Canadian HR Reporter

STRATEGIC CAPABILITY NETWORK'S PANEL of thought leaders brings decades of experience from the senior ranks of Canada's business community. eir commentary puts HR management issues into context and looks at the practical implications of proposals and policies. CANADIAN HR REPORTER December 11, 2017 EXECUTIVE SERIES 9 www.scnetwork.ca Join our professional community of Canadian HR & Organizational Leaders: • Connecting @ monthly events • Collaborating with peers • Challenging conventional thinking The Power of Human Capital CULTIVATING LEADERSHIP FOR 35 YEARS Great Leaders GROW www.scnetwork.ca It's deeper than people thinking diff erently Four SCNetwork members discuss Michelle Moore's presentation on disruptive talent Jan van der Hoop: Michelle Moore opened up November's SCNet- work session with a discussion of customer expectations. By and large, consumers (let's not forget that present and future employees are con- sumers also) are drawn to products and organizations that are relevant, engaging, current, convenient and well-designed. e interaction and the experience (process and technology) need to be rewarding on some level, and easy. Ideally, surprisingly so. And yet, for many of us, the re- ality of our organizations is diff er- ent. Internal systems, entrenched culture and behavioural habits all too often result in a service deliv- ery or experience that is less than elegant or eff ortless. Just think of the example of a bank losing a promising new hire on day one, after she is handed an onboarding binder to read, and informed her laptop is not ready. Lots of time, energy and eff ort went into the recruitment and selection of that person (and into the preparation of that binder), only to be undone by the experi- ence of the fi rst handful of hours. We know from many of our speakers over the last six months that many HR functions would benefit greatly from a "design thinking" makeover, where we invest the time to see and experi- ence our "products" through the eyes of our "consumers," and make the necessary adjustments… and I would hazard a guess that while many of us have agreed intellec- tually that we "should get to that," relatively few of us have taken a step in that direction. Finding the energy and the will for disruption and innovation is really hard. So while we have unmet oppor- tunities of our own for innovation within our own four walls, the even bigger challenge is how do we breed customer focus, agility, ex- perimentation and curiosity into the DNA of our organizations? It goes far deeper than simply hiring people who think diff erently and are willing to challenge the cur- rent state; we have to prepare the culture and the "soil" into which they will be planted. Bernard Leb- elle put it well when he referred to "corporate antibodies" that will kill and expel innovators unless inno- vation is in the DNA. What is HR's role in leading that shift in mindsets, to building more nimble and innovative organiza- tions? Can it be HR-led, or does it need to be driven from the top? Paul Pittman: Two things are certain in HR; we are prone to "fl avour of the monthism." e second is we are great innovators (no pun intended); we take old ideas and give them new names. at being said — and recogniz- ing that external advisers have to wrap their offerings in new clothes — some great wisdom stemmed from this session. I have had a career in "disrup- tovation," with some challenging spots often requiring signifi cant turnaround, and my fi rst caution would be that disruption and in- novation are not synonymous — there is often a need for blowing up the way things are done, and that's diff erent from creating new or reinventing old products and services. ese require a diff erent skill set; black belts might be disrup- tors but probably are not inno- vators. In my experience, too, a discreet position designated "chief innovator" will be doomed to failure at most organizations as the organization (antibodies) will reject the transplant because it is disruptive. I liked the recommendation of building an approach consis- tent with the evolutionary stage or culture of the organization — nothing wrong by starting with "curiosity." Knowing the outcome you want to achieve, and what the organization is blocking by staid thinking or comfort with current revenue levels, is critical. Inviting into the business a free roaming change agent with an open man- date allowed to run amok is a great recipe for destroying value and eviscerating engagement — no matter how moribund the cur- rent off ering. Innovation is not for everyone but disruption probably is, to a lesser or greater extent. A lot of private sector organizations talk about innovation but few really act on their thoughts and settle for disruption. Our panel, for ex- ample, comprises mostly consul- tants and an insurance company that has done what sounded like a wonderful job in accelerated evolution rather than innovation (after all, we're talking actuaries here). ey are, however, right to be concerned block chain tech- nology will see off the brokering industry within a few years and must pose a grave threat to the insurance industry as we know it, and perhaps disruption leads to innovation. Case studies were referenced but most in the context of explor- ing and not necessarily adopting innovation. Pushback from the audience perhaps also suggested concerns about the risks. The truth is that necessity is often the mother of invention. e great innovation culture di- sasters were dismissed, but there are some important lessons to be learned from Blackberry, GE and Kodak, most notably about speed to change, perhaps. ere are also lessons to be learned from compa- nies that have eff ected large-scale disruption to change products through design thinking that did not credit new-age innovation. Disruptive teams have been used at organizations for decades. e best advice came around hiring and nurturing disruptive- oriented people who, in the right environment and circumstances, can add signifi cant value. In summary: Know what you are targeting, don't underestimate how much organizational prepa- ration is required for disruptors to be successful and enable in- cumbents who, in my experience at least, are most likely to be suc- cessful if they come from inside. Edmond Mellina: I'd like to go back to the notion of "corporate antibodies." The intrapreneurs — innovative people who act like entrepreneurs at larger or- ganizations — often refer to the much-maligned corporate im- mune system. It is a convenient way to explain why their brilliant idea didn't get enough traction internally. However, I think the real prob- lem is elsewhere. If raw disruptors are great at startups, established organizations desperately need leaders who take a highly collab- orative approach to disruption from within. I call these special talents the "co-disruptors." e problem is that eff ective co-disruptors are few and far be- tween. To make matters worse, the good ones tend to be under- leveraged. For example, they are assigned to roles in which they cannot fully work their magic. Before blaming the corporate immune system, intrapreneurs should ask themselves: "To what extent have I been acting like a true co-disruptor?" If the answer is far from a resounding yes, then they should stop blaming the corporate antibodies and look at themselves in the mirror. Having said that, even the best co-disruptive intrapreneurs can- not do it on their own. For them to succeed, we need other co-disrup- tors in the organization — par- ticularly in four critical areas: the C-suite; all the innovation teams; the business units most at risk of digital disruption; and, fi nally, the board of directors itself. Paul: I agree, Edmond. Hu- mans need support systems to remain confi dent and to continue to be successful. e folks who are brave enough to stand in the way of accepted wisdom, resistance to change and organizational inertia are few and far between, and are probably running another com- pany. Most mid-organization change agents need encourage- ment. HR can play an important role here. Tracey White: You've hit the nail on the head, gentlemen. e operations of large corporations are set up to institutionalize rou- tine. e goal is consistent, pre- dictable, fi nancial fl ows that can be reported to analysts in a way that ensures earnings reports have no surprises and sharehold- ers have positive returns. New technologies have rein- forced these operational systems, making them more predictable, faster and effi cient. But now op- erations are brittle and unrespon- sive, focused on their own logic, so other stakeholders are left out in the cold. ink of the diffi culties of the airline industry, where operations clearly trump customer satisfac- tion; we've all seen the videos. In business, generally, there has been a steady erosion of customer ser- vice as technology has "increased operational effi ciency." Asking HR to hire the "right" people, no matter what skill is fashionable, is barking up the wrong tree. Disruptors, intrapre- neurs, a bright new generation of millennial employees — none of these can fi x problems that are inherently structural. Ultimately, seeking an HR solution will fail because of this basic misdiagnosis of the problem and an unwilling- ness to challenge it. PANELLISTS: • Jan G. van der Hoop, president of Fit First Technologies in Toronto • Paul Pittman, founder and president of the Human Well in Toronto • Tracey White, owner and managing director at Strategy in Action in Toronto • Edmond Mellina, co-founding president of Orchango Jan van der Hoop Tracey White Paul Pittman Edmond Mellina

• Cover