The submerged part of people’s value Organizations are always looking for new ways to reinvent their activity and find new approaches to optimize talent is a critical aspect of organizational performance. Optimization of talent is crucial because the competitive battle is focused on best people, the true creators of value, value that grows as we […]
The submerged part of people’s value
Organizations are always looking for new ways to reinvent their activity and find new approaches to optimize talent is a critical aspect of organizational performance.
Optimization of talent is crucial because the competitive battle is focused on best people, the true creators of value, value that grows as we encourages and develops collaboration and as we streamline the work and social networks.
“An enterprise that is constantly exploring new horizons is likely to have a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining talent. When a once successful company runs aground and starts to list, its most talented employees usually don’t stick around to bail water, they jump ship. A dynamic company will have employees who are more engaged, more excited to show up to work every day, and thus more productive.”– Gary Hamel
It doesn’t seem difficult to imagine that a company that, in addition to be judicious in their hires, promotes the development of collaborative work grows and consolidates its strength on the market.
What happens is that the sets of talents in collaboration become a “machine” highly productive and creative.
Moreover, when a company, or its leaders, knows how to work these formal and informal networks of talent, they have access to their vital energy and can manage it according to the common interest.
Some of the key points of organizational development and behavior, such as the organizational hierarchical structures, are now developing and facilitating talent networks.
But this new perspective to deal with the performance of individuals is not easy to understand and develop. Often the performance assessment is based on individual responsibility, although today most of the work in companies can be a collaborative workspace. More, what were the workflows and decision-making processes are not today reflect a spirit of collaboration, co creation and innovation culture.
Sometime ago I wrote on this blog:
“According to Tim Kastelle, if we seek to manage innovation within an organization (environment) is easier to be effective if we understand how networks work. For this we need to do an analysis of how networks work and try to understand how people connect with each other and how the knowledge is shared between them.
This methodology used by Tim Kastelle (“Innovation Leadership Network”) not only allows us to detect the flow of information, but also to verify if there are people who do not have connections, and from there try to establish procedures so that they can be improved or reworked. This analysis seems to me to be extremely useful when you have differentiated physical and distant spaces where the physical contact of persons does not exist and therefore needs a more understanding facilitated by observation of maps.”
So, in this changing environment, it is important to take conscience of formal and informal networks of talent that companies incorporate and try, through its mapping, to define where improve collaboration of its elements, through talent management processes, always bearing in mind the environment of diversity driver of wealth that networks represent.
“What’s true in nature is true in business—a lack of diversity limits the ability of a species to adapt and change.
Problem is, the gene pool at the top of many companies is a stagnant pond. The executive committee is usually comprised of long serving veterans whose experiences and attitudes are more alike than different. Homogeneity has its virtues—it facilitates communication and speeds decision-making—but it also limits a company’s ability respond to unconventional threats and opportunities.” – Gary Hamel
An analysis of the organizational network mapping and its diversity can help managers to see the specific types of relationships and collaborations that enable employees to become more effective and to know what are their broader contributions of collaboration for the organization.
A recent study titled, “Building a Well-Networked Organization” and featured in Mit Sloan Management Review provides us with an interesting hypothesis (adaptation) for the identification of some “types” of talent we can find in organizations and from which we can try to map networks. They are:
High-performing talent – They are people who tend to excel individually while at the same time developing, leveraging and contributing to their networks and those of selected others within or outside their organization. Personal relationships help them extend their expertise and avoid learning biases by tapping into pockets of knowledge and accessing valuable resources across their networks.
Marginalized talent – Are collaborators with low score in both individual performance and contributions of the network.
The effectiveness of marginalized employees can often be improved through either performance management processes or individual development plans that create an informal network connecting them to critical organizational segments.
Hidden talent – Although they may make significant contributions to their colleagues in ways that benefit the organization, they don’t appear on the top talent lists and usually aren’t considered for promotions or plum project assignments.
Underutilized talent – Many organizations have a surprisingly large group of employees who are in the top performance category but who make relatively little collaborative contribution. In some cases, this is both appropriate and deliberate. For example, it’s common for companies to limit the amount of time scientists and engineers spend in meetings and committee work; making modest changes in the way they collaborate can keep critical talent focused while adding to knowledge flow in the network.
I think that an approach to resources/talent, through collaborative networks of enterprises, which can be mapped as suggested, transforms the perspective of the company’s value presented by traditional methodologies in something very surprising.
What do you think of this?
TagsAnalyses and intuition Art and innovation Ask questions Assumptions and innovation Behavior and innovation Behavior change Business model Business models Collaboration and innovation Connections and creativity Create value Creativity and diversity Creativity and empathy Creativity and sustainability Critical thinking Designthinking Design thinking and business Diversity and creativity Diversity and Innovation Emotional experiences Empathy and innovation Evaluation of ideas Innovation and Human Resources Innovation and Management Innovation and networks Innovation and observation Innovation and possibilities Innovation and trust Innovation Culture Inovattion Institute for the Future Interception of ideas Intuitive thinking Making decisions Marty Neumeir Motivation and collaboration Open Innovation Services Passion and creativity Protoypes Resistance to change Rethinking options Simplicity and innovation Time and creativity values and innovation White space
- March 2018
- February 2018
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- February 2016
- March 2014
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011