Naomi Stanford

I was working with a UK City Council yesterday and looking at the new Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) HR Profession Map. They launched this earlier this year as a replacement to the Professional Standards (i.e. the path for certifying HR practitioners).

There are three main sections to the map:

a) Professional areas
There are 10 professional areas within the map. For each particular area the map describes what you need to do (e.g. the activities) and what you need to know, as well as outlining the predominant behaviours that you need to exhibit when carrying out the activities.

These are in two categories: first, "Strategy Insights and Solutions" comprising Service Delivery and Information, Employee Relations, Employee Engagement, and Performance and reward. Second, "Leading and managing the HR function" comprising Organization Design, Organization Development, Resource and Talent Planning, Learning and Talent Development.

b) Behaviors
Within this section the map describes the behaviors needed to carry out activities in more detail. Each behavior is divided into four bands of professional competence (e.g. spanning from entry level to leadership roles). Each behavior also lists a number of contra indicators which illustrate negative behavior.

c) Bands and transitions
There are four bands of professional competence to reflect the hierarchy of the profession within the map. The map also indentifies and describes how you need to change and develop to move from one band to another.

Having organization design on the map is a first for the CIPD in terms of certification although they have run a two-day course in the topic for several years. So although it's good to see the competence is seen as essentially – a fact also highlighted in a Mercer report a couple of years ago – it's a little disappointing that this competence is swayed in favor of describing organization design more in terms of structures and changing these, rather than as a whole systems approach to aligning an organization across and within a range of elements. Apparently the Map was developed following an extensive review of the global HR Profession and an in-depth investigation involving detailed interviews with HR Directors across all main economic sectors and scores of senior professionals and academics. But there is little evidence on the Map of innovative thinking around organization design – however I'm hopeful that this competence area will rapidly evolve to reflect the realities of the rapidly changing landscape of organization design.

Two related items caught my eye – both about citizen services. The first is an 'In Brief" item in the McKinsey Quarterly that came this month. The second is about the way various Latin American Governments stand in citizen satisfaction with government services from the 2009, Latin American Public Opinion Project,

The first discusses metrics that are useful for measuring citizen satisfaction, and then gives an example of a government call center that developed a 'labor allocation model' that resulted in being able to "improve the service balance between the two channels while also raising overall customer satisfaction". (The two channels being phone calls and paper applications).

The second discusses the responses of national averages in 22 Latin America countries to the question "Would you say that the services the municipality is providing are: (1) Very good; (2) Good (3); Neither good nor poor (fair); (4) Poor; or (5) Very poor?" Their findings on a quantitative only survey find the following at an individual citizen level:

1. Richer individuals in Latin America show a higher satisfaction with municipal services
2. People living in urban areas, as opposed to people living in rural areas, manifest greater satisfaction with local government services.
3. Women are slightly more satisfied with municipal services than men.

Not surprisingly this study also suggests that citizens who have been victims of crime and/or corruption in the last 12 months are less likely to be satisfied with services, while those who are involved in the work of the municipality e.g. as elected members are more likely to be satisfied with services.

All this information is material to me as I am working with a UK city council which like many others has been set strict financial targets and is approaching these less from a citizen centric perspective and more from a cutting staff costs perspective. Having realized this they are now looking for ways of offering improved services while still reaching the financial targets. It's a very difficult balance beam to tread but provides an ideal opportunity for win-win creative organization design unfortunately the vagaries of financial accounting seem, at the moment, to be heading the work into standard headcount and service cuts.

This is an unfortunate tack to take as it gives rise to the paradox that in an area of high (and growing) unemployment 'letting go' of low-paid council workers releases them into the pool of unemployed who then are very likely to require council support as unemployed citizens who are then not getting the service levels they require.

In the long term the cheaper and better option may be to keep the workers employed and be creative in generating revenue from services or other efficiency gains e.g. by doing work differently.

Someone I was talking with about organizational culture mentioned an organization called GlobeSmart that offers advice and information on doing business in various countries via a web tool. One of the elements is a self-assessment that

"Compares your personal interaction style with the styles and preferences of people from locales around the globe". But there is a firm note that The GlobeSmart Assessment Profile is not a predictor of success across cultures; it is a tool for helping you increase your awareness of potential gaps and develop strategies for effectively bridging those gaps".

Curious about this I had a go – rating myself again people in the Philippines, and then the Netherlands. (These were two of the three options in the demo available).

More curious, as the tool reminded me of Hofstede's work, I found out that it is based on the Matsumoto Self Assessment Tool which I had never heard of. But I learned that:

"The tool is an adaptation of a highly reliable and valid research instrument developed by a leading cross-cultural researcher, Dr. David Matsumoto of San Francisco State University. The country scores were derived from the merged data of four leading cross-cultural researchers: Hofstede, Schwartz, McCrae and Inglehart.

The GAP country scores are empirically derived, statistical averages of all of the available country data on the six cultural dimensions as they currently exist in the research literature. The country scores have been thoroughly tested and show strong evidence of validity on all six cultural dimensions".

Hmmm – I'm skeptical of this type of thing so I turned to find out more about Dr David Matsumoto who appears to be one of the most energetic men on the planet – just read the lists of his activities and publications. It was interesting to discover that among other talents he is "an expert in the field of facial expressions, microexpressions, gesture, nonverbal behavior, emotion and deception". So maybe the self assessment test is not deceptive, unless being an expert in deception enables him to deceive people. (Sidebar: As a consequence of this reading I wondered whether I should take judo lessons – is there a correlation between judo and work productivity?) Anyway, an hour or so passed on this research and I was reassured enough to put one of Matsumoto's books Culture and Psychology on my Amazon wish list ready for when I have time to order and read it.

POSTSCRIPT: On October 5 201O I received an email from Leigh Roxas saying:

To Whom It May Concern:

I work with Dr. Matsumoto, and came across your blog article, "Globesmart and David Matsumoto." Could you please add that Dr. Matsumoto is the director of Humintell, as well as a link to our website (www.humintell.com)? Thank you.

Yesterday a case study I wrote was used for the first time by a group – with lots of learning all round. It ran for the whole day in five rounds with a debrief between each round – an unplanned mode of running it.

The original was planned with six rounds running over two eight-hour days. Because of participants' travel arrangements which we only found out when we arrived here we made a snap decision to cut out one round and run the whole thing over one ten-hour day.

That was the first thing I learned – either design a simulation that is modular or make it plain to people that they are expected to stay for the duration of the program (the latter is impossible to enforce).

Lesson two relates to the question of pre-read or read on the day. The simulation involved some background reading that was programmed into the original day. Again, because of the sudden decision to run it over one day the preparation element was also cut. Participants suggested the background be sent out in advance – a reasonable suggestion but I've typically found that some people do pre-read and others do not so the preparation time is still needed.

Lesson three is about field testing before 'going live'. This was recommended in the book on case study development that I mentioned yesterday. Unfortunately the course was not flagged as a pilot or field test so participants were only aware on day one that they were the 'guinea pigs'. For the most part they were comfortable with this but in my view it would have been much better to have a small group test ahead of the program.

Lesson four is similar – writing a case simulation based on a company similar to the client company's risks people making too close a comparison and objecting to things that their own company could not or would not do. By forcing participants into a very close to home situation they asked for the information they would normally have access to. This makes sense but requires an insider with the access to the information to co-write the simulation in order to get it completely accurate. Going the other way and running a case unlike their company risks the participants saying 'that's all very well but it's not like us' – which is in fact what they did say to examples presented in the theory sessions of the program.

Lesson five is about simplicity and complexity – working with line middle-managers – meant pitching the simulation at their level of sophistication and experience. They felt the simulation would be better targeted at executives or senior managers as they would be the ones developing the strategy and designing the entry to a new market. The middle managers felt what they were being asked to do was 'unrealistic' for their seniority level in the organization. I did not feel very sympathetic to this because learning is about meeting challenges, personal development for the future, or thinking beyond one's immediate experience. However, I do think that expectations about the case approach, and giving much more guidance on how to tackle it – to allow for lack of confidence and imagination would be helpful.

So armed with these lessons I am about to re-write it ready for the next go-round in December.

Today is the day a client group works through a case simulation I have written. It's a pilot test of the exercise and is scheduled to last 1.5 days. It's been quite an experience writing it as I hadn't ventured into this type of authoring before, and as with all things new, find that there is an enormous community of people with expertise in it. (But maybe my 'beginner's eye' will carry it through).

I started off contacting two organizations who provide case studies ecch, and ivey. The latter who runs case method workshops but I had a tight timetable so couldn't go on one of those before I had to submit the case to the client. However, the person at Ivey I spoke with pointed me in the right direction on where and how to proceed. I ended up buying a book which was well worth the price.

Writing Cases, 4th Edition

Michiel R. Leenders , James A. Erskine , Louise A. Mauffette-Leenders

The fourth edition of this best seller sets a new milestone on how to write good cases quickly. Case writing is identified as a three-phase process, and the book guides the reader through each phase. New ideas in this edition include the Case Origin Grid, The Case Shopping List, action triggers, and the story line and decision frame cuts. Another addition is the class testing of the new case. The development of the Case Plan with its five components remains as the central planning tool for effective case development All of the material contained in this text has been fully tested in over 35 countries on all continents with thousands of workshop participants from many disciplines. The new case writer who follows faithfully the three-phase process of case writing advocated in this text can produce good cases fast.

I ended up writing a simulation rather than a case. The participants work in teams, have roles, and conduct practical exercises (using the organization design tools they have learned). Their objective is to redesign a sales and marketing department to give it the capability to support the business strategy of penetrating a new market and gaining 15% market share within three years. Yesterday evening we briefed the group on the simulation and handed out the pre-read. I didn't get any calls last night from anyone perplexed so hopefully it will go well.

Yesterday I wrote about competence and capability and the VRIO framework that was originated by Jay Barney who wrote Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage now in its third edition. He also wrote an excellent article first published in the Academy of Management Review, 1986, Vol 11, No. 3 pp. 656 – 665 on Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage? He applies the VRIO thinking to this and is firm in his statements that:

A firm's culture can be a source of sustainable competitive advantage if that culture is valuable, rare, and imperfectly imitable. The sustained superior performance of firms like IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Proctor and Gamble, and McDonald's may be, at least partly, a reflection of their organizational cultures (Peters & Waterman, 1982). Firms with valuable, rare, and imperfectly imitable cultures should nurture these cultures.

Firms without valuable, rare, or imperfectly imitable cultures cannot expect their cultures to be the source of sustained competitive advantages. Nor can such firms expect that efforts to change their cultures, though they may successfully incorporate new valuable attributes, will generate sustained superior performance. For such efforts are typically imitable, and thus, at best, only the source of temporary superior performance. These firms must look elsewhere if they
are to find ways to generate expected sustained superior financial performance.

A firm's culture is one of several attributes that differentiate firms one from another (Alchian, 1950; Alchian & Demsetz, 1972). …. Precisely because an organization's culture is hard to describe; because the common sense of managers is taken for granted; and because even if the culture can be described, it is difficult to change; a firm's culture can hold promise for sustained superior financial performance for some firms.

What the article does not tackle is exactly how to make the organizational culture a source of sustainable competitive advantage (and keep it in that category).

I heard a useful distinction between core organizational competences and core organizational capabilities today. The core competences were described as the things an organization competes on (the 'what do we do better than anyone else?') and the example given was Sony's miniaturization of components. The core organizational competences were described as the attributes the organization needs to deliver the competence (the 'how do we retain our competitive edge?') and continuing the Sony example the capabilities described were speed to market, quality, and so on.

The speaker (Chris Worley from USC) made the point that to retain the competitiveness organizations must work to keep ahead in both competence and capability, and they often focus on either one or other aspect. In Sony's case miniaturization is a competence that can easily be imitated. The various capabilities involved can also be imitated, but it's the combination of the two that makes the resource a competitive advantage IF the combination of competence and capability is:

VALUABLE

1. Does this resource or capability provide a clear benefit for the customer or your organization?
2. Are customers willing to pay or bargain for what this resource or capability can provide?

RARE

1. Is your organization one of the few who own or have control over this resource or capability?
2. Is this resource relatively rare or unique among your competitors?

DIFFICULT OR COSTLY TO IMITATE

1. Does replicating this resource or capability require significant capital investment?
2. Does replicating this resource or capability require significant time investment?
3. Is it difficult to tell (from the outside) just how this resource or capability is used in the organization?
4. Does the efficient use of this resource or operation of this capability require significant amounts of learning?

OFFERS POSSIBILITIES FOR ORGANIZATION LEVERAGE

1. Does the organization focus attention and invest in this resource or capability?
2. Does the organization recognize the importance of this resource or capability?

I got an email last week from the World Future Society telling me about the Certificate in Strategic Foresight that's running for 5 days in Houston, Texas from January 11 – 15 2010.

This five-day program in January 2010 provides tools to create a positive future for your company and yourself in today's constantly changing world.

It's related to a Masters in Technology in Future Studies in Commerce. I took a look at the content of this and am very tempted by both the Masters (it is online) and the five day course. Unfortunately I can't go to the January one but I'm hoping it will appear again later in the year.

It's tempting because one of the things I'm constantly telling the people I do organization design work with is that there is no 'future' state that is predictable and so designing for the gap between current and future is somewhat of an empty exercise (if they believe the future can be planned). The Master's degree outline notes that:

Professional futurists emphasize systemic and transformational change as opposed to traditional forecasters and planners who focus on incremental change based on existing conditions and trends. Since long-term predictive forecasts are rarely correct, futurists describe alternative plausible and preferable futures, in addition to the expected future. Instead of limiting themselves to traditional forecasters' quantitative methods, futurists also use a balance of qualitative and quantitative tools. The program provides collaboration and innovation with multiple perspectives on foresight, business and marketing, consumer science and retailing. Our experience suggests that the demand for strategic foresight graduates in commercial and public sectors will continue to rise.

So taking the program may well give me insights into how to help organization designers work with these approaches. Meanwhile I enjoy the notes and forecasts from the World Future Society – one of several such forums that are involved in this type of thinking.

Yesterday I was working with a client on developing a case simulation for training purposes. It's been a fascinating exercise. The client has recently designed and introduced an in-house organization design methodology with toolkit. It has been piloted on several projects in various business units and is gaining an internal reputation for 'this is the way to restructure, upsize/downsize, start a new business unit, etc.' which is great – particularly since it takes a whole systems approach and is not focused on fiddling with the organization chart.

It is a four phase methodology (define, design, deliver, develop) and next week line managers and HR business partners are being trained in the design phase – having already been trained in the define phase. The training program is in two parts: part one focusing on the approach and describing the tools, and part two being a two-day case simulation where participants get to practice what they have just learned via a scenario that simulates a real situation they are facing.

The case focuses on redesigning a marketing department poised to enter a new territory. During the case they practice how to review the findings of the define phase and reach consensus on these – as they inform the design approach. They then have to develop design criteria for the new design, map the core processes and work out how to bundle the work in order to generate various organizing rationales. The next step is to determine which organizing rationale is the most appropriate to take forward into determining structures by assessing against the design criteria, and various other measures.

Participants will be working in design teams of 6 – each having been allocated a part to play. There are eight segments to the simulation each led by one of the group of six (the facilitator role rotates through the group so as a person is facilitating their 'character role' drops out). The roles have been designed to ensure that facilitators get practice in handling diverse opinions, managing conflict, and so on.

So today the material is being finalized and printed up. I'm looking forward to seeing how it works with the participants and what their feedback is on it.

People frequently ask me the difference between organization design and organization development. I had another go at answering yesterday in a workshop. This time I gave the car analogy.

Organization design is deciding first what is the purpose of the car that you are about to design e.g. is it to cross the desert? Is it to win a Formula 1 race? Is it to transport two adults and three children to a party? The second stage is to design and deliver a car that is fit for that purpose.

Organization development is about keeping that vehicle in the condition necessary to achieve the purpose e.g. using the right fuel, having it serviced regularly, teaching the driver how to drive it to maximize its performance, and so on.

Clearly this is not a perfect analogy as an organization is in a constant state of flux unlike the vehicle but it does serve an illustrative purpose and it's one that people can grasp instantly. Another analogy I use is of the human body. The underpinning 'design' of the human body is a given – skeleton, cardio-vascular system, etc. But keeping the human body fit and healthy is the development aspect: nutrition, exercise, learning, managing stress, and so on. This analogy works as the human body is adaptive to things but the underpinning design is not necessarily affected in the adaptation process (apart from aging). Note that when I use the human body analogy I don't enter the territory of what the 'purpose' of it is or conjecture on the original 'designer'!

One of the participants in the room was a Head of Organization Development but to my relief he liked the way the analogy worked.