Articles.

If you have not heard yet, Dave Ulrich is back, and we are pleased to have his work in our journal again. In the article "Developing Your Organization's Brand as a Talent Developer," Jon Younger and Norm Smallwood (The RBL Group) join Dave Ulrich (The University of Michigan) in describing the common characteristics of organizations that do this well. These are organizations that turn their commitment to talent development into a core capability and a sustainable competitive advantage in the execution of strategy. The linkage to recruiting, engaging, and retaining employees is explored, as is the role that Human Resources can play in this. This takes more than empty talk or a "strategy of the day"; it takes commitment over time. The nine factors that they describe as consistently present in branded talent developer organizations are:

1. Employee development is a key element of strategy;

2. Growth from within is emphasized;

3. Employee competencies and qualities that matter are very clear;

4. They are relentless recruiters;

5. They have well developed career architectures;

6. They are passionate about training;

7. They are demanding performance managers;

8. They take management coaching and mentoring very seriously; and

9. They understand the positive power of letting talent go, creating an "alma mater" system.

They go on to identify the five roles that HR can take on to build a talent developer brand:

1. Develop the business case;

2. Build the systems and processes;

3. Lead change;

4. Coach; then

5. Build and leverage the reputation.

More quantitative research is needed in support of a framework that makes intuitive sense. In addition, these issues raise the topic of the extent to which a reputation for talent development actually gets factored into investor confidence and therefore the stock price (e.g., GE in the '90s)--a topic that also deserves more research attention. One conclusion needs no additional research: In the war for talent, the organization with the greater earned reputation for talent development will have the edge.

Coaching capability and quality was a key factor in the first article, and is the central topic of the second article. Executive coaching appears to have grown faster as a practice than has the research support to understand its individual and organizational impact. In "What Coaching Can and Cannot Do For Your Organization," Mike McDermott (AES Corporation), Alec Levenson (The University of Southern California), and Suzanne Newton (Capital One Financial Services) explore the impact of coaching in their study of 55 companies. They conclude that coaching programs can make a significant difference in organizational effectiveness by improving teamwork and the ability to execute strategy, and that it was most effective when the emphasis is positive performance outcomes rather than individual remedial issues. They point out the negative implications of using external coaches only in cases in which there is concern about failure and derailment--it can be the kiss of death, which is not how most organizations would want to position coaching.

A limitation of the study is that the data are based on self reports of "the extent to which coaching has a positive effect on each of the following in your organization." Even though the respondents played a role in delivering or coordinating coaching, they tended to be constructively skeptical about the overall effectiveness of coaching. They noted a somewhat disorganized approach to the consistency of the delivery of coaching, and therefore a lack of organizational learning about what works best. Tips for increasing the probability of a successful coaching program include:

1. Deploy it in a systematic and strategic way with visible leadership from the top;

2. Have the discipline to define behavioral objectives and measure success;

3. Integrate coaching with other leadership development programs; and

4. Centrally manage external and internal coaches.

Rarely are all those criteria present, which may account for the floundering of some programs.

Ken De Meuse, Todd Hostager (both from the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire), and Kathryn O'Neill (Rock-Term Company) report on "A Longitudinal Evaluation of Senior Managers' Perceptions and Attitudes of a Workplace Diversity Training Program." The research design was simple and straightforward. It used a pre-test, post-test, and a follow up 90 days after the training. The follow-up component made it somewhat unique for this type study and the literature review is a good summary. The results showed statistically significant improvements resulting from the training, and the maintenance of those improvements over a 90-day time frame. The "most improved" dimensions were emotional reactions (enthusiastic and hopeful vs. frustrated and resentful) and behavioral reactions (support and participation vs. withdrawal and resistance). The 20-item workplace diversity survey and the research to support it are also fully presented, so others may consider its use. The authors conclude that leadership support for diversity should be positioned as a learning opportunity rather than as a simple management directive to participate. Additional research with larger sample sizes, greater diversity in the group studied, and a control group is warranted.

The final article is in keeping with the continuing global focus of HRPS. Irene Hau-Siu Chow (The Chinese University of Hong Kong) and Shan Liu (South China University of Technology) studied 132 organizations in China's high technology industry in the Pearl River Delta and present "Business Strategy, Organizational Culture, and Performance Outcomes in China's Technology Industry." They assess how HR practices (staffing, training, performance appraisal, performance-based pay, information sharing, and participation) influence important knowledge-related performance outcomes (productivity, R&D, product/service quality, market share). These are particularly important questions in China because of their fast growth coupled, perhaps paradoxically, with the historical mindset of the planned, stable socialist economy. The authors observe what I personally experienced recently as the head of HR in Asia Pacific for HP: The future-oriented demands for modern HR expertise are quite different than the more administrative personnel function that characterized China's organizations during the past 50+ years. The "collective" value system is quite different from the entrepreneurial or innovation mindset. Under the collective approach, the focus is on maintaining harmonious group relations and compensation tends to be egalitarian. The entrepreneur's approach focuses more on individualism, autonomy, and pay based on individual performance. Innovative cultures are supported by risk-taking, questioning the status quo, participation, and questioning conventional wisdom--hardly the historical mindset of the typical Chinese worker. High tech industries are faced with fast change and fast growth, and tend to value these innovative characteristics more than traditional manufacturing organizations do, making this industry the ideal one in which to conduct the current study.

The authors showed that two groups of HR practices significantly related to performance outcome measures:

1. The overall capability of the HR organization to deliver effective and efficient services; and

2. The effectiveness of the design of incentives to be more performance-based.

They also showed that two business strategies related to performance outcomes:

1. The existence of strong quality programs for products and services; and

2. A strong commitment to innovation (e.g., being first to introduce new products and services in the market).

Finally, factor analysis showed three cultures emerged as descriptive of the different organizations:

1. Bureaucratic (focused on rules and orderly operations);

2. Sharing (emphasizing learning and a free exchange of information); and

3. Competitive (a personal drive to succeed, with less sharing of information).

The moderating effect of ownership type was also assessed (Hong Kong or Taiwan owned vs. state owned and collective vs. foreign owned or joint venture), showing quite different levels of HR practices.

The authors correctly point out some of the limitations of the study (e.g., self-report perception questions with all variables collected from the same sample); however, it is instructive to see this level of academic rigor in studying one of the most fast-growing economies in the world. This is a crucible in which the ingredients are white hot and the stakes are high. It is also a culture that is not particularly well prepared by its history for the fast-paced change that the modern economy, especially high tech, brings. This study is a great first effort, but we need to continue to learn more about the organizational dynamics and HR practices that can help China in its transition.

Richard M. Vosburgh, Executive Editor

Richard Vosburgh

SVP-HR, Mirage Resorts

MGM MIRAGE

rvosburgb@mgmmirage.com

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates