Canadian HR Reporter

Canadian HR RepoRteR august 11, 2014 INSIGhT 15 Is your leadership team on the same page? QuestIon: At our organization, the best word to describe our leadership team is dysfunctional. (we wouldn't tell them that, of course.) what are some ways we can create alignment among our senior leaders so programs are rolled out more consistently across the organization? Answer: Leadership team align- ment begins with member con- sensus on the organization's business objectives and strategy. Aligned teams have a high level of clarity and agreement on pur- pose, vision, values, goals, proce- dures, roles and trust. Leaders themselves may be the least able to determine whether they are aligned. While everyone around the table may be nodding during leadership meetings, what happens outside the boardroom can be more telling. Generating real alignment requires consid- erable effort. Alignment rarely, if ever, evolves naturally. So, how do you determine whether leaders are aligned — and what can you do if they aren't aligned? Assessing alignment Few would disagree it's important for leadership team members to be on the same page. If there is no alignment, there will be confusion among employees, affecting pro- ductivity and engagement. ere can be other repercus- sions as well — missed opportu- nities, damage to the corporate brand, an inability to attract and retain top talent and, of course, a negative impact on the company's bottom line. One quick test to determine the degree of misalignment with- in the leadership team would be to ask each member to list, in priority order, the five biggest opportunities or the five biggest challenges for the organization. If a six-member team comes back with half a dozen different answers, they are obviously not on the same page. Achieving leadership team alignment is an ongoing process. Various circumstances — in- cluding new leadership or mem- bers, an acquisition or a change in strategic direction — can result in leaders and teams fall- ing out of sync. Even previously aligned teams may falter in these situations. What does it look like? An aligned leadership team has its act together, with members working together to achieve suc- cess. Consider these features of an aligned team — "the four Cs" of an effective C-suite: Commitment: Leaders must be doing more than merely comply- ing with what is expected of them. ey must feel a real commitment to and passion for organizational success, as well as accountability for achieving it. Connection: Leaders need to go beyond simply having contact or communicating with one another — there needs to be a real connec- tion. is requires mutual trust and respect, as well as a shared set of values. Content: When leaders are aligned, focus and messaging are consistent. Others in the organi- zation understand the business strategy and the role they play in realizing objectives. Controls: ere need to be well- defined "rules of engagement" or operating systems that reflect a consistent set of attitudes and behaviours. Transforming the team In-depth leadership team assess- ment, followed by coaching, are effective options for achieving alignment. Individual coaching can serve as a preventative mea- sure for members who may not be onside. For instance, if a new leader- ship team has been formed as the result of a merger, team-building and coaching can help ensure all leaders are in sync. is ensures the necessary operational rules are in place at the beginning of the relationship. As part of the assessment phase, it's important to determine which strengths each member brings to the team. ere are a number of tools (I-OPT, for example) avail- able to survey, measure and assess personalities, styles, communica- tion and conflicts. Ideally, a leadership team wants the right mix of complementary traits, enabling them to use a range of strengths effectively within the framework of common objectives. When gaps are identified, coaching can assist leaders to: •develop strategies and an action plan to close those gaps and lever- age strengths •discuss and agree on pur- pose, vision, goals, success cri- teria, operating processes and accountability •determine how to act with one another (for example, develop a code of conduct and a decision- making approach) •learn to engage in dialogue prac- tices (diverse people, sequencing conversations, developing pow- erful questions) and surface ap- propriate issues before trying to reach a solution e importance of alignment is, of course, not limited to the leadership team. However, if leaders are aligned, they serve as a model for all teams within the organization, enabling them to accelerate performance and de- liver better solutions to achieve business results. Anne Cleall is vice-president of busi- ness development at Verity Interna- tional in Toronto. Jeff Welton is Verity's managing director, executive coaching and career services. For more informa- tion, visit www.verityintl.com. anne Cleall and Jeff Welton toughest hr Question Human capital management is starting to grow on me Is HCM actually a more 'people-centric' management strategy? Back In 2011, I wrote about how I didn't like the term "human capital manage- ment" (hCm). while I'm still not overly keen on it, the concept of hCm is start- ing to grow on me (in spite of the fact it may now be declining in popularity — go figure). HCM is viewed as a comprehen- sive business management strat- egy that is integrated with every aspect of an organization and takes a more people-centred and strategic approach to business than human resources manage- ment (HRM). HCM is generally considered to be a more strategic way of man- aging employees, with a greater emphasis on measurement, effi- ciency and the creation of value for an organization. is is achieved at least par- tially by viewing people as orga- nizational assets to be invested in, supported and nurtured. It is also frequently used in the context of human capital metrics, which are often used to provide justification for personnel initia- tives and expenditures, and in benchmarking an organization against its peers, as well as against itself over time. HCM views people and per- sonnel expenditures as invest- ments in human capital rather than costs. Thus, HCM sees employees as capital assets of the organization, much like plants and equipment. While this may sound rather cold and impersonal to some peo- ple, in many respects, it is just the opposite, since it actually relates to the frequently repeated man- tra "Our people are our greatest assets." Arguments against human capital management Back when the term "human re- sources management" was first popularized, many supporters of the old "personnel" paradigm argued, "I'm a person, not a resource." e idea was that HRM failed to take into account the fact that "human resources" are people, not resources to be exploited. Similarly, many proponents of the HRM paradigm now see HCM as a derogatory term that depicts employees not only as resources but resources that are expendable, if necessary, in order to achieve business results. Opponents of the HCM phi- losophy feel the term treats em- ployees as business assets as opposed to people. In addition, some argue HCM sounds too trendy or slick or it simply sounds like consultant-speak. Regardless of what individual commentators feel about the term, HCM has gained in popu- larity in some circles within the HR community (admittedly, however, it may be waning and it is still more popular among con- sultants, software vendors and HR outsourcing providers than it is among individual practitioners in more traditional HR roles). Arguments for human capital management However, some commentators believe the exact opposite, argu- ing that HCM is actually a more people-centric way of managing employees, and it is HRM that is more focused on compliance than commitment. With HCM, the idea is that peo- ple invest in themselves as human capital, and if an employer fails to take care of its employees, they are likely to move on or at least become demotivated and highly disengaged. So, while HCM takes the con- cept of strategic HRM one step further in integrating an orga- nization's people strategy with its overall corporate strategy, in some respects, it is perhaps more focused on the human side of personnel management than tra- ditional HRM. is may help at least partially explain why so many human resources and organizational leadership titles now include the word "people" in them (such as chief people officer or director of people and culture). Organizations are recognizing it is possible to be more strategic while also having a greater con- cern for people and their happi- ness and well-being. Generally speaking, happy people make for more highly engaged workers (al- though it is important to recog- nize that highly engaged employ- ees aren't always happier or more satisfied with their work). In turn, enhanced employee engagement makes it easier for organizations to achieve their strategic goals and objectives, and the HR (or HCM) function is able to better align its people strategy with the organization's overall strategy and its vision, mission and values. While more than three years ago I wrote that it might take me five years to start accepting the idea of human capital manage- ment, it doesn't bother me quite so much these days (although I believe, paradoxically, we aren't hearing it nearly as often). I suppose part of that relates to some convincing explana- tions I've read recently about the term and what it really means. Brian Kreissl is the product develop- ment manager for Carswell's human resources, OH&S, payroll and records retention products and solutions. is column was prepared with the assis- tance of Yaseen Hemeda. For more information, visit www.carswell.com. Brian Kreissl toughest hr Question hCm takes the concept of strategic hRm one step further in integrating an organization's people strategy with its overall corporate strategy. Leaders need to go beyond simply having contact or communicating with one another — there needs to be a real connection, with mutual trust and respect.

• Cover