eBook Using Learning Agility for Organisations in Change · 2018-08-23 · Change-readiness and...

Using Learning Agility for Organisations in Change

eBook

Index

Part one | Creating and managing high performance teams 2

Part two | Changing roles in a changing business environment 5

Part three | Succession planning over the long-term 8

Part four | What makes a successful team? 11

Part five | Maximising collaboration to meet business goal 15

©HFMtalentindex.co.za1

http://www.hfm.nl/nl/why-learning-agility-helps-growth-in-performance/

©HFMtalentindex.co.za 2 ©HFMtalentindex.co.za

You cannot create teams of people and expect them to perform, without truly

understanding the characteristics of the individual members in the context of

what will be expected from them.

Research has found that one of the core predictors of high performing teams is

Learning Agility.

Part one of five

2

Creating and managing high-performing agile teamsWe need to do more than before to get ahead of the curve, but with fewer resources. In order to move more quickly and adapt faster, organisations need to shift towards high performing, agile teams. This is the modern paradox.

What are agile teams?The Agile methodology, which originally found popularity amongst IT companies and software developers, is a way of working that emphasises self-organising, project focused leaderless teams. The emphasis is on collaboratively ideating, refining, reiterating and delivering on new and creative ideas. This agile workstyle is rapidly spreading to different areas within organisations, and has become widely touted as the best way to inspire creativity, try new things, fail, adapt, learn and ultimately deliver high performance.

But how do we shift our existing human structures, job families and organisational hierarchies into one that supports these agile, leaderless teams?

Scientifically shape the makeup of your teams

While the answer may not be simple, there is a clear starting point. You cannot create teams of people and expect them to perform, without truly understanding the characteristics of the individual members in the context of what will be expected from them.

Research has found that one of the core predictors of high performing teams is Learning Agility. The very definition of Learning Agility is in line with the goals and objectives of an agile team – to proactively gather information, learn from new experiences, adapt in the face of change, and integrate insights into effective new behaviour.

Measuring and understanding the Learning Agility styles of individuals can be applied on a group level to the construction of learning agile teams with members who compliment one another, leading to a much higher return on investment. Existing teams can be reviewed for strengths and weaknesses, and areas for development.

3 ©HFMtalentindex.co.za

Learning Agility DNALearning Agility data on an individual level can be integrated, via talent analytics, to create the Learning Agility DNA of your employees and your teams. Learning Agility DNA is the unique blueprint of success that makes your current and future agile teams successful. Utilising this DNA affords the ability to shape the structure of your teams and organisation to embrace and support leaderless tribes – making you more agile, more streamlined and more resilient.exce

4©HFMtalentindex.co.za ©HFMtalentindex.co.za


The problem faced across different industries is the need to effectively

onboard new, intelligent technologies, while effectively planning for new roles

or changes to existing roles.

The common denominator in tackling this issue is to examine the Learning

Agility, change-readiness and learning styles of employees.

Part two of five

6

Changing roles in a changing business environmentChange-readiness and Learning Agility plays an integral role in the building of a 5-10 year talent pipeline in conditions where it’s not clear how the business and the roles within it will evolve.

Let’s take a look into how the need for rapid change is affecting organisations in the industries of Finance, Sales and IT.

Finance: From brick-and-mortar to virtualFinance is the field that is undergoing the most rapid change when compared to other sectors, such as IT, media and energy (ref: World Economic Forum).

Banks and financial institutions are moving away from physical branches toward virtual banking portals, with artificial intelligence driving further change.

These very large organisations are faced with the dilemma of a completely new set of roles being defined, with an urgent need to transition employees from the present role-set to the new one.

Sales: From once-off sales to ongoing customer experienceWithin the sales industry, the focus has shifted from an environment driven by new deals to one that is driven by customer experience. In fact, top performing organisations have started measuring customer experience as their most important sales KPI (ref: State of Sales).

In order to measure all touchpoints of the customer journey, companies have started onboarding big data analytics and other technology-driven initiatives. The successful rollout of these are integral to providing customers with a personalised sales experience across different channels.

To be successful in this changing environment, sales professionals need to be agile enough to adopt the new technologies, as well as take on multiple roles – those of networker (establishing relationships), deal closer (harnessing relationships) and cultivator (maintaining relationships).

IT: From traditional to Agile methodologiesThe landscape of IT has shifted from a waterfall process – tackling projects in sequential, structured stages – to an agile methodology where scrum teams focus on an iterative process with continuous innovation and feedback.

Agile means change at all levels of the organisation. A shift from the traditional to the new ways of work within IT means that team members need to adapt to the requirements of new roles that have never existed before.

In addition, the leaders who drive these shifts in team structure need to take on the role of change agents to ensure that the corporate culture, values and mission adapt to the new structure and that their employees continue to drive effective performance in the business.

©HFMtalentindex.co.za ©HFMtalentindex.co.za

The common denominator in managing changeThe problem faced across different industries is the need to effectively onboard new, intelligent technologies, while effectively planning for new roles or changes to existing roles.

The common denominator in tackling this issue is to examine the Learning Agility, change-readiness and learning styles of employees on an individual level, and to then collate this information into team and organisational insights. These results will guide decision-making and the strategic talent pipeline to ensure that employees meet the demands placed upon them.

The value of Learning Agility in supporting rapidly changing roles

A high score on Learning Agility means that people have the ability to incorporate new behaviours into their current skill set quickly and efficiently, while at the same time unlearning ineffective skills with the same efficiency and speed.

Understanding the Learning Agility of new hires and existing employees is the critical component to be able to deal with changing environments and changing roles.

Learning agility is used to:

• Identify which employees are able to make the role transitions required for the business to stay relevant;

• Determine who within the team will change more readily and who will resist change;• Highlight the individuals who can be considered change agents, and who can actively drive

and manage changes amongst the team; and• Gain insight into the learning styles that are most effective for different employees.


©HFMtalentindex.co.za 8 ©HFMtalentindex.co.za

Current performance is a great predictor of future performance if

the person is expected to remain at the same level and with the same

responsibilities.

However, this is never the case in succession planning

Part three of five

Succession planning over the long-termThe science of strategic workforce planning involves being able to predict talent gaps and fill them with the right employees.

Finding high potentialsAs we identify high-potential (HIPO) employees in our business, we need to be wary not to rely too much on job performance as a measure of future success.

Current performance is a great predictor of future performance if the person is expected to remain at the same level and with the same responsibilities. However, this is never the case in succession planning, and is the foundation of the well-known Peter Principle management theory.

The Peter Principle states that employees who are promoted based only on current job performance will eventually reach a plateau where they will not have the skills necessary to perform effectively – the so called “level of incompetence” (Peter & Hull, 1969).


©HFMtalentindex.co.za

Is current performance the best metric of success?Succession based on performance was also the subject of a research study by Lombardo and Eichinger (1983), who analysed managers who were promoted, yet were not performing effectively. They found that these managers were overly reliant on the skills and abilities that were effective in their previous roles, and that they were not sufficiently change-oriented to adapt to the demands of their new environment. This research formed the foundation of Learning Agility.

Learning agile leadersWith its basis in over 20 years of research from the Centre for Creative Leadership and other leadership theorists, Learning Agility has been shown to be a key predictor of future performance (Swisher, 2013). As such, it is the crucial element to consider in your succession planning processes.

The leaders of your future organisation need to be do more than perform effectively in their current roles. They need to be learning agile. This is because future leaders need to do more than the previous generation and because more is expected of them: the flow of information moves faster than ever before, and jobs are becoming more complex.

What do learning agile leaders look like? They are resilient in the face of change and instill these behaviours in others. They can meet new challenges head-on and thrive in the presence of ambiguity. They perform effectively in new situations and on-board new skills and abilities to help them be successful in multiple contexts.

Learning Agility as the foundation of succession planningIt is critical for organisations to have pipeline planning processes to select leaders now that will be effective in the unknown future.

Learning Agility is the core leadership requirement that can be developed over time with the help of greater self-awareness and focused development initiatives. Both theory and supporting research clearly demonstrate that Learning Agility behaviours are key for success in leadership.

maybe two to three individuals. A tentative conclusion would be that for a team to succeed, it must consist of mainly individuals who score above average on Learning Agility. Furthermore, it illustrates the variation in scores that is found in many of the high performing teams. Overall, about 70% of the team members within the high performance teams score around the average for Learning Agility or above (with exception of the Mental Agility domain, which is around 52%).

What about the team members in the red ‘danger zone’? Are they bringing down the overall team performance or do they fulfil a certain function within the team? For instance, they may be more practical, doing the work that needs to be done, leaving the more agile team members more time to innovate, think outside the box and ensure that the team attains its goals in the best possible way. However, we would need more research and data before making such a concrete conclusion.Each series of coloured dots in the figure represents a team member and their individual scores on the Learning Agility domains. The blue dots represent team member 1, the yellow dots team member 2, etc. The average score on Learning Agility and the domains in the general population is 5 (the red line), meaning that individuals with a score of 6 or higher are considered above average. Ideally, these are the individuals that companies are looking for. Individuals who score below average are in the orange to red area.

The majority of team members from teams within the high performing group score around or above the population average: their scores are in the blue zone. This is illustrated by the team breakdown in the figure, with all members scoring above average, except for maybe two to three individuals. A tentative conclusion would be that for a team to succeed, it must consist of mainly individuals who score above average on Learning Agility. Furthermore, it illustrates the variation in scores that is found in many of the high performing teams. Overall,



A self-managing team in a non-competitive environment is very

different from a high performing team in a competitive environment, where everything revolves around results.

Using analytics, one can analyse the Team DNA and determine which agilities

indicate success in the organisation’s unique environment.

Part four of five

12

Learning Agility and performance: what makes a successful team?It is critical for organisations to ensure their employees work together in high performing teams. In this article we examine the factors that affect team performance and the research into Learning Agility and group success…

How effective teams are in an organisation depends on many complex factors. Context plays a much larger role than people think. What works in one situation does not necessarily work in another.

Some management books advocate an approach that works for all teams in all industries. This, however, is often an illusion – different teams within different organisations require different competencies. Managers often make the mistake of thinking that what works in context A will also work in context B.

An example of context and team performanceA healthcare organisation once had a lot of success with self-managing, agile teams: so much so that competing organisations soon copied the formula – to their detriment. The reason for this was that the first organisation had specifically hired people who would thrive within self-managing teams – individuals who love responsibility and who desire independence – in short those who have the right personality to be successful with a high level of self- management. Employees within the competing healthcare organisations were not used to this way of working at all, and were moved into self-managing teams with limited change management. They performed better within the old, familiar structure and were not especially looking for more independence and responsibility. Remember: teams and organisations are self-selecting organisms. Before making significant team composition or structure changes, first measure the qualities of its members. An agile team is not successful because it is self- managing. An agile team is successful because it has the right composition.

How do teams emerge?There are teams that are put together to work on something new – an unexplored area of the organisation, a new style of working or an experimental product. For such a new team, the organisation needs to be very focused on what types of people are needed to fulfil certain functions. Then there are teams that just happen to happen: a group of people perform related functions within an organisation and are suddenly seen as a team. Such a group of employees is typically more uniform, consisting of the same types of people who usually exhibit similar behaviour.

Building a high performing team – what can go wrong?What often happens is that management decides to change their strategy without considering whether their employees can meet these new requirements. Some organisations formulate a goal and set out to achieve it, without realising that this goal may not be possible given the current structure or characteristics of their employees. In one context, a certain team can be successful and effective, but if that context changes, this effectiveness does not necessarily remain.

©HFMtalentindex.co.za©HFMtalentindex.co.za

How do you know if a team has the right composition?There are many ways in which a successful team can be put together. But research and experience show that it helps if a team consists of diverse members. Within Figure 1 – a team quadrant with two axes – one axis goes from steering and influencing to helping and accommodating, the other from structure to flexibility. These are qualities that should be equally distributed within a team. For example, you should not have too many dominant members, because they will all want to be in charge.

This sounds perfectly logical, but the pitfall is that people unconsciously seek out others with the same or similar characteristics (like attracts like). For example, a manager who likes structure, works systematically and wants to know what will happen tomorrow, will find it very frustrating to have to deal with an impulsive individual, who thinks very creatively, but who is also disorganised. The chance that he will add such a person to his team is not large. Yet time and time again, the research shows that the greater the diversity in the team, the greater the chance that it will be successful.

What does the ideal team look like?The organisational context and culture determine a lot. A self-managing team in a non-competitive environment, where people have to work together to provide a service, is very different from a high performing team in a competitive environment, where everything revolves around results. Using analytics from an organisation’s top-performing teams, one can predict the Learning Agility Success DNA of the group and determine which agilities indicate success in their unique environment.



Which areas of Learning Agility play a larger role?In team research across many different organisations, we have found that the Learning Agility dimensions of People Agility and Self-awareness have the most significant statistical relationship with team performance.

The relationship between People Agility and performance growth is best explained by the concept of team learning. In team learning, individuals not only use their own knowledge and ability to achieve goals, but also learn from and incorporate the knowledge and skills of other team members. They are likely to use the unique experiences, talents and skills of teammates to solve problems and raise their own performance to a higher level. These individuals are likely to learn more than when a more individual approach to development is followed, because they have access to more resources.

Self-awareness has a slightly different relationship with performance. People with higher self-awareness demonstrate higher levels of self-management (self- development and feedback questions). Employees who practice self-management recognise both the need for continuous improvement of their own performance and the possibilities for doing so.

These employees seek new and challenging work situations to learn from and set goals for their own development. In addition to this focus on development, they also show a willingness to receive constructive feedback. They analyse where they can develop, whether they are focusing on the right tasks and whether they are on the right track to achieve their goals.


Jaintheran NaidooSenior Organisational Psychologist HFMtalentindex South Africa

Jaintheran Naidoo is a registered industrial/ organisational psychologist with over 15 years of experience within the IO space. He has experience in various areas, including both the private and public sectors. His areas of passion lie in management/ leadership development, training facilitation and talent management strategy. His work has taken him around world, where he has facilitated HR interventions in countries such as Australia, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Mauritius.


To analyse whether Learning Agility has an impact on team performance, a recent study compared the agility

characteristics of successful and unsuccessful teams.

Learning Agility on an overall level, as well as it’s five domain scores, was

found to be a key differentiator of team performance.

Part five of five


Maximising collaboration to meet business goalsEffective collaboration between employees and teams is the competitive edge necessary to thrive in volatile and changing business environments.

Collaboration is one of the most effective tools for tackling complexity. Decades of research has shown that complex problem solving is faster and more effective in teams than in individuals working alone (Laughlin et. al, 2006). Collaboration is especially critical in environments where cross-disciplinary work and information-sharing is required.

Collaboration and teamsOrganisations perform better when their employees collaborate effectively in high-performing teams. Groups can be highly innovative in addressing complex problems from multiple perspectives, ultimately creating synergy – the output of the team being greater than the sum of its parts.

Given the importance of effective teamwork and collaboration, how can organisations shape the makeup of teams to ensure that they perform effectively?

We know for a fact that Learning Agile individuals typically perform better within organisations. The question arises as to whether the same goes for Learning Agile teams. If this is indeed the case, companies will have powerful leverage to support the future success of teams in tackling complex assignments.


Research into high-performing teamsTo analyse whether Learning Agility has an impact on team performance, a recent study compared the agility characteristics of successful and unsuccessful teams. Learning Agility on an overall level, as well as it’s five domain scores, was found to be a key differentiator of team performance. The agility differences between the two types of teams were, with exception of Mental Agility, found to be significant.

A detailed review of the results found that high performance teams typically scored higher on Learning Agility than the average person. The opposite was true for low performance teams, with team members generally scoring lower on Learning Agility than average. These findings illustrate that Learning Agility goes beyond a measure of individual performance; it may also be used to build, manage and measure team success over time.

The Learning Agility domains that showed the largest difference in terms of performance were Results Agility, Self-Awareness, and Change Agility. These domains of Learning Agility represent the ability to set goals and strive towards these (Results Agility), the awareness of one’s strengths and development areas (Self-Awareness) and the willingness to explore and experience new things (Change Agility).

Learning Agility as a benchmark for collaboration and team performanceUnderstanding the Learning Agility makeup of an individual, and the Learning Agility DNA of a team, empowers organisations to understand how individuals and teams will handle the changes associated with the VUCA future. Applying this knowledge effectively can help shift the organisation from reactive and rigid to proactive and agile in the face of future demands.

Learning Agility DNA can assist talent management specialists in planning and managing high performance teams, using objective scientific assessments as the basis for human capital decisions, and measuring development over time.

maybe two to three individuals. A tentative conclusion would be that for a team to succeed, it must consist of mainly individuals who score above average on Learning Agility. Furthermore, it illustrates the variation in scores that is found in many of the high performing teams. Overall, about 70% of the team members within the high performance teams score around the average for Learning Agility or above (with exception of the Mental Agility domain, which is around 52%).

What about the team members in the red ‘danger zone’? Are they bringing down the overall team performance or do they fulfil a certain function within the team? For instance, they may be more practical, doing the work that needs to be done, leaving the more agile team members more time to innovate, think outside the box and ensure that thbefore making such a concrete conclusion.Each series of coloured dots in the figure represents a team member and their individual scores on the Learning Agility domains. The blue dots represent team member 1, the yellow dots team member 2, etc. The average score on Learning Agility and the domains in the general population is 5 (the red line), meaning that individuals with a score of 6 or higher are considered above average. Ideally, these are the individuals that companies are looking for. Individuals who score below average are in the orange to red area.

The majority of team members from teams within the high performing group score around or above the population average: their scores are in the blue zone. This is illustrated by the team breakdown in the figure, with all members scoring above average, except for maybe two to three individuals. A tentative conclusion would be that for a team to succeed, it must consist of mainly individuals who score above average on Learning Agility. Furthermore, it illustrates the variation in scores that is found in many of the high performing teams. Overall, about 70% of the team members within the high performance teams score around the average for Learning Agility or above (with exception of the Mental Agility domain, which is around 52%).



More informationFind out what HFMtalentindex can do for your organisation.

010 276 0418 | 021 824 009 [email protected]

www.hfmtalentindex.co.za HFMtalentindex South Africa @HFMtalentSA

eBook Using Learning Agility for Organisations in Change · 2018-08-23 · Change-readiness and...

Documents

Transcript of eBook Using Learning Agility for Organisations in Change · 2018-08-23 · Change-readiness and...