Working Group Summary: Global Talent Management

Transcription

1 Working Group Summary: Global Talent Management On March 1, 2012, CAHRS Director Chris Collins and CAHRS Managing Director Steve Miranda facilitated a day-long discussion on the topic of global talent management and the underlying issues that organizations are facing as they look to effectively build and develop a truly global workforce and leadership pipeline. The working group was attended by 18 executives from 14 CAHRS partner organizations including Air Products and Chemicals, American Express, Amgen, Chevron, Citi, Cornell, Dell, GE, Goodyear, IBM, Ingersoll Rand, JPMorgan Chase, Tyco International, United Technologies,. This was the second CAHRS working group on the topic and the main goal of the session was to brainstorm and begin to surface talent issues that companies are facing in managing global organizations. While trying to keep the discussion open, the group started with an outline of potentially talking about leadership models and how to effectively calibrate talent across geographies and markets, how to effectively develop global leaders to lead global organizations, how to effectively develop local leaders to run big local businesses, and attracting talent in growth markets. In addition, a portion of the meeting was dedicated to identifying other themes and concerns and identifying topics to address in future meetings on the topic. While the general discussion covered a wide range of topics, this summary is organized into three themes that drew the most attention during the discussion: (1) global versus localized leadership models, (2) building global leadership talent, and (3) future topics for discussion. Global Leadership Competency Model or Localized Leadership Models. As was noted in our first meeting on global talent management, participants noted that there is a tension when building leadership models that are used for the development and assessment of leaders for global organizations. There has been a good deal of debate regarding whether companies should build a single, global leadership model, a flexible leadership model with some core leadership competencies but lots of regional differences, or move toward developing localized leadership models that fit with the culture and business conditions of local markets. Each seems to have some upsides and some downsides. Single Model of Leadership: For organizations that have implemented or advocate a single, one-size fits all global leadership model in which leadership development, assessment, and succession are based around a single set of values, principles, or competencies. There are several strengths of the model. First, multiple participants noted that this model increases the extent to which leaders can flow between markets, because it is better for calibrating leaders across markets and identifying candidates who are capable of taking higher level, global roles. Further, this model fosters the creation of a global culture that ensures that all leaders and employees are making Page 1

2 decisions and following business practices in a similar manner. Finally, this model facilitates the development of a pipeline for executive bands that is truly global in nature. Many of the organizations that have followed this path have moved more towards a valuesbased model of leadership rather than a model based on competencies the center point for consistency in selection, training, and evaluation are the values that which define what leaders need to look like to be successful. With a values-based model, organizations can create a single leadership model that drives a common culture across the globe; however, the key here is to clearly define the values so that they are relevant in each of the local markets in which the organization operates. Participants noted that it is also important to break down the values by level of leadership with specific examples of the behaviors or expectations at each level for each of the values. Typically, firms following this single model have also moved to include behavioral descriptor statements as anchors on each of the values in the leadership model. Finally, participants noted that it is important for assessments to be done from multiple points to ensure consistent evaluations and comparisons (e.g., current leader, one-over-one, HR). However, the single model may prove difficult to carry out if it doesn t play out well in some local markets and has a tendency to favor home country or home region leadership talent over rest of the world talent. Localized Models of Leadership: While none of the participants noted that they have moved to a purely local model, several noted that this model was at a least a consideration, at least early in the global growth of their organizations. A purely localized model may help the company be more adaptive to local cultures and business conditions and be more engaging for local talent who can see how they clearly fit into the leadership pipeline for their piece of the larger organization. However, participants noted that they either moved away from a localized model or decided against this path because it is not supportive of building a global pipeline of leaders that are able to move across regions and does not support the development of a broader culture needed to run an integrated global organization. Specifically, large differences in competency models makes it difficult to compare and calibrate talent across regions, often leads to isolation of talent in their home country or region without great opportunities to move into corporate headquarter roles, and are more difficult to manage on a global scale. Further, several participants noted that a localized form leadership model as this could lead to local markets developing their own standards for leadership or values that lead to risks for global companies that need to meet standards across many countries and are held accountable to standards dictated by their home country governments when it comes to business practices. Blended Global Leadership Model: A few of the participants noted that they have moved towards a global leadership competency model that has some flexibility at the regional or local level. The global part of the model includes the values or competencies that are part of the core essence of the organization, are business imperatives, and that clearly translate and hold across regions. The localization part may be (1) the local specification for how these competencies would be exhibited in a particular region or location and (2) additional required competencies that may be important for the Page 2

3 local business conditions or cultural differences in the local market. Under this mixed model, it is important for HR and the talent function to conduct research on what good leadership behaviors look like across regions and how these competencies may be perceived across regions and cultures. Along this line, several participants noted that their organizations have moved to a set of key attributes that hold across regions and are seen as the important drivers of the organization s culture and performance. Again, it is critical for the company to clearly articulate how these attributes would be carried out and perceived to hold against regional differences. Across the leadership models, participants noted that companies should assess against both the extent to which leaders delivered performance and how they achieved their performance goals. There should be equivalent consequences for either not hitting numbers/ performance targets or for not leading the right way. Further, any leadership competency model is best used as a starting point for conversations with emerging leaders and points of discussion when calibrating and comparing talent rather than as an exercise for ticking off boxes on a form. Finally, competencies should be limited to those aspects that actually drive the core activities that lead to sustainable business success for the organization. Developing Global Leaders. Given globalization of their firms, participants noted that it is essential for senior and executive band of leaders to reflect the markets in which the organization operates. The global diversity and representativeness will ensure better understanding of stressors and opportunities in current and future growth markets. This global diversity in the senior leadership team also increases the likelihood that the organization as a whole will better understand how to make decisions and drive strategy across the globe. Global diversity in the senior leadership ranks is also a key for attracting and retaining emerging leadership and technical talent in their global growth markets. While a globally representative senior leadership team and leadership pipeline is the goal, most participants noted that they are not yet close to meeting that goal. There were a number of best practices identified by the group including: 1. Ownership by the CEO and the Executive Committee. Several participants noted that the decisions regarding succession in top roles are decided by the executive team rather than by local CEOs to ensure that right people are getting opportunities for global experiences. Control by the executive team is a forcing function to both build leaders with broader global experiences and to make sure that talent from multiple markets or regions are considered for key growth opportunities. Centralized control or decision making power over key global roles is essential for creating opportunities for leaders in growth markets to have opportunities to be considered. 2. Formal slating process that fits with global leadership model. Participants noted that it is important to make sure that all key development roles and global leadership succession decisions are made with a global slate and in the context of the global leadership model. A best practice seems to be creating a formal slating process in which potential successors from multiple markets are identified and the roles have clear specs in terms of levels of the global values/competency model and realistic KSAs and experiences against which global talent can be fairly evaluated. A few participants noted that this type of formal slating process and switching to discussions based on existing competencies enables them to push global candidates for opportunities when all the candidates in the succession pool seem to be relatively equal on required competencies. Page 3

4 3. Forced movement across segments/ markets. Participants noted that it is essential have clear mandate from the top of the organization that global experience is essential for any leader that has ambitions to make it to the senior leadership levels of the organization. Further, many participants noted that it is important to set these expectations early in careers while emerging leaders may have more flexibility for global assignments. 4. Cost of global mobility owned centrally. A number of participants noted that it is easier to push a global talent pipeline agenda when the corporate center bears the costs of moving talent around for global development and experiential opportunities. 5. HR planning and strategic staffing. Several participants noted that HR planning is essential to help understand where openings will exist, the long-term talent needs of the organization across markets and geographies, identify where talent exists and where there are likely to be shortages, and how to optimize talent to growth and strategy plans for the company. 6. Role of Talent Function. While most participants agreed that HR and the talent function should not control or own the succession process, HR leaders play important roles in the process by (1) creating or helping to ensure that a diverse set of candidates are identified from around the global operations; (2) helping emerging and top talent identify personal development plans so that they are more ready for global succession opportunities; (3) working with local leaders to have difficult talent conversations and putting in place development and training opportunities to build local talent that will be ready for larger local and global roles. for building the global leadership pipeline: 1. Overhire. Several participants noted that they have looked to overhire roles in growth markets that is, to hire leaders who are bigger than the current role as this helps to put leaders in place with the capabilities to run the business at its projected growth and who may be more ready and capable of building the leadership talent that will be required for the eventually larger organization in that market. 2. Short-term assignments. Multiple participants noted that they are moving towards using shorter assignments, paired with mentoring by mentors either from major markets (for those coming from new markets) or growth markets (for those coming from mature markets) to provide global exposure and cross-cultural learning opportunities. Participants also noted that some global exposure and cross-cultural development may come in the form of projects or global team assignments. Move around and provide variation in scope and responsibilities. 3. Career pathing. Numerous participants noted that it is critical to identify, communicate, and showcase alternative career paths so that emerging talent understands how to navigate their careers in the new global reality. 4. Start early. Participants also noted that it is important to start early with global assignments and exposure for young, emerging talent. Catch them while they are more flexible. Start to build networks and cross-cultural experience early in their careers. Further, emerging talent should have both local and corporate center mentors so that they have the appropriate mix of understanding the needs of the local market and can position this within the broader goals and strategic plans of the organization. A few additional themes or practices emerged from the discussion that a potentially interesting Page 4

5 Issues to Address in Future Meetings 1. Understand the tension between building a pipeline of leaders to fill global roles and building leaders in local markets to run increasingly larger local businesses in growth markets. Discuss how building the two different talent pools may be the same and how they are meaningfully different. 2. Sharing of best practices on how organizations have followed through to actually drive new leadership behaviors, global culture, and global leadership models particularly with a focus on what types of assessment and development plans/tools are most effective across different levels, discuss how they are effectively carried out, and how execution may vary across regions. 3. Share best practices on attracting and retaining technical talent in growth markets in light of increased competition from talent, particularly from local companies. 4. Discuss role of emotional intelligence in identifying and developing successful leaders. Importantly, are there effective ways to assess, train and help leaders understand and lead others? 5. Identify and discuss if there are meaningful differences in leaders and high performing employees across gender, regions, cultures, etc. Are there significant differences in how they work, learn, behave, lead, follow, etc.? 6. Sharing on how the top group of leaders mirror the linkages at lower levels of the organization that are required for success how well are senior leaders across regions connected, are they facilitating necessary knowledge sharing links across businesses and regions, and do they support and facilitate cross-regional work streams and talent sharing. 7. Talk about the next set of emerging economies and the leadership and talent challenges in those markets. Page 5

6 ABOUT This Summary Report was prepared by Chris Collins and Steve Miranda for use by participants of the CAHRS Global Talent Working Group and CAHRS Partner organizations. The Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies (CAHRS) at Cornell University s ILR School is an international center devoted to advancing the HR function and providing corporate partners with critical tools for building and leading highperforming human resource organizations. CAHRS mission is to bring together partners and the ILR School s world-renowned HR Studies faculty to investigate, translate and apply the latest HR research into practice excellence. For more information about CAHRS working groups and CAHRS partnership, visit Page 6