Bhavesh Chandaria, GPHR, HRMP, SCP

1

LEVERAGING INTERNAL MOBILITY AND

TALENT NETWORKS

Perils of Myopic Microwaving Talent &

How to overcome it

3-DESIGNATED YAWN BREAKS

2

Tweeting prevents yawns,,, please tweat on the go

#astdza2015 & @behaves (my id)

EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING

• Experiential Learning has become a

trusted methodology for successful and

sustainable learning.

• Warren Buffett’s/Berkshire Hathaway’s

2014 Shareholder Letter

• “[M]y experience in business helps

me as an investor and that my

investment experience has made me a

better businessman. Each pursuit

teaches lessons that are applicable to the

other. And some truths can only be fully

learned through experience

3

4

There are certain things that can not be adequately

explained to a virgin either by words or pictures.

??????

Hmmm..

How to do I

explain!!!

SESSION’S TAKE AWAY

• Paradigm shift : Performance to Performance + Contribution

• Framework of Internal Talent Mobility – new language

• Individual Contributor + Training Managers – The myth

busted

• Managers- The requisite competence

• Making of Managers – the framework & the how to’s

• Don’ts of upward mobility

• How right number of right kind of Managers can unleash a

positive leverage for org. success & what is the number?

5

MYOPIC MICROWAVING = HALF BAKED MANAGERS

• Do you have half baked

managers, pre- maturedly

promoted to managerial roles,

who actually devalue their

role, contaminate the

contribution of others, and rob

organization of huge value ?

At the same time HR/Training is

expected to microwave talent

quickly onto managerial roles??

HR/Training under criticism to

show quick impact?

6

Microwave

Donkeys in– Horses out

• Have a conversation:

• Your encounters with half baked manager

(s).

• Toxicity

• Who’s fault was it?

7

THE MICRO/NANO/MICROWAVED MANAGER (RECENT REPORT 2014)

1. Cost USA 360 Billion in lost productivity…

2. 3 of 4 employees report their boss is the worst part of their job

3. 65% of emp. would take a new boss over more pay

4. Phase 2 bosses: a. fail to inspire, b. accept mediocrity, c. lack clear

vision/direction, d. won’t collaborate, e. hypocritical, f. compete with

their DR’s, g. micro-manage, h. hoard the best assignments…

5. Employees are 30% more likely to suffer heart disease and take 22

months to “shake off” the stress from bad Phase 2 bosses

6. $3,500 to replace minimum wage employee…19% turnover annually

7. Employees purposely: make errors, steal, hide information, take sick

days, take longer breaks, day dream, search job boards, complain to

others…

Source: Kathryn L. Shaw, Stanford Econ. Professor, “The Value of Bosses”

8

LET’S RESONATE!! CONTRIBUTION-PHASE CALIBRATION

( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )

( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )

( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )

( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )

( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )

Please Supply Real Names For Your “Contribution Calibration”

9

Performance + Contribution

Performance is: what you DO…

(job descriptions,

assignments,

team goals…)

Contribution is:The IMPACT,

VALUE,

DIFFERENCE,

RESULTS

10

“Effective leaders focus on

contribution. They look up from

their work , outward toward goals

and ask: What can I do that will

significantly affect the

performance and the results of

the institution I serve?”

- Peter Drucker

PERFORMANCE & CONTRIBUTION

11

Performance

in Role

Contribution Value “In”

and “Out” of Role

HAND IN HAND RELATIONSHIP

12

COMPARING PERFORMANCE =

13

COMPARING CONTRIBUTION =

14

WE ARE NOT CALIBRATING:

• NOT Title

• NOT Level

• NOT Pay

• Not Potential

• NOT Tenure

• NOT Politics or “Contribution Inflation”

• NOT a Popularity Contest

• NOT “Flash in the Pan”

15

WE ARE CALIBRATING:

1. Consistent Contribution annually…

2. Delivery of relevant, positive business results…

3. Total impact, difference and value…

16

HOW TO CALIBRATE CONTRIBUTION:

• Calibrate each name by “contribution value”

• Start with your highest impact contributor

• Distinguish each name in descending order

• Some names might be an equal value

• Be honest, keep confidentiality

• Your perceptions are invaluable to this research

17

A SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION:C

on

trib

uti

on

Ca

lib

rati

on

s

Highest contributions

Adequate contributions

Good contributions

Lowest contributions

Brett

Monimoy

Behaves

Jaco

Ntombi

Fourie

Juan

Valentine

Typical

Godgreat

Mulwa

Amla

Hansie

Bulelwa

18

RECORD THE CALIBRATION RANK ORDER

( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )

( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )

( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )

( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )

( ) Name Here ( ) ( ) Name Here ( )

1

2

3

4

5

19

THE PHASES OF PERFORMANCE & CONTRIBUTION™

Phase 1

Phase 2

Phase 3Phase 4

Phases, An

Organizational

Model of

Contribution

With Significant

Implications for

Individuals

20

CONTRIBUTION IN PHASE 1

• New to the Role

• Potential Expertise

• Fresh Ideas

• Enthusiasm

• Basic Competencies

• Willingness to Learn

• Dependent on Others

Learning the Ropes

Phase 1

21

CONTRIBUTION IN PHASE 2

• Tactical Perspective

• Deep Technical Expertise

• Narrow Focus

• Independent Team Player

• Delivers Defined Solutions

• Seasoned Professional

Contributing Independently

22

CONTRIBUTION IN PHASE 3

• Gives Meaning to Ambiguity

• Broad Technical Understanding

• Aligned Business Perspective

• Coordinates Functions

• Leverages Networks for Results

• Develops/Coaches Others

• Intra-Team

Coordination/Communication Leading Through Others

23

CONTRIBUTION IN PHASE 4

• Strategic Direction

• Industry Focus

• Represents the organization

• Grooms Future Leaders

• Key External Network

• Resources of the Company

• Organization-Wide Influence

Phase 4

Organizational Leadership

24

RECORD THE PHASE THEY ARE “IN”

( 1 ) Name Here ( 2.6 )

( 2 ) Name Here ( 2.4 )

( 3) Name Here ( 2 )

(4 ) Name Here ( 2 )

( 5 ) Name Here ( 1 )

25

DIFFERENTIATE VERY CAREFULLY:

Phase 3Phase 2

26

CHAOS BY PHASE 2 MANAGERS = PERILS OF MICROWAVING

a. Fail to inspire

b. Accept mediocrity

c. Lack clear vision/direction

d. Won’t collaborate

e. Hypocritical

f. Compete with their DR’s

g. Micro-manage

h. Hoard the best assignments

Phase 2

27

PHASE 2 BOSS

28

POINTERS FOR CATEGORIZATION INTO THE 4 PHASES?

Phase 1– Learning the ropes Phase 2 – Contributing Independently

• Anyone New to the Role• Must “Learn the Ropes” Quickly• Dependent on Others for Help• Asks Lots of Questions• Is Given Little Projects to Complete• Must Prove They Can do it “Our Way”• Must be Willing to be Closely Supervised

• Is a Trusted Experienced Expert• Has Deep “Technical” Expertise• Narrow and Exacting Tactical Focus• Works Independently• Requires Little Supervision• The Technical Backbone of the Team• Offers Technical Ideas and Solutions• Stays Current in Their Field

Phase 3 - Leading through Others Phase 4 – Organizational Leadership

• Develops a Broad Perspective• Works Inter-Dependently With Others• Creates and Maintains Int./Ext. Networks• Influences/Coaches Others Toward Results• Translates Strategy Into Tactics• Coordinates Work Within/Between Teams• Integrates Cross-Functional Efforts• Gives Structure to Ambiguity• Is Highly Valued Across the Organization

• Offers a High Level Strategic Direction• Represents the Company• Has a Vision for the Long Term• Provides Industry Wide Perspectives• Grooms Future Leaders• Exercises Wide Influence• Controls the Resources of the Company

29

ORG. CONTRIBUTION/PHASE RANKING DATA

(n = 91,651, approx. %’s)

Fo

rce

d C

on

trib

uti

on

Ra

nk

ing

s Top Contributing Phase 2’s

(6%)

Good Phase 2’s (30%)

Poor Phase 2’s and 1.5-7’s

(15%)

Adequate Phase 2’s

(35%)

Phase 3’s rank at the 90th (1%) Phase 2.7 – 2.3 (3%)

Phase 1- 1.3’s (10%)

Phase 2 Manager rankings vary

widely, but regularly are lower

than “adequate” rated IC’s

because expectation, position &

pay require more. They do not

produce leveraged results often

get in the way of and offend

those who do.

30

THE MICRO/NANO/MICROWAVED MANAGER (RECENT REPORT 2014)

1. Cost USA 360 Billion in lost productivity…

2. 3 of 4 employees report their boss is the worst part of their job

3. 65% of emp. would take a new boss over more pay

4. Phase 2 bosses: a. fail to inspire, b. accept mediocrity, c. lack clear

vision/direction, d. won’t collaborate, e. hypocritical, f. compete with

their DR’s, g. micro-manage, h. hoard the best assignments…

5. Employees are 30% more likely to suffer heart disease and take 22

months to “shake off” the stress from bad Phase 2 bosses

6. $3,500 to replace minimum wage employee…19% turnover annually

7. Employees purposely: make errors, steal, hide information, take sick

days, take longer breaks, day dream, search job boards, complain to

others…

Source: Kathryn L. Shaw, Stanford Econ. Professor, “The Value of Bosses”

31

REFLECTION

• Does the Contribution and Phases calibration finding resonate?

32

CONTRIBUTION IN PHASE 1

• New to the Role

• Potential Expertise

• Fresh Ideas

• Enthusiasm

• Basic Competencies

• Willingness to Learn

• Dependent on Others

• Steep Additive Learning Curve

Learning the Ropes

Phase 1

33

CONTRIBUTION IN PHASE 2

• Tactical Perspective

• Deep Technical Expertise

• Narrow Focus

• Independent Team Player

• Collegial Relationships

• Delivers Defined Solutions

• Seasoned Professional

• Development is AdditiveContributing Independently

34

CONTRIBUTION IN PHASE 3

• Gives Meaning to Ambiguity

• Broad Technical Understanding

• Aligned Business Perspective

• Coordinates Functions

• Leverages Networks for Results

• Develops/Coaches Others

(get Coaching too!)

• Intra-Team

Coordination/Communication

• Development is:

Leading Through Others

Subtractive, Transformative, Not Intuitive

35

With 6% in P-3, you

can move, change,

grow the corporate

mountain.

THE IMPACT OF PHASE 3’S

36

A LOOK AT THE PHASE WISE CONTRIBUTION

Organizational Contribution by Phase

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n R

an

kin

gs

90th

80th

70th

60th

50th

40th

30th

20th

10th

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Mgr’s

Phase 2 Mgr’s

Phase 4

12th

61st

Average

Percentile

90th 95th

38th

Phase 3’s

73rd

This is 95-97% of your organization

This is max 1-3% of your organization

37

MANAGEMENT AND UNDESIRABLE TURNOVER

Attrition and Retention of Top/Key Talent

Ave

rag

e P

erc

en

t Tu

rno

ver

Phase 3 Effectiveness ScoresNext Phase Leadership Research

29+%

7-9%

1%

Phase 2 Mgr’s Phase 3 Mgr’s

38

PROBLEM #1 =ABSENCE OF PHASE 3’S

1. Poor Performance Management

2. Attrition of Best Talent

3. Declining Bench Strength

4. Implementation Failure

5. Dysfunctional Communications

6. Team Dysfunctions

7. Cross-Functional Chaos

8. Poor Coordination…

9. Emp. Engagement Suffers

Most orgn. have less

than 1 % P3 managers

& requisite is 6% to

get positive leverage

39

Problem #2 = Typical Learning Paradigm

• Linear/additive

• Intuitive,

• Individually wrapped

• Logical

• Information based / in a classroom

Solution: New Learning Paradigm

• Non-linear (back up to go forward)

• Non-intuitive … Counter-intuitive

• Inter-dependently wrapped

• Logical

• Learn in real time, anywhere

• Existential choice/willingness

• Accountable to another person…

40

REFLECTION

1. From Phase 2 3 Personal ∆’s ?

2. From Phase 2 3 Skills +/- ?

3. From Phase 2 3 “External” Helps ?

Pull as much information/experience

as you can regarding the following…

41

KEY FINDINGS ABOUT THE TRANSITION

Transition from Phase 2 3

(The Personal ∆’s) Willingness, Change of Heart, Initiative,

Courage, Risk, Generativity, Promotion,Want or Need a Change…

(The Skills) Let Go of Phase 2, Coach Others, Delegate, Develop,

Assignments, “Facilitate vs. Expert”, Manage Ambiguity, Influence,

Invite Distractions and Diversity, Broad Technical Understanding…

(External Helps) Get Phase-Coaching, Complex Phase 3-Projects,

Team-Coordination, Cross-Functional Integration, Meetings,

Politics, Sponsor…

42

43

Making the Transition

Phase 2 Phase 3

INTERNAL USE ONLY © Copyright Next Phase Leadership

Letting GoUn-becoming Phase 2

a) Phase 2 Magnets

b) Micro-Surveys

c) Developing Others

d) P-3 Assignments

Moving OnBecoming Phase 3

Phase 2 Phase 3

Getting

StartedPhase 3 Line of Sight

a) Training

b) Co-authored

Transition Plan

c) Phase-Coaching

a) Psycho-Social Shift

b) Identity/Rewards

c) Combined Strengths

d) P-3 Assignments

e) Sponsorship

44

TOP 10, PHASE 2 MAGNETS™ THAT PULL YOU BACK,

1.Personal interest/investment in technology (e.g. hoarding the best

technical assignments)

2.Fear of losing your “technical edge” (technical obsolescence)

3.Fear of losing your reputation as “the expert” (e.g. won’t coach

others/share expertise)

4.Love the predictability/control over your work

5.Lack of interpersonal skills.

6.Fear of ambiguity/people/mistakes

7.Manager/Peers/DR’s expect Phase 2 contributions of you

8.Your Manager isn’t in Phase 3

9.The company/function wants “player-coaches”

10.Won’t learn/use management systems, tools, training, etc.

45

THE TRANSITION FROM PHASE 2 3

Phase 3Phase 2

46

Training light & Coaching heavy, real life next

phase assignments

“Know How to “Do How”

47

2 3

You

• Role

• Boss

• Company “Culture”

• Economy

• Quotas

• Crisis

• Courage

• Customers

• Span of Influence

YOUR PHASE IS INFLUENCED BY:

48

P2(IC) TO P3(MGR) JOURNEY IS NOT EASY

21 % withdraw and

opt to be IC again ,

which is better than

P2 Mgr

49

HAVING 6% OR MORE PHASE 3 MANAGERS WILL MEAN…

• Increased net profitability ranging from 10% to over 200%

• Increase in overall organization contribution of 12-45

percentile points.

• Increase in Phase 2 employees’ contribution by an average of

10-15 percentile points (by giving them Phase 3 managers to

report to)

• Increase in employee satisfaction/engagement scores by 17-

44%

• Decrease in manager Phase 2 to Phase 3 transition by 3-7 years

• Increase Phase 2 to Phase 3 transition success rate by over

200%

50

ABOUT DR. BRETT SAVAGE

Dr. S. Brett Savage, specializes in takingindividual experts through the troublesometransition toward manager and leader roles.Doctor Savage has done global research,trained, implemented enterprise systems andcoached hundreds of industry leaders Brett isthe founder of Next Phase Leadership LLC, aresearch-based training and consulting firm thatprovides contribution consulting, assessments,training and Phase-Coaching.

The Phases of Performance and Contribution isfounded on research that originated at HarvardUniversity with Dr. Gene Dalton and Dr. PaulThomson (Organizational Dynamics, Summer1977). We are deeply indebted to theresearchers for their original research andsubsequent mentoring of us.

www.NextPhaseLeadership.com

51

NEXT PHASE -WWW.NEXTPHASELEADERSHIP.COM

AT&T

52

GARTNER’S 10 CHANGES AT WORK WORLD IN NEXT 10 YEARS 2010 (1-5)

Let us take a look at what the 10 points and my take on the behaviors

individuals would need to exhibit to succeed in them.

1. De-routinization of Work: Here’s the value add: Not being narrow

and tactical but broad perspective

2. Work Swarms (the new team): jet speed teaming up and

disbanding-- Able to work outside the comfort zone

3. Weak Links (to work around it): Relying on People rather than

Technology and on info/relationship networks

4. Working With the Collectives: Influence and networking with inside

and outside work

5. Work Sketch-Ups: Not just being ok with lack of precedence but

thriving on it.

53

GARTNER’S 10 CHANGES AT WORK WORLD IN NEXT 10 YEARS 2010 (6-10)

6. Spontaneous Work: always on the look out and not waiting for instructions

7. Simulation and Experimentation: Being ready for the new way of working with data.

8. Pattern Sensitivity: being able to make sense out of mess.

9. Hyperconnected: Networking, Influence

10. My Place: balancing personal and professional space as the boundaries of office and home disappear

54

THE PHASES

55

Phase 1 (The Rookie) Phase 2 (The Technical/Functional Expert)

Anyone New to the Role

Must “Learn the Ropes” Quickly

Dependent on Others for Help

Asks Lots of Questions

Is Given Little Projects to Complete

Must Prove They Can do it “Our Way”

Must be Willing to be Closely

Supervised

Is a Trusted Experienced Expert

Has Deep “Technical” Expertise

Narrow and Exacting Tactical Focus

Works Independently

Requires Little Supervision

The Technical Backbone of the Team

Offers Technical Ideas and Solutions

Stays Current in Their Field

Phase 3 (The Collaborator) Phase 4 (The Visionary)

Develops a Broad PerspectiveWorks Inter-Dependently With OthersCreates and Maintains Int./Ext. NetworksInfluences/Coaches Others Toward ResultsTranslates Strategy Into TacticsCoordinates Work Within/Between TeamsIntegrates Cross-Functional EffortsGives Structure to AmbiguityIs Highly Valued Across the OrganizationIn control of his/her work

Offers a High Level Strategic Direction

Represents the Company

Has a Vision for the Long Term

Provides Industry Wide Perspectives

Grooms Future Leaders

Exercises Wide Influence

Controls the Resources of the Company

THE FULCRUM

56

Phase 1 (The Rookie) Phase 2 (The Technical/Functional Expert)

Anyone New to the Role

Must “Learn the Ropes” Quickly

Dependent on Others for Help

Asks Lots of Questions

Is Given Little Projects to Complete

Must Prove They Can do it “Our Way”

Must be Willing to be Closely

Supervised

Is a Trusted Experienced Expert

Has Deep “Technical” Expertise

Narrow and Exacting Tactical Focus

Works Independently

Requires Little Supervision

The Technical Backbone of the Team

Offers Technical Ideas and Solutions

Stays Current in Their Field

Phase 3 (The Collaborator) Phase 4 (The Visionary)

Develops a Broad PerspectiveWorks Inter-Dependently With OthersCreates and Maintains Int./Ext. NetworksInfluences/Coaches Others Toward ResultsTranslates Strategy Into TacticsCoordinates Work Within/Between TeamsIntegrates Cross-Functional EffortsGives Structure to AmbiguityIs Highly Valued Across the OrganizationIn control of his/her work

Offers a High Level Strategic Direction

Represents the Company

Has a Vision for the Long Term

Provides Industry Wide Perspectives

Grooms Future Leaders

Exercises Wide Influence

Controls the Resources of the Company

THE GARTNER’S ANALYSIS AND PHASE 3 BEHAVIOR

57

Phase 3 (The Collaborator)Gartner’s 10 Trends

De-routinization of Work

Work Swarms

Weak Inks

Working with collective

Working Sketch up

Spontaneous Work

Simulation and Experimentation

Pattern Sensitivity

Hyper-connected

My Place

Develops a Broad Perspective

Works Inter-Dependently With Others

Creates and Maintains Int./Ext. Networks

Influences/Coaches Others Toward Results

Translates Strategy Into Tactics

Coordinates Work Within/Between Teams

Integrates Cross-Functional Efforts

Gives Structure to Ambiguity

Is Highly Valued Across the Organization

In control of his/her work

Seems like a tailor made fit!

These are my Interpretations

not Gartner’s !

LINKEDIN DISCUSSION

58

59

60

61

62

Thank you,

@behaves

tz.linkedin.com/in/bhaveshchandaria/

Bhavesh N Chandaria,GPHR, HRMP, SCP

bhavesh@alaf.co.tz

Head Learning Training and Development

SAFALGROUP