I think this is a great post which I hope gets broader coverage (I will share it!!). It is so refreshing to hear something genuinely different but not all 'Googleish' (we are so perfect). I had a question about career progression...How does this work and what are the limitations, if any, on career movement.
There is nothing new in this although, with more than 20 years experience working with a range of companies in assessment and other people issues, I have noticed a slight change as a result of the recession. Companies have become more risk adverse and feel, as it's an employer's market, they can pick and choose who to employ. As a result, they have generally become more prescriptive and one might even say, more risk adverse. And it was ever thus. I don't think it's the job descriptions but the thinking behind them. Well written job descriptions can enable role clarity which is positively associated with higher levels of job satisfaction, meaning and autonomy. But they have to be well written.
I think this is a great example of how linking work to a meaningful outcome brings a number of benefits - to the organisation (through good PR such as this) and to the employee (through clarity about how they can positively impact others). Great, love it, thank you for posting.
I'm going to come from a different perspective completely. Despite the fact I've been building leadership models for more than 20 years (maybe because of it), I have come to the conclusion that there is no one defined leadership model that is predominant. Along with Hogan (The Dark Side of Leadership etc) I believe it is what leadership is needed in which circumstances. Whilst I agree that we could and should use data to inform our decisions about leadership potential, most diagnostics around don't enable us to ask questions within a contextual background. We're often asked, does the person communicate with passion? Yes/No. And I would question as to whether we need passion for everything. In fact, to communicate with passion all the time would probably dilute its impact. Similary, we need to see how the individual acts with his/her back up against the wall - with integrity and consistency, or in merely following the party line.
So context is critical.
Perry's comments reflect the current thinking about the importance of being the type of leader followers want - authentic, brave and full of integrity. I disagree with Perry when he says there probably isn't data on courage. I've worked with models that have integrity, moral judgement and so on. So why not bravery and courage - it's a form of self confidence isn't it.
I do think how people want to be managed will determine the type of leader that emerges in the future. In fact, Google asked its employees to build a picture of the model of the leader they want - a leadership model but still, how fantastic to be asked to define how you want to be led. And being Google I'm sure they'll be measuring it. I
Having come across CAPP and Marcus Buckingham some time ago, I have huge respect for their work. I largely agree with what Nicky was saying and, having worked with competency based assessment and selection for more than 20 years, I think it is high time for the emergence of something else which more closely responds to the GenY need to work with a company that reflects their values and to work in a role which plays to their strengths. Who could argue with this - its the holy grail of recruitment.
However, I dothink that Nicky's point about people becoming more practised at competency based selection, will also apply to strength based selection as it becomes more widely used. Of course it is always more desirable for people to work in roles and within companies they love and enjoy and which play to their strengths, however, in reality, people want a job first and foremost and if they think they need to embellish their strengths to ensure they get a role in their ideal company (what they think is their ideal anyway), then possibly they will. Of course it could be the strengths based assessment process prevents this 'embellishment' and it's candidate proof - that would truly by the holy grail.
Someone once said to me that there are only two things people will never admit to - being bad at interviewing and being bad at s** (the one that involves night time activity).
Outstanding individuals can typically deliver 40 - 60% more than average employees. It makes alot of sense to invest in assessment and selection skills to (a) make sure you're getting the best person for the job and (b) you're not making costly mistakes.
It sounds like your HRD didn't have any criteria to assess your suitability or otherwise when you were interviewed but, sadly, after more than 20 years in consulting and nearly 30 years in the workplace, this doesn't surprise me one bit.
My answers
I think this is a great post which I hope gets broader coverage (I will share it!!). It is so refreshing to hear something genuinely different but not all 'Googleish' (we are so perfect). I had a question about career progression...How does this work and what are the limitations, if any, on career movement.
There is nothing new in this although, with more than 20 years experience working with a range of companies in assessment and other people issues, I have noticed a slight change as a result of the recession. Companies have become more risk adverse and feel, as it's an employer's market, they can pick and choose who to employ. As a result, they have generally become more prescriptive and one might even say, more risk adverse. And it was ever thus. I don't think it's the job descriptions but the thinking behind them. Well written job descriptions can enable role clarity which is positively associated with higher levels of job satisfaction, meaning and autonomy. But they have to be well written.
I think this is a great example of how linking work to a meaningful outcome brings a number of benefits - to the organisation (through good PR such as this) and to the employee (through clarity about how they can positively impact others). Great, love it, thank you for posting.
I'm going to come from a different perspective completely. Despite the fact I've been building leadership models for more than 20 years (maybe because of it), I have come to the conclusion that there is no one defined leadership model that is predominant. Along with Hogan (The Dark Side of Leadership etc) I believe it is what leadership is needed in which circumstances. Whilst I agree that we could and should use data to inform our decisions about leadership potential, most diagnostics around don't enable us to ask questions within a contextual background. We're often asked, does the person communicate with passion? Yes/No. And I would question as to whether we need passion for everything. In fact, to communicate with passion all the time would probably dilute its impact. Similary, we need to see how the individual acts with his/her back up against the wall - with integrity and consistency, or in merely following the party line.
So context is critical.
Perry's comments reflect the current thinking about the importance of being the type of leader followers want - authentic, brave and full of integrity. I disagree with Perry when he says there probably isn't data on courage. I've worked with models that have integrity, moral judgement and so on. So why not bravery and courage - it's a form of self confidence isn't it.
I do think how people want to be managed will determine the type of leader that emerges in the future. In fact, Google asked its employees to build a picture of the model of the leader they want - a leadership model but still, how fantastic to be asked to define how you want to be led. And being Google I'm sure they'll be measuring it. I
Having come across CAPP and Marcus Buckingham some time ago, I have huge respect for their work. I largely agree with what Nicky was saying and, having worked with competency based assessment and selection for more than 20 years, I think it is high time for the emergence of something else which more closely responds to the GenY need to work with a company that reflects their values and to work in a role which plays to their strengths. Who could argue with this - its the holy grail of recruitment.
However, I dothink that Nicky's point about people becoming more practised at competency based selection, will also apply to strength based selection as it becomes more widely used. Of course it is always more desirable for people to work in roles and within companies they love and enjoy and which play to their strengths, however, in reality, people want a job first and foremost and if they think they need to embellish their strengths to ensure they get a role in their ideal company (what they think is their ideal anyway), then possibly they will. Of course it could be the strengths based assessment process prevents this 'embellishment' and it's candidate proof - that would truly by the holy grail.
Someone once said to me that there are only two things people will never admit to - being bad at interviewing and being bad at s** (the one that involves night time activity).
Outstanding individuals can typically deliver 40 - 60% more than average employees. It makes alot of sense to invest in assessment and selection skills to (a) make sure you're getting the best person for the job and (b) you're not making costly mistakes.
It sounds like your HRD didn't have any criteria to assess your suitability or otherwise when you were interviewed but, sadly, after more than 20 years in consulting and nearly 30 years in the workplace, this doesn't surprise me one bit.
I hope that whoever is the HR Director for the HMRC has, by now, resigned as the right and ethical thing to do.