together a plan to inspire their adoption or creation.

The key is to take this really big question and break it down into questions that can actually be digested and lead to doable and easily understood plans and activities.

Nothing is better for business than a worthy opponent!

By Nancy L. Clark 

 Good competitors make you better; bad competitors can pollute the industry.  Just ask Chevron, Shell, and others.  The embarrassing reaction from BP (British Petroleum) to the disaster, amplified by its poor safety record, hurts not only BP, but also the whole industry – guilt by association runs rampant. 

Some might be surprised to know that many of the top oil companies immediately offered their services to BP in order to find a solution to the raging gulf tragedy.  Having consulted to one of the top and most safety conscious energy companies in the world, I can attest to their concern for the gulf and to the embarrassment caused by BP to the energy industry.  Even prior to the gulf disaster, the general feeling was one of distress over BP’s safety. 

The cost to the environment and to the industry is huge.  BP’s action or lack of action hurts everyone – wildlife, business owners, workers, and competitors.  Consequently, good, responsible, and safety conscious competitors are best. 

That is true even on a smaller, more local level. I recently heard a story that truly epitomizes über competition.  To recount the story, a farmer enters his crop each year at the state fair.  And, each year he wins.  At the conclusion of the fair, he gives away his prize-winning seeds to any and all, even his competitors.  When asked why he would do such a foolish thing, his response is simple.  He recognizes that his crop and his seeds are impacted by the farms around him — the better their crops, the better his crops.  By helping them, he helps himself, and improves the whole market. 

A healthy rivalry can be personally life changing as well.  I remember my grammar school competitor, Nancy Tague.  She was the smartest girl in the school.  Unknowingly, she made me better.  I studied harder because I wanted to beat her in math.  It wasn’t vicious on my part.  But I knew that I better hit the books a little harder, think a little deeper, and try a little more.  Without Nancy, I most likely would have slacked off.  Thank you Nancy, wherever you are.  You were a worthy competitor … and because of you I am better.

So next time you feel out maneuvered by your competitor, be thankful.  Take it as a gift and use it to up your game! 

Please share your comments and thoughts on Nancy L. Clark’s blog.

So, how does the bright shining star get tarnished? Simply put, it’s through Management Missteps such as:

1. Assuming high potential employees are engaged in the business – Just because these employees have been anointed as the best and the brightest, don’t assume they are delivering that discretionary effort needed to take your organization to the next level. As a matter of fact, the Corporate Leadership Council’s research demonstrated that:

• 25% of your emerging leaders intend to leave your organization within 12 months
• 33% admits to not putting all their effort into their job
• 20% believes their personal aspirations do not match the aspirations of the company
• 40% have little confidence in their co-workers and even less in their senior leaders

2. Mistaking high performers for high potentials – High performers are a talent rich group of employees that every company wishes they had more of, but don’t mistake current high performance with the ability or desire to lead at the next level. Seventy percent of today’s top performers lack critical characteristics needed to succeed in future roles.

3. Delegating the development of high potentials to line leadership – this is an easy mistake for companies to make. After all, who knows their people and their talents better than their immediate manager? But when managers attempt to develop talent they are often short sighted because their scope of vision is limited by the size and complexity of their business unit. These limitations can result in candidates being selected for growth opportunities only on the basis of their recent performance in a limited and protected role.

4. Protecting high potentials from crashing and burning – no one wants to see a talented employee crash and burn, but by shielding these rising stars, you may actually be stifling their development and putting the business at greater risk in the long term. True leadership development takes place when emerging talent is tried by fire where new capabilities must be acquired to survive.

5. Expecting emerging stars to “share the pain” – the past 2 years have caused a lot of organizations to take drastic measures to cut costs just to survive. But implementing across the board pay freezes or salary cuts quickly disillusions high potential employees, who generally contribute 20% more effort than their peers, resulting in disengagement from the business. Considering that highly disengaged employees’ discretionary effort is sometimes 50% lower than engaged employees, what CEO can afford to lose that kind of productivity from their core contributors, especially when they are trying to emerge from the worst economic time since the Great Depression?

6. Failing to align emerging leaders to your corporate strategy – high potential employees are often considered high potentials because they are intuitive and decisive. They are acutely aware of the health of your organization and have very specific ideas about the direction you should be heading. But if in difficult times you cease sharing your strategy with these superstars, you run the risk of disengaging them just when their talent is needed the most.

Your emerging leaders are your company’s very future. They are the ones who will launch new businesses, develop new products, find new ways to eliminate waste and reduce costs, build dynamic customer relationships and drive innovation – you can’t afford to derail them through management missteps.

Read more – click this link:  Improve your odds in 2010

Obviously, there isn’t one universally accepted definition for leadership, and clearly, there isn’t one right way to lead.

So, is investing in leadership development still important in our age of cutbacks and shrinking budgets? Yes.

Paula Ketter, editor of T+D magazine, reminded readers of her March 2010 column that  “experts agree enlightened leadership begets engaged employees.”

She suggests we do it right and look at what’s missing to help corporations:

Ketter stated, also in her March 2010 column, “Leadership development should be created around an organization’s culture and should mirror the values and the goals of that culture.”

She also said, “High potentials tend to have the business and technical skills needed to create successful organizational strategy, but many are lacking the interpersonal skills to motivate employees and communicate effectively.”

What so often is described as “soft skills” are the very things that are critical for moving an organization and driving hard results.

What are you doing for yourself and for your employees to enhance your interpersonal and communication skills?

There are many free tips and techniques on our website that will help you communicate with clarity and conviction. Give us a call today and we can craft a communication solution for you and your team.

One argument centres on employee engagement. After the hi-pos and future leaders have spent time on the ‘project work’, even assuming the project has been meaningful and well-conducted, it is in rare cases indeed that organisations pick those projects up as part of the business strategy or subsequently delegate them to mainstream workers to implement. In many cases if the project was that business critical it would have been on the regular agenda and not saved up as a nice ‘to do’ for participants on a LMD program; and will now ultimately be work that will  ‘expire’ its use-by date (particularly where research is concerned) sitting in some HR Director’s file. Thus participants of LMD programs could feel like they put considerable energy into a substancial side project only for that project to be parked. For hi-pos this could potentially undo any feelings of ‘specialness’ or achievement gained from program participation; and adversely affect their retention.

A solution to this could well be what some financial institutions are doing – aligning the project work to the agenda and needs of a community parter. In this way, participants are still working on ‘real world’ problems, but addressing them for a charitable organisation that is likely to really need them; and really implement them. There are several nice aspects of this model – with participants liasing with a third party and therefore extending the organisation’s community presence; relating this ‘charitable’ experiences back to their role with the employer through some reflective work; and not least of all – taking on the added challenge of transitioning their work to the partner organisation’s own staff in a sustainable fashion at the end of the action learning period.

Another argument for the death of LMD ‘action learning’ projects has been more academic. Some have argued that in the thirst for business schools to continue in attracting industry funding, they have diverted to running incredibly practicalist, niche executive programs that actively avoid management theory. Trank & Rynes (2003) for example have argued that business schools have become ‘glorified vocational schools’, with resources directed away from research and towards satisfying the corporate world’s interest in short term gains and shareholder interest – and so design courses for specialist skills and current trends (as we see with current courses focusing on lean, six sigma, supply chain transformation, international marketing and metrics). Much of the original value of LMD project work has been eroded because – in the many cases where business schools are running or consulting on inhouse LMD programs – they aren’t teaching the theory to put into practice. Participants are learning highly functional techniques in the course content rather than models and theories they need to learn and practice applying to the right situations. So in other words, if you’re only learning the practical, do you really need to practice it?

The solution to this second issue is more absolutely more complex. I don’t think many organisations would argue that many of the LMD programs run for future leaders and hi-pos aren’t aligned to very specific competencies and often competency gaps. The more functional solutions thus held up by business schools sound attractive and specific in addressing these; and are often in the language of the organisation. They are simpler to sign off on than a program featuring a high amount of conceptual theory; and equally seem simpler to measure for ROI.  Employees themselves will often see a functional program as more attractive because they get a clearer idea – sometimes even a checklist! – of ‘take-away’ skills they will obtain, often with an appealing emphasis employability and relevance.  Picking a more theoretical program might better justify action learning; but currently, it simply isn’t attractive to organisations.

So is the worth of ‘action learning’ dead? Certainly not if you think about the wider definition of it being experiential application of learning; though in its typical organisation use for LMD programs it absolutely has some problems to overcome. What we really need are some more innovative models to the traditional ‘group project’ that will keep employees engaged; deliver real value to the organisation; and contain the right balance of theory and technique to satisfy the business but best develop more than just technically-skilled leaders and managers.

One argument centres on employee engagement. After the hi-pos and future leaders have spent time on the ‘project work’, even assuming the project has been meaningful and well-conducted, it is in rare cases indeed that organisations pick those projects up as part of the business strategy or subsequently delegate them to mainstream workers to implement. In many cases if the project was that business critical it would have been on the regular agenda and not saved up as a nice ‘to do’ for participants on a LMD program; and will now ultimately be work that will  ‘expire’ its use-by date (particularly where research is concerned) sitting in some HR Director’s file. Thus participants of LMD programs could feel like they put considerable energy into a substancial side project only for that project to be parked. For hi-pos this could potentially undo any feelings of ‘specialness’ or achievement gained from program participation; and adversely affect their retention.

A solution to this could well be what some financial institutions are doing – aligning the project work to the agenda and needs of a community parter. In this way, participants are still working on ‘real world’ problems, but addressing them for a charitable organisation that is likely to really need them; and really implement them. There are several nice aspects of this model – with participants liasing with a third party and therefore extending the organisation’s community presence; relating this ‘charitable’ experiences back to their role with the employer through some reflective work; and not least of all – taking on the added challenge of transitioning their work to the partner organisation’s own staff in a sustainable fashion at the end of the action learning period.

Another argument for the death of LMD ‘action learning’ projects has been more academic. Some have argued that in the thirst for business schools to continue in attracting industry funding, they have diverted to running incredibly practicalist, niche executive programs that actively avoid management theory. Trank & Rynes (2003) for example have argued that business schools have become ‘glorified vocational schools’, with resources directed away from research and towards satisfying the corporate world’s interest in short term gains and shareholder interest – and so design courses for specialist skills and current trends (as we see with current courses focusing on lean, six sigma, supply chain transformation, international marketing and metrics). Much of the original value of LMD project work has been eroded because – in the many cases where business schools are running or consulting on inhouse LMD programs – they aren’t teaching the theory to put into practice. Participants are learning highly functional techniques in the course content rather than models and theories they need to learn and practice applying to the right situations. So in other words, if you’re only learning the practical, do you really need to practice it?

The solution to this second issue is more absolutely more complex. I don’t think many organisations would argue that many of the LMD programs run for future leaders and hi-pos aren’t aligned to very specific competencies and often competency gaps. The more functional solutions thus held up by business schools sound attractive and specific in addressing these; and are often in the language of the organisation. They are simpler to sign off on than a program featuring a high amount of conceptual theory; and equally seem simpler to measure for ROI.  Employees themselves will often see a functional program as more attractive because they get a clearer idea – sometimes even a checklist! – of ‘take-away’ skills they will obtain, often with an appealing emphasis employability and relevance.  Picking a more theoretical program might better justify action learning; but currently, it simply isn’t attractive to organisations.

So is the worth of ‘action learning’ dead? Certainly not if you think about the wider definition of it being experiential application of learning; though in its typical organisation use for LMD programs it absolutely has some problems to overcome. What we really need are some more innovative models to the traditional ‘group project’ that will keep employees engaged; deliver real value to the organisation; and contain the right balance of theory and technique to satisfy the business but best develop more than just technically-skilled leaders and managers.

these strategies that significantly enhance the development of high potentials:

• Structured challenges

• Executive coaching and follow through

• Action learning programs

• Tracking of high-potential promotions through a high potential technology platform

• Deepening 360º feedback

• Institutionalizing personal development

• Cultivation of  informal networks

1. Develop high potentials or facilitate transition - 48%
2. Act as a sounding board – 26%
3. Address derailing behavior – 12%

Rob VeVerka
http://toplevelcoaching.com

Ich hoffe, dass sich ca. 300 Personen aus diesen Zielgruppen dazu hinreißen lassen, an der Umfrage, die etwa 15 Minuten dauert, teilzunehmen. Umsonst soll das ja auch nicht sein. Immerhin sponsort die AUDI AG die Umfrage mit zwei Tankgutscheinen im Wert von je 240 Euro. Mitmachen lohnt sich also.

Hintergrund der Masterarbeit ist es herauszufinden, welche Wertorientierungen und davon abgeleitet welche Attraktivitätsfaktoren potenzielle Bewerber/Mitarbeiter als wichtig erachten und welche Berufsorientierungen diese aufweisen.
Auf Basis dieser Informationen ist es möglich,
1. die Kernattraktivität der AUDI AG (im Vergleich zu anderen Arbeitgebern) zu bestimmten,
2. die Schwachstellen, die sich aus der Differenz zwischen Bedürfnissen und Erwartungshaltungen gegenüber Audi hinsichtlich der Befriedigung dieser Bedürfnisse ergeben, ersichtlich zu machen und
3. die Kommunikationsinhalte des Personalmarketing zielgruppenindividuell gestalten bzw. anzupassen,
um letzten Endes die Attraktivität der AUDI AG als Arbeitgebermarke (Employer Brand) und daraus folgend die Wahrscheinlichkeit der Organisationswahlentscheidung qualifizierter und möglicher Mitarbeiter von morgen “Pro Audi” zu erhöhen.

Weitergedacht haben die aus der Studie gewonnenen Informationen natürlich auch Auswirkungen auf die Organisationsentwicklung bzw. das Personalmanagement. Weiß ich über die Wert- und Berufsorientierungen meiner Mitarbeiter Bescheid, kann ich den organisationalen Rahmen (grob gesagt das Arbeitsumfeld) so gestalten, dass sich das Commitment und die Motivation und daraus abgeleitet die Leistung meiner Mitarbeiter erhöht.
Gleichzeitig kann ich mittels Längsschnittbefragungen nach dem unmittelbaren Eintritt in das Unternehmen, nach einem, zwei, drei etc. Jahren Aufschluss darüber erhalten, wie sich das Bild, das die Mitarbeiter von Audi als Arbeitgeber haben, im Laufe der Zeit verändert hat und ob sich Verschiebungen in der Präferenz bestimmter Attraktivitätsmerkmale (z.B. in der Dimension Work-Life-Balance vs. beruflicher Aufstieg) ergeben haben.

Wer zur Umfrage bzw. allgemein zu Masterarbeit Fragen hat, kann mich gerne kontaktieren.
Ich bin jedem dankbar, der sich an der Umfrage beteiligt und mich in meiner wissenschaftlichen Abschlussarbeit unterstützt!
Also entweder auf audi.de/karriere oder direkt dem Link zur Umfrage folgen. Danke!

UPDATE: Die Umfrage ist heute, am 16.01.09, geschlossen worden. Danke an alle, die sich beteilgt haben. Die Anzahl kann sich sehen lassen!