"Lost" Opportunity

It is interesting to have the historic vote on health care in the background as I muse about this. Many opponents of the model being proposed by the Administration talk about the trillion dollars it will cost to fund the program. As a counterpoint I look at the following situation:

My readings and research tell me that we "lose" $5 trillion annually to the direct costs of employee turnover. Additional research indicates that we lose another $200 billion annually to "presenteeism"; the spending on health benefits related to stress, lost productivity due to employees dealing with personal issues at work, and the difference between contributions from employees operating at full versus marginal productivity. I saw research recently that said in addition to those costs we send over $100 billion annually on training and development in corporate America and yet less than 10% of those dollars result in meaningful and sustained change.

My math has never been my strength, but it would seem that the "lost" opportunity that these costs represent approaches five and a half trillion dollars in the U.S. economy annually. So if we addressed some of these we could pay for health care five times over and have money left over to address other critical issues like maybe education, homeless folks, and other similar societal issues. So what am I missing?

Our current economic system has retreated in a way to a kind of capitalistic feudalism. The industrial revolution was largely based on "dumbing down" tasks and activities to make them simpler and therefore more "efficient". The skills required to perform these tasks decreased and correspondingly so did the wages. Technology provide even further assistance, machines and "systems" can do what people used to do cheaper, faster, and many times more efficiently. In exchange for "compliance" we offered employees a certain degree of economic security. Then a world economy happened. Other economies began using "our" systems combined with their own enhancements and lower wages and we lost our competitive advantage. Our solution in many cases was outsourcing to these economies. At the root we forgot to include people in our "solutions", and now we are paying for it.

Research about engagement demonstrates that the U.S. economy is operating at about 30% of its potential efficiency. Before other economies gloat too much I would point out that this puts us in the top quartile.

Organizations that have a well developed engagement strategy enjoy significant advantages in productivity, profitability, and sustainability. Those terms sound pretty capitalistic to me.

Engagement is not measured exclusively by employee "satisfaction" or tenure. It is not a short term strategy or for the faint hearted. It also requires to examine and rebuild our relationships between: employer and employed, "vendor" and customer, and organization and community. We need to examine how we hire, how we train, how we reward, how we communicate, and most importantly how we relate to and value one another. The upside is that properly executed we can recapture some of those trillions and address compelling issues and not spend anymore money.

Is is just me or does that "value proposition" sound interesting? So I would ask again:

• If not now when?
• If not us then who?

Looking forward to your thoughts......

Wrong Process = Wrong Results

I had an opportunity to read a literature review from last year that drew some pretty interesting conclusions not only for the U.S., but worldwide.
Steven Zaccaro, in his piece, Executive Talent Assessment and Selection: A Literature Review described a five step process.

• Defining executive candidate position requirements (technical skills)
• Delineating appropriate candidate attributes (cultural fit)
• Recruiting the candidate pool
• Assessing the candidate pool
• Making the final decision and "onboarding" the successful candidate

He goes on to say that the failure rate for executives is extraordinarily high and that failure to spend appropriate time on all of these elements is a probable cause.

He has some pretty good data to back him up. He cites the facts that CEO's hired after 1985 were 3 times more likely to be fired than those hired prior to that date and that the overall turnover rate for CEO's has from 6% in 1995 to 14% in 2002. In case your conclusion is so what, there is a direct correlation between CEO performance and organizational performance that has been documented by everyone from Jim Collins in Good to Great to the Department of Labor.

Another source describes the failure rate of new managers as exceeding 40% in the first 18 months. The costs of turnover is estimated at between two and five times annual salary in "hard" costs, so we aren't talking about a tempest in a teapot.

He shares some pretty interesting insights as to the causes of these failures as well. Succession planning in most organizations is frankly reactive. People don't like to consider and plan for their own departure. Another reason is that while many C level people are gifted business leaders and strategists; selection and placement are not core competencies for them. A study by Drucker shows them to have about a 33% success rate at choosing their own successor.

The literature indicates that when it comes down to it executive search committees tend to rely on their own "gut" instincts, select candidates who "mirror" their own attributes, and other human tendencies in making their selections. The least reliable indicator of success is an interview without other validating information. Similarly "track records" aren't always reliable unless the organization is facing similar challenges and an operating environment to the one the candidate faced. The skills sets at each level of management and leadership also become increasing complex- success as a middle manager or operational executive is not necessarily indicative of success at the higher level.

Last week I talked about the "leadership crisis" with something approaching 50% of middle managers rejecting providing "clarity", direction, and attending to morale issues as being their responsibility. When does the recognition that these responsibilities are part of their job occur if not built into the process? Correspondingly we know that highly engaged employees outperform their colleagues by a rate of 21% and that the "engagement" factor is synergistic to total organizational performance. The number one criteria for engagement is clarity.

Since many of our CEOs and other key executives come from "within" I don't think we can discount our investment in the process of their recruitment, selection, and development either.

So I guess it might be time to ask ourselves when we are ready to accept the idea that using the same process over and over and expecting a different result is a bit silly. Given the state of our economy, the costs of "presenteeism", and turnover shouldn't we consider making some changes?