The 2009 Learning and Development survey provides data on current and future learning and development issues and trends. This year we have explored the areas of employee skills, talent management, coaching and technology as well as economic influences and training spend.

CIPD – Learning and development: summary of key survey findings.

Most people would accept that the ability to learn, and the ease of that learning, makes a difference in life. But, is someone who is more able to learn, more easily and in many different situations, better equipped to be a better leader?

Lombardo and Eichinger call this “learning agility”, and suggest that learning-agile people exhibit common traits: They:

• think critically and examine problems carefully, making fresh connections with comparative ease.
• are very self-aware, know and leverage their strengths effectively and know how to compensate for their weaknesses.
• enjoy experimenting and are comfortable with change.

• deliver results in through team-building and personal drive.

Learning agility is manifested in several ways. For example, there’s mental agility.

Learning-agile people have and use more tools for problem-solving. They use the emotional and logical sides of their brains equally well and easily. They can prioritize the urgent and the visionary and strategic issues.

Learning-agile people have results agility.

They show personal drive and can build teams. From this team-building ability they also develop their people agility. Comfortable with themselves and with diversity, they balance intra and inter-personal skills effectively. They will tend to be open-minded, non-judgmental about ideas and other people. Able to deal with and embrace change, they know which battles to fight and establish consensus when appropriate.

Lastly, they are conflict agile,

Learning-agile people know when to collaborate and when to compete. They know when to accommodate others and when to avoid conflict altogether.

Assessing learning agility

How can you identify learning-agile performers in your organization and position them for success within your organization?

A learning-agile person can be expected to exhibit success when dealing with new or difficult situations. You can expect them to volunteer for new experiences and will likely rise to informal (or formal) leadership roles in teams.

Once identified, deliberately try and move them out of their area of apparent expertise to a new area. Observe how they perform and how they relate to new colleagues, to new leadership styles, to a customer-facing role or to the back-office. Watch carefully for how they deal with different personalities and attitudes and people of different backgrounds.

Lombardo and Eichinger use a formula of diversity, adversity, intensity and complexity of experiences, combined with a willingness to learn as a formula for success. Learning-agile people will excel at:

• Turnaround projects – problems that need fixing
• Startups – starting a program, product, system or facility from scratch.
• Cross-functional moves.
• Line-to-staff moves — learning how to influence without authority.
• Changes in scope of projects and changes in scale or size.

All of these experiences requires the person needs to acquire competencies rapidly through the experience, feedback and integration of knowledge, skills and abilities.

Seriously consider how you might identify your own learning-agile people. They have the potential to succeed exceptionally in your organization.

Why identify learning-agility?

Michaels, et al (2001) in “The War for Talent studies” found just 7% of respondents agreed their companies had enough talented managers! Just 3% agreed with the statement: “We develop people effectively.” Sessa & Campbell, (1997) found that a third to three-quarters of new top executives fail in their first appointment! A third of Fortune 500 CEO’s have been replaced in the last 10 years (Bennis & O’Toole, 2000; Charan & Colvin, 1999). Such results have many causes, but one implication is that organizations have great difficulty in spotting and nurturing talent that has staying power once in key positions.

Someone with “high potential” is a person who has an open willingness and ability to learn competencies required for first-time, challenging conditions. They deliberately choose to learn and review their outcomes and make adjustments in their behaviours and skills to improve performance.

Competence and competency

The concept of competence remains one of the most diffuse terms in the organisational and occupational literature (Nordhaug and Gronhaug, 1994). Exactly what does an author mean when using any of the terms of competence?

The concept of individual competence is widely used in human resource management (Boyatzis, 1982, Schroder, 1989, Burgoyne, 1993). This refers to a set of skills that an individual must possess in order to be capable of satisfactorily performing a specified job. Although the concept is well developed, there is continuing debate about its precise meaning.

Others take a job-based competence view that according to Robotham and Jubb (1996) can be applied to any type of business where the competence-based system is based on identifying a list of key activities (McAuley, 1994) and behaviours identified through observing managers in the course of doing their job.

A useful view is to look at competence to mean a skill and the standard of performance, whilst competency refers to behaviour by which it is achieved (Rowe, 1995). That is, competence describes what people do and competency describes how people do it.

Rowe (1995, p16) further distinguishes the attributes an individual exhibits as “morally based” behaviours – these are important drivers of behaviours but especially difficult to measure – and “intellectually based” behaviours as capabilities or competencies. Capabilities are distinguished as these refer to development behaviours – i.e. are graded to note development areas to improve behaviours in how people undertake particular tasks.

Young (2002) develops on a similar theme and builds on Sarawano’s (1993) model, linking competency and competence to performance and identifies competency as a personal characteristic (motives, traits, image/role and knowledge) and how the individual behaves (skill). Competence is what a manager is required to do – the job activities (functions, tasks). These in turn lead to performance of the individual [manager].

Jacobs (1989) considers a distinction between hard and soft competences. Soft competences refer to such items as creativity and sensitivity, and comprise more of the personal qualities that lie behind behaviour. These items are viewed as being conceptually different from hard competences, such as the ability to be well organised. Jacob’s distinction fits neatly into Young’s model with hard competences referring to identifiable behaviours, and soft competences as the personal characteristics of the individual.

Further distinctions relate to the usefulness of measuring competenc[i]es. Cockerill et al. (1995) define threshold and high-performance competences. Threshold competences are units of behaviour which are used by job holders, but which are not considered to be associated with superior performance. They can be thought of as defining the minimum requirements of a job. High performance competences, in contrast, are behaviours that are associated with individuals who perform their jobs at a superior level.

In the UK, the Constable and McCormick Report (1987) suggested that the skill base within UK organisations could no longer keep pace with the then developing business climate. In response, the Management Charter Initiative sought to create a standard model where competence is recognised in the form of job-specific outcomes. Thus, competence is judged on performance of an individual in a specific job role. The competences required in each job role are defined through means of a functional analysis – a top-down process resulting in four levels of description:

• Key purpose
• Key role
• Units of competence
• Elements of competence

Elements are broken down into performance criteria, which describe the characteristics of competent performance, and range statements, which specify the range of situations or contexts in which the competence should be displayed.

The MCI model now includes personal competence, missing in the original, addressing some of the criticisms levelled at the MCI standards. Though the model tends to ignore personal behaviours which may underpin some performance characteristics, particularly in the area of management, where recent work has indicated the importance of behavioural characteristics such as self-confidence, sensitivity, proactivity and stamina.

The US approach to management competence, on the other hand, has focused heavily on behaviours. Boyatzis (1982) identifies a number of behaviours useful for specifying behavioural competence. Schroder (1989) also offers insights into the personal competencies which contribute to effective professional performance.

Personal competencies and their identifying behaviours form the backbone of many company-specific competency frameworks and are used extensively in assessment centres for selection purposes. This is because behavioural (or personal) competence may be a better predictor of capability – i.e. the potential to perform in future posts – than functional competence – which attests to competence in current post. The main weakness of the personal competence approach, according to Cheetham and Chivers(1996), is that it doesn’t define or assure effective performance within the job role in terms of the outcomes achieved.

In his seminal work “The Reflective Practitioner”, Schon (1983) attempts to define the nature of professional practice. He challenges the orthodoxy of technical rationality – the belief that professionals solve problems by simply applying specialist or scientific knowledge. Instead, Schon offers a new epistemology of professional practice of ‘knowing-in-action’ – a form of acquired tacit knowledge – and ‘reflection’ – the ability to learn through and within practice. Schon argues that reflection (both reflection in action and reflection about action) is vital to the process professionals go through in reframing and resolving day-to-day problems that are not answered by the simple application of scientific or technical principles.

Schon (1983) does not offer a comprehensive model of professional competence, rather he argues that the primary competence of any professional is the ability to reflect – this being key to acquiring all other competencies in the cycle of continuous improvement.

There are criticisms of competency-based approaches to management and these tend to argue that managerial tasks are very special in nature, making it impossible to capture and define the required competences or competencies(Wille, 1989). Other writers argue that management skills and competences are too complex and varied to define (Hirsh, 1989, Canning, 1990) and it is an exercise in futility to try and capture them in a mechanistic, reductionist way (Collin, 1989). Burgoyne (1988) suggests that the competence-based approach places too much emphasis on the individual and neglects the importance of organisational development in making management development effective. It has also been argued that generic lists of managerial competences cannot be applied across the diversity of organisations(Burgoyne, 1989b, Canning, 1990).

Linking competency models to organisation outcomes

Some writers have identified competencies that are considered to be generic and overarching across all occupations. Reynolds and Snell(1988) identify ‘meta-qualities’ – creativity, mental agility and balanced learning skill – that they believe reinforces other qualities. Hall(1986) uses the term ‘meta-skills’ – as skills in acquiring other skills. Linstead (1991) and Nordhaug and Gronhaug (1994) use the term ‘meta-competencies’ to describe similar characteristics. The concept of meta-competence falls short of providing a holistic, workable model, but it does suggest that there are certain key competencies that overarch a whole range of others.

There is however, some doubt about the practicability of breaking down the entity of management into its constituent behaviours (Burgoyne, 1989a). This suggests that the practice of management is almost an activity that should be considered only from a holistic viewpoint.

Baker et al. (1997) link the various types of competence by first establishing a hierarchy of congruence as a backbone to the model. In broad terms, they describe the congruence of an entity to be the degree of match or fit between some external driver to the entity and the response of that entity to the driver. This method enables them to take into consideration the idea that management, as an entity, and the individuals who perform the function do so within a particular environment. Measurement of congruence or goodness of fit, has been attempted in studies of operations(Cleveland et al., 1989, Vickery, 1991). Baker et al.’s hierarchy is shown in Figure below, with four levels of congruence: 1) Organisation level, 2) Core business process level, 3) Sub-process within core process level, and 4) Individuals level.

At the organisation level, there is congruence when a firm adopts a strategy that is consistent with the competitive priorities derived from the firm’s business environment. The strategy, in turn, determines the operational priorities of the firm, following Platts and Gregory(1990), Baker et al. (1997) using their own terminology, consider these operational priorities to drive the core processes of the firm. These, in turn, can be broken down into a number of sub-processes – and congruence is needed between the sub-processes and the core processes. At the individual level, the skills and knowledge should also match the priorities driven by the sub-processes.

This hierarchical model follows a traditional approach that structure follows strategy (Vickery, 1991, Cleveland et al., 1989, Kim and Arnold, 1992). Others view that competences are a part of the structure of the firm and should influence strategy making, Bhattacharaya and Gibbons(1996) point out that Prahalad and Hamal (1990) and Stalk et al. (1992) take this approach.

The hierarchical model has been tested analysing case studies of seventeen manufacturing plants that won Best Factory Awards during the period 1993-95 in the UK (Cranfield) and established benchmarks. Baker et al. (1997) found some direct cause-effect links between enabling competences at the sub-process level and competitive performance (at the core process level). However, they also found many ‘best practices’ such as employee empowerment and team working which were harder to link to specific competitive competences.

This model provides an insightful way to break down the complex issue of how individual performance influences the competitive competences of the firm. Baker et al.’s research is limited within the manufacturing sector where core processes are often easier to identify and define with a clear delineation of individual effort, technology and product. It is also established on the basis that structure follows strategy – whereas, most firms will already have structure and will be adapting their strategies continuously as the external environment changes.

Figure 1. Hierarchical model of competence (Baker et al., 1997)

Cheetham and Chivers (1996) describe a model of competence that draws together the apparently disparate views of competence – the ‘outcomes’ approach and the ‘reflective practitioner’(Schon, 1983, Schon, 1987) approach.

Their focus was to determine how professionals maintain and develop their professionalism. In drawing together their model, they consider the key influences of different approaches and writers. The core components of the model are: Knowledge/cognitive competence, Functional competence, Personal or behavioural competence and Values/ethical competence with overarching meta-competencies include communication, self-development, creativity, analysis and problem-solving. Reflection in and about action(Schon, 1983) surround the model, thereby bringing the outcomes and reflective practitioner approaches together in one model shown in Figure below.

Cheetham and Chivers model of professional competence is useful in bringing the concept of individual competence to bear on the competence of the organisation in a non-manufacturing context, but it still falls short of providing a useful model to link an individuals behaviour with the business results of an organisation across industries – a generic model if you will.

Figure 2. Model of professional competence (Cheetham and Chivers, 1996)

Young (2002) creates a generic model neatly, by developing his individual model further to the organisational perspective adopting the concept of core competence, as articulated by Prahalad and Hamal(1990) and further developed by Stalk et al. (1992) and Tampoe (1994), suggesting that the collection of individual competences within the organisation create the organisational core competence.

This model provides a way to understand how developing competency (personal characteristics and behaviours) at the individual level enables an individual to demonstrate competence (the functions and tasks  of the job) which in turn cascades through a hierarchy of the organisation (core competence and other activities supporting the organisation)  to deliver business results.

Figure3. Individual variables of competency, competence and performance and organisation core competence (adapted from Young, 2002)

Please contact the author for full bibliography

The search for talent is ongoing. Individuals seek to develop their talents, companies seek to identify talent and retain it, succession planning requires it, politicians plan for it, and the world wants to find it. But what is it?

I was having dinner at a friend’s home and the subject came up because their 11 year old son had recently brought home his school report card which stated from his art teacher: “[His] talent is yet to be fully developed.” His mother, always one for a quick tongue responded “His only talent is making excuses for not doing his homework.”
The young boy sat at the table grimacing. He’d heard this story a few times already and whilst his mum meant it in jest, there was an element of truth in it. I said “I see a glittering future as a political spin-doctor.” The boy’s eyes lit up. This so-called talent had a purpose.

The word “talent” is bandied around for so many things and we don’t always truly understand what is meant by “talent”. So to the trusty dictionary…

Talent: innate mental or artistic aptitude (as opposed to acquired ability); less than genius.

So what is innate?

Innate: existing in one from birth; inborn; native: innate musical talent.

Now, my core business is experiential training and a behaviouralist, so if talent cannot be acquired… Better find a better definition…

Talent: natural ability to do something well.

‘That nasty word ‘natural’

Natural: based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

The Thesaurus, always illuminating, and find ‘talent’ associated with words like ‘ability’, ‘ ‘adeptness’, ‘adroitness’, ‘charisma’, ‘facility’, ‘gift’, ‘knack’, ‘wisdom’, ‘gumption’, ‘capacity’, ‘brilliance’ and ‘genius’

Is it seems that you are either born with a talent or not. No acquiring a talent, developing it certainly, but if the foundation is not there…

When companies and politicians tell us that “we want to identify the talent” exactly what do they mean?
Is it: “I want to identify your talent whatever it is“? or “I want to identify specific or particular talent“?

I suspect the latter. Companies seek ‘talent’ for succession planning, as do politicians. It is most often associated with leadership or management ‘talent’.

Companies are also hooked on retaining talent. And surely that’s right, once you have talent in your organisation, you really don’t want to lose it. Many, inspired by a Mckinnsey article in 1997 “The War for Talent” took this to extreme, indulging ‘talent’ and doing everything they could to keep them engaged, satisfied, even delighted. Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point, wrote an article in the New Yorker magazine in 2002 entitled “The Talent Myth”. By then the whole ‘War for talent’ was under a dark, ominous cloud called Enron. The McKinssey article had, after all, been largely based on what Enron was doing at the time and how everybody should emulate it.

The trouble is that ‘talent’ is most often ascribed to the very brightest, highly motivated individuals who are very driven. And being bright (intelligent) does not, necessarily, mean talent. Being ‘driven’ is not the only criteria for success.
I have met and worked with many talented individuals. In fact, I believe that every single person has talent. What that talent is and how it can be used by companies is another matter.

If we accept that talent is something that you are born with, surely we need to know how do we identify talent, and how do we leverage that talent?

Identifying talent

In my meetings with clients to discuss their talent identification it usually starts with an attempt to define what is the talent we are seeking to identify. Most often, this is stated as being ‘leadership talent’, those individuals who are ‘bright’, ‘motivated’, ‘good leaders’, ‘inspires others’, ‘charismatic’ and so on – words that we’ve seen in the thesaurus.

This is good, we can test these. Find out who has them and crack on.

I’ve seen this in many organisations. The brightest and best are identified as part of the talent pool – there’s some fanfare, a suite of training programs, perhaps MBAs are taken and the talent are promoted. Meanwhile, the non-talent morale has sunk, many have quit or actively seeking new positions, commitment has dropped and performance suffered. The talent, being highly driven, take this upon themselves and make up for the loss, working extra hard and many burning out. There follows a new initiative to regain the work-life balance and a big drive to retain talent.

An alternative

We can talk to the existing talent – the best leaders, managers, the best individual contributors – not just from your own organisation but others too, and uncover their foundational talents that enable them to be all that they are. It really can be quite surprising:

There are many other examples, some obvious, many not. What is common to most of the people we have interviewed is that their talent itself is not what enables them to do what they do, it is how they do the talent.
I suggest that we do something a little different. Why not find what the underlying and true individual’s talents are and then leverage them towards the leadership or management attributes you need? Or perhaps, we can identify their talent and find out where they best fit in your organisation and for some, outside it.

Leveraging Talent

Taking someone’s talent and leveraging it into the workplace requires a little creative thinking. Fortunately, creative thinking is something that we can develop. It’s part de Bono’s lateral thinking and part conceptual mapping. Some connections make absolute and logical sense, others require us to dig into the talent and how that talent is done by the individual.
Using the examples cited above, I shall briefly outline the main connections that the individual leveraged – either on their own ‘naturally’ or through coaching.

Throat singing is a rather rare and peculiar talent. For this CEO it was his party trick, something he found he was able to do when very young. Encouraged by his parents to demonstrate in front of friends and neighbours, people enjoyed his performance and found it fascinating. As a young man, he was unafraid to stand in front of an audience and give speeches. He joined the university debating society where his commanding voice quieted everyone present. “I like to entertain people, and I like to make them think” he says.

“Running was all I ever wanted to do. I’d get up early every morning and race the postman on his bike. For me, it was freedom. Now, I run with my team, we race the competition and we enjoy the freedom we gain from our bonuses and commission.”

“As a kid, I was always drawing. I loved to draw. Cartoons especially, and comics. When I was at primary school I drew my first comic which turned into a series and a long story – intricately entwined with sub-plots and different characters. By the time I went to university, I’d all but stopped drawing, taking accountancy because that’s where the jobs were. Today, I guess I’m still drawing comics in a way. I look for the sub-plots in the accounts, what’s the other story behind the main one and that’s how I teach my staff. Look for the sub-plots – it makes auditing a whole lot more fun.”

“Calculus was easy. Everyone else thought it was really difficult and stupid, but I found it easy. I’d get a thrill from finding the right answer. It’s obvious to me now, my recipes are just a form of calculus, you take ingredients A and B and turn them into X. I don’t ‘think I’ll tell my chefs that, they might think I’m a nerd and not the great artiste.”

“I first acted in a play at kindergarten. I was a tree. But I was the best tree ever. My parents adored my acting, always encouraging me, in fact they wanted me to continue through drama school and everything. I think they thought I would be a movie star. I did try for a while when I went to university but I never had any money. After uni, I joined a local drama club, met my wife and we soon had our first child. So I left the acting world and joined a local bank – great prospects, regular wages and, a subsidised mortgage. I suppose that a COO is rather like a director in a play, making sure that the right people are in the right place at the right time with the right script. Brilliant!”

“I was always the joker of the family. No matter what happened I had to make a joke out of it. My brother bore the brunt of most of my wilder practical jokes – and some of them weren’t really funny at all. Still, it was fun. It got me in a lot of trouble at school. In the end I quit school and worked on a market stall. I worked for this really sour faced bloke selling vegetables – blimey he was miserable. He hated my joking with the customers, but they loved it and kept coming back, so he didn’t ’stop me. I’m still a joker, I like a laugh and I like to keep the guys happy. I suppose being the centre of attention does something for me. That’s why I set this up (the company), being the centre of everyones’ attention and we make money. I always say, if you can’t have a laugh while your living life then life will laugh at you.”

Find your talent and find a way to use it.

Dr. John Kenworthy, “What’s better today?”,
GAINMORE Leadership, GAINMORE Golf