Rewatch our CIPHR Connect partner Head Light on CIPHR’s stand at the CIPD HR Software Show (filmed on 13 June 2018)
When senior leaders ask you tricky talent management questions, how easy is it to pinpoint the right data to share? Discover the core talent analytics you should focus on answer those tough questions, and shape your talent management strategy..
CIPHR Connect is an ecosystem of trusted business applications that integrate seamlessly with CIPHR’s powerful HR and recruitment solutions.
If you have any questions about CIPHR Connect and are a current CIPHR customer, please contact your account manager. If you are new to CIPHR, call us on 01628 814 242 or email firstname.lastname@example.org.
What I thought I would do is in terms of our customers, it tends to be this particular group of organisations, but a little bit less about me and a little bit more about you, what do we think that you have been doing in the past 18 months. So to set the scene typically, HR and OD folks get involved with delivering these kinds of activities. So it’s running 360, it’s doing skills audit, it’s engagement surveys and so on.
Maybe you’ve been updating talent reviews, getting to do with succession planning. This is a pretty typical HR and OD agenda. And what I’d like to share with you today is, there’s lots of narrative at the moment around AI and analytics. We don’t think there’s enough narrative around, well, what questions are you actually trying to find answers to, as opposed to drive the reporting or drive the AI agenda.
So what we thought we would do, usefully I hope, is to present to you some key talent management questions. They’re not the only talent management questions, but they are typically some pretty fundamental talent management questions that everyone in your organisation is really going to want to know the answers to. And what I’d like to do is to spend the next 20 minutes or so, showing that have you have done this, then you will also be able to answer those talent management questions.
So, what questions could they be? Well, there are lots of them. So is it around our leadership? Is it around what skills we have in our organisation? Is it about strengths and weaknesses? Around engagement? And not just understanding engagement but do we know what to do about engagement? It’s much more than the measurement, much more than a score. Do we actually know what to do about employee engagement?
Are we managing our people risk in a sufficient way both normal risk and exceptional risk? And very topically, the way the performance management is changing now is, can we answer the question, are people being managed in a meaningful way now that we’ve introduced a new radical performance management process? Can we tell whether people are being managed differently? So here there are some interesting questions for you.
So I need to get into, so what does managing people in a meaningful way mean from the perspective of being able to observe it? So we all know some managers are better than other managers and we all know some managers really are great. Some managers will have conversations, some managers are so good, they act much more as coaches and you wouldn’t even recognise they are a manager.
So these things are quite subtle, quite difficult but with this list here, there are set of observable criteria, which if you could measure them, you’d be able to determine if people were being managed in a meaningful way. So if we think about someone’s objectives, which is typically how we manage people, these are the kind of things that we could observe about someone’s objectives. They’re being updated regularly, maybe they are being shared with other people like their stakeholders, maybe there’re lots of comments about the objective to show that progress is being made, maybe the manager has provided a rating as well as the employee. They’re specific, they’re alive. They’re all of this kind of things, you can observe all of these things.
So if people are being managed in a meaningful way, will get kind of high scores for all of these things. Well, let’s show you. So we’re gonna dive into some analytics. This tends to be our software. We’re gonna look a lot of analytics because that’s what we’re doing today. We’re gonna look at objectives engagement, to what degree are people engaged with getting on with their objectives? Now, we can run this report by various different demographics, by divisions and job grades and levels, we can even look at our high pose or those with high flight risk from the perspective of our people being managed in a meaningful way. But if I just say, let’s just run it for everybody and run this report, what are we gonna see? Okay, so here’s a report showing how people are being managed in this organisation.
So the first thing we’re seeing is, do people even have objectives? That’s a pretty basic thing we need. Do we have people who have no objectives? Yes, we do. Do we do have people that do have at least one or two, whatever objectives, that’s good. Generally speaking, how much progress are people making with their objectives? If it’s the half-year, 54% is good.
How many objectives do people have? Do they have them completed? And this number, this index, tells me whether people are being managed in a meaningful way. And I can see, here are the people, and I could see what kind of meaningful index is been created based on their objectives and all of those criteria. So I can tell for a team or inaugural part division or any part of the organisation, I can tell. And this is this particular individual’s objectives, and I could see that these two are not necessarily being managed in a meaningful way. And maybe there’s a reason for that, but it gives you some insight that you wouldn’t know.
And then finally, I can just look at…generally I can look at objectives such as where the progress has been made, or whether they’re up [inaudible 00:05:59] update, all these kind of things, but they’re all observable criteria to help you know whether continuous performance management is actually working in your organisation and where you might need to intervene or help.
Okay. So the next one is all around managing risk. Are we managing risk in our organisation? Lots of different types of risk around people. So it’s things like Hi Pos and Hi Flight Risk individuals. Are we looking after them? Are we making sure that they’re not going to leave, that we are developing them? But also things such as the perfect storm, I love the perfect storm. I’ll talk about perfect storm individuals in a second.
But we’ve also got the basics around critical posts. Do we have successes for our critical posts in place? And when we look at succession planning data, how old is it? Or are we looking at a picture in the past which really doesn’t exist anymore. So we can answer some of these questions around managing people risk. Again, we need to dive into some analytics. And this time, we’re gonna look at some succession analytics, which are all of these over here.
So the first one we’ll look at, risk. We’re just gonna run this risk reports, we could run risk on a particular part of the organisation or the entire business or just a team. As you said before, we could look at a specific agenda for risk if we just run the report and show you.
Typically risk in an organisation occurs in four areas, critical posts, and so on. So if we look at critical post risk, what that is doing is it’s saying, do we have employees in a critical post with no successor? This is a do list for HR to make sure we have no one in critical post with no successor. And here you can see exactly who they are and to what level their post is critical or not, and that’s one of them.
The next one is Hi Pos, Hi Flight Risk and have no current successor and who are very ready to move to a new role, okay. So again, we want this list short. This is a little bit like a perfect storm type individual. We also have managers with no successor. So if we have managers leaving, is there anyone to step in from a caretaker perspective to carry on getting the day job done.
Retirees. So these are people with planned retirement dates rather than age, of course. So do we have folks who we expect them to leave in the next three years? Hi Flight Risks successes for many this is a perfect storm. They are Hi Flight Risk, they are successes for multiple people. If they go, and they’re likely to, they vacate their post and they invalidate a whole bunch of succession plans, real problem.
So, lots of different analytics. If we want to say, okay, so how up-to-date is this information? Well, let’s have a look. Well, nothing in the last seven days, that’s probably okay. We’re four weeks out of date, actually, we’re using information based on people’s information being actually out of date more than three months. Who’s out of date for three months, let’s get reminders to refresh what we know about these people so that we can have very up-to-date succession planning risk.
Okay, if we move to our learning and development agenda, the trouble is that training needs analysis is typically they tend to be annual, the world changes too fast to rely on an annual training needs analysis. They also tend to be here’s a bunch of courses that I want to go on, maybe not very purposeful, maybe not very aligned with what the organisation is trying to do. And really what we’re all trying to do is to help organisations help individuals take a bit more responsibility for their own learning and development. We all know especially with the millennial generation, that’s what they value the most. But to what degree are we helping people drive their own learning and development agenda?
For some organisations that use competencies, it’s good to know whether people are developing their collaboration skills or entrepreneurialism or whatever other set of competencies you’ve got. Because if you are thinking about your learning and development offer, is that aligned with the competencies that people actually developing that are aligned with the organisational objectives? Let’s get this golden thread of what the business is trying to do with what our learning and development offline portfolio is. So, let’s see how some analytics might help you answer some of those questions.
Again, we’re gonna dive in, we’re gonna look at consolidated development goals. We’re gonna look at the development goals of people. We could look at it in a particular appraisal year or, again, in a particular division or department or job grade. This time, we’re gonna look at a group of development activities in a particular team. So if I run this consolidated report and say, what development is this team doing? Let’s get under the skin of what they’re up to. So here are the development activities for these different people. And there’s lots of information about what it is and success measures and end dates and ratings, all that kind of stuff, which is all interesting.
But actually, what we want to know is, have people aligned their development activities with business goals. Well, some of them have aligned development activities with business goals and they align it with their own personal objectives which are aligned with the organisation’s objectives. And that’s how you get this thread coming through. So we’ve got one person who’s chosen to align her development activity with the objectives of the organisation. If we look at competencies, we can say, okay, well, what are the competencies that people are aligning their development with in this organisation? And we can see here are the competencies and how many people are aligning their development with a particular type of competence and who they are and what they are.
So this is just on a team. Imagine if I can have this information about a whole department or a division or a location, I can then start to focus my learning and development offer very specifically on competencies. Okay, so what you’re seeing here, this is called Pappy nano [SP]. I won’t trouble you with what it actually means, but effectively what you’re seeing here is, this is from a 360-degree feedback process. These numbers relate to behaviors, this analysis of this thing is for one person this is showing their behaviors where they think they’re strong, it’s showing their behaviors where they and other people think they’re weak. It is showing where they think they’re not so good, and everyone else rates them. And it’s showing another blind spot where they think they’re great, but no one else really does. Also known as the undiscovered genius box down here or the deluded box.
So this is a behavioral grid and analysis of how someone is perceived versus how they perceive themselves. And we’ll go here is another analysis which I’ll come onto. So what we’re trying to do is to say, if this is an individual picture of a person’s strengths and weaknesses, what about our top team? What does it mean for them collectively? If we were to take these off all of our managers, what are the strengths and weaknesses they all share? So, therefore, what might we do to develop those managers in the areas where they recognise their development needs?
Okay, so again, we’re going to dig into some analytics. I’m gonna show you a team version of that individual analysis here. And what I’m gonna do is I’ll pick a particular group of people who have gone through a particular 360, of which there are 12. And just like, I’ll just run this, what do all these 12 people share? Actually not very much. So let’s cut it down and say, okay, what’s half of them? Seven out of 12, what are 7 out of these 12 people share? Well, they share these as strengths and these as development areas. So instantly out of all these 12 people I know, half of them need this, and half of them need that and I can then dig into actually what are these particular behaviors, what are people doing, what is the greatest share.
So what we can then see is, okay, if we were thinking about a development program for these folks who are the people who have these particular strengths or development areas. So I’m now getting into former 360, which is identifying individuals, I’ve now got a team view of any group of people that says this is what they’re good at and recognise they’re good at and…well, they also recognise what they’re not so good at.
I can look at it from a different perspective. Again, if I was taking a very big group of people and say, okay, let’s just show me everybody, but let’s look at this from a heat map perspective. Looks kind of slightly different. So again, we’ve got the assessment criteria and the 360 and we’ve got our people down here, instantly, we’re starting to see some folks who are a little bit different down here in terms of their level of capability. So from strengths and weakness perspective of a leadership group, okay, we’ve got some folks here who possibly aren’t as strong as others,
As I said, here we’ve got the different factors. We’ve also got this here which is called high potential, which is a measure of our people exhibiting behaviors now, which suggests a likelihood of high performance in the future. And we can see we’ve got an average figure and kind of sell on. So there are a number of different things that we can do to get a broad picture of the strengths and weaknesses of a leadership group. Okay. So now we’re moving on to skills auditing. God, there’s lots here, isn’t there?
Now we’re into skills auditing. What are our skills, gaps, and assets? So do we have people who have got the right skills to perform the role we’re asking them to do, or do we have people in teams where they actually don’t have the right level of skill? So there’s a little bit of a compliance agenda here, but actually, from a succession perspective, there’s also an agenda here around what do we need to develop people in terms of skills to do their job or skills to do the job they aspire to.
So also there’s a part here around if you do a skills audit, it’s also around finding people with specific skills combinations. The challenge with skills profiling is, it’s often done based on a role. Now if it’s just your role profile well we’ve all got formalised, we’ve all come from places that are bigger than just a roll that defines us right now. So the skills auditing often uncovers other capabilities that you have within your organisation’s which is why we encourage people to do it.
Okay, so again, unsurprisingly let’s dig into a few analytics. We’re gonna go down to here, I will then look at another heat map. Heat maps are really good for large groups of people. And this time maybe we’ll pick… We’ll organise by team, probably could do for any particular group of people and say, okay, let’s have a skills heat map which show the skills profiles of people grouped in teams across this organisation and here are all the teams down here on left-hand side, here’s the overall skill level, I’ll explain what the numbers mean in just a second, and here’s a different skill areas that this skills audit used. They can be any skills you wanted. It’s all entirely up to you
The red areas are showing clearly where we don’t have the right level of skills we expect in a particular team or group of people. And as I said, we could have multiple skills. It could be a combination of skills. We can shade all of this to darken the picture, create a slightly different story if that’s what you wish. So clearly, we’ve got some issues in these particular teams up here where we’ve actually got no one with the right level of skills, but as an organisational average, we have to decide is that a bad thing. Eighty percent of people have got the skills to do their job. Maybe.
What that number means is that 66% of people in the team have got the right level of skills. If we go and have a look at this particular team, we can see who they are and we can see whether they’ve got the right level of skills to carry out the role we expect them to carry out. So here we can see…down here we’ll see in just a second that two out of three levels has the right skill for carrying on strategic judgment [inaudible 00:19:13] it’s only got half the levels. So you’re getting a picture as to where the skills gaps might be of a particular team. We can break that out into a radar chart and say let’s look at this in a slightly different way.
So these are the different roles within this particular team which define the role profiles and roles that we want. Here are the different skills we’ve already seen, so we’re looking at a heat map, but it’s presented from a slightly different perspective, and we can see the individual skills profiles just by rolling over them. So you get to see where the people have got lumps and bumps in their overall skills profile. You know, we can take people out and narrow it down.
We can also look in gap mode which can show me the gaps that people have got. So outside this line here, we’re gonna see spikes and dips, that’s showing gaps that we’ve got in a particular skills profile for a group of individual. And if we wanna narrow it down, we can just take some skills out of this particular picture. And if we show you just those particular skills. And of course, we can also remove people, take people out of the picture if that’s what we want to do as well.
So from a very high-level heat map perspective, we can drill down into an organisation, we can drill down to the team, we can drill down to people, we can drill down to role, we can drill down to gap, we can answer the question about where your greatest skills gaps are.
Okay. So from an engagement perspective of my final area really was I wanted to share with you with some new thinking from Brandon Hall which is really suggesting kind of what we already know, which is, if we just measure it, it’s really not enough and it’s much more around personalising. So this is attractive to employee groups. So engagement scores across the organisation are interesting to a point but it’s actually around the personalisation and understanding where engagement is high or low, not just at a department or location level but actually, at an individual level, engagement is a really personal thing.
So really what Brandon Hall…so this is a statement of the blindingly obvious, really what Brandon Hall is talking about is actually it’s more about actions and it’s all about understanding subgroups. So, how might we do that? So this is a real-time report dashboard of our unemployment or engagement survey going on right now. Here we can see we’ve got particular engagement questions. We’ve got a number of respondents, we’ve got agreement scores, here we’re seeing the highest rated, we’re seeing the lowest rated, you could do it in pulse mode which is how frequently someone rates the same question because it’s on their mind, yeah, and the lowest rated. So we’re getting a really high-level picture while our survey’s running, so what is actually going on.
Here we’re looking at how do people perceive the organisation? How do they see their manager? How do they feel their own levels of motivation? And they finally, over here we’re saying, we’re looking at what’s important to people. We ask people, not just what they think, but actually what’s important to individuals. And we could get into all the breakdown such as where are the sponsors coming from and who’s responding and which locations and so on.
Well, we’ll just go through which business areas. But we use this concept… And we change groups. We use this concept of an engagement enabler and an engagement inhibitor. Now an enabler is what people wrote as highly important to them that the organisation does well. These are all engagement enablers. These are what drives people to get out of work in the morning and do a good job in his organisation, as they say.
So, commit to a working environment, safe environment, high level of performance, values, and behaviors. This is what this survey’s showing drives people’s engagement here. This is what’s driving their disengagement, you couldn’t make this up, no creative elements, bad pay, bad benefits, the appraisal process doesn’t work. Clearly, this is a real employee engagement survey, because that’s exactly what people tend to say.
So in the organisational picture, we have all of these type of factors, but we need to personalise it and the way that we can personalise it, if we look at manager here, we’re getting some quite high scores but if we go into a particular grade, we get much poorer scores for how people perceive their manager. So again, going back to what Brandon Hall’s talking about in terms of understanding employee groups, we know that certain employee groups don’t rate their managers so well in a particular part of the organisation.