Vasant Kunj, New Delhi | +91 9810 232 822
This are thoughts that I shared at a CII Symposium recently in Delhi. The theme of the Symposium was Digital Transformation and Talent Strategies for SME Competitiveness. I was on the 1st panel that was talking only about the Talent Strategies for SME to improve their competitiveness and ensure growth.
During the inaugural session as well as in their literature for this symposium three words were used frequently – Innovation, Growth and Competitiveness. I am sure this was done to help focus on right issues during the discussions. I started with putting these terms in a perspective. I see these words belong to different categories. Competitiveness and growth are largely structure driven terms. I understand them as terms that could be codified and laid down in black and white, in form of instructions. Innovation on the other hand, I see as a process-driven term. I have argued a difference between structure and process in my earlier article also. Normally in operational organisational parlance a desired/ designed sequential list of activities is called a process. I argue that process is about human behaviour. A list of sequential activities is only a ‘structure’ in that sense. I further argue from organisational experience that since we do not differentiate between these two terms, you may have seen organizations that have volumes written about so called ‘processes’, but people do not necessarily follow it. Same is true of innovation. Most organisations today mention innovation as something they pursue, they value, but there are not many organisations in India that are innovative – because they have structure around it, but not process – people behaviour is not defined. So requirement for innovation is vastly different from what may be required to pushing growth and competitiveness.
Before speaking about strategies, I guess we need to get a handle on what are some of the typical myths about ‘talent’ today. I am going to share some of these myths in the next few paragraphs. The 1st myth is that all individuals looking for a job or all employees are a ‘talent’. Unless there is a ‘right fit’ between the person and the job-role, there is no talent. 2nd myth is that people need jobs and they are looking for opportunities to make money, so money will attract and keep people glued to their jobs. World is very dynamic and transitory today. At one level, people look for jobs to earn money, but this is not enough reason, to keep them on job. People have varied and fancied reasons for leaving or switching jobs. To be aware of these ‘fancy’ elements that glue people to jobs is something that must be seriously considered. Often we view everything from our own prism, and therefore are likely to miss the point. We need to view it from ‘their prism’ to understand what drives and what could be a glue. 3rd myth is that good talent is available either in ‘good’ firms or ‘good’ institutes. If you look around successful companies and their leaders, most of them are not from Ivy League or premier institutes. I have personally hired many young people from B and C cities in India and they have shown far more resilience and commitment than some others. Young people from not so fancy institutions have a point to prove and therefore they commit themselves better to getting results. Incidentally, these terms commitment and belongingness have also undergone a change in their definition. They do not necessarily mean – life long engagement. Very often you may not want that too as an organisation, unless the person shows capacity to relearn and grow with changing demands. Commitment is about untiring efforts to deliver results for which the two – firm and the employee – have come together; must demonstrate resilience and authenticity. This is the 4th myth. Next myth is about motivating an employee to retain – in a world that is dynamic and transitory, individual anchors in life also keep changing. This makes it difficult for organisations to motivate and retain talent. If individual anchors are dynamic, then it demands that organisations must also have dynamic mechanisms to trigger and activate these anchors accordingly, so that retention and motivation are in tune. The next myth is that longer the service more valuable the employee is. Length of service today is worthy only in terms of cultural understanding – neither cultural fit nor dynamically changing role fit. The last myth I wish to share is critical especially from perspective of family driven SME enterprises. Trusted and old individuals, need not be good for the organisation too. Most such individuals are breeding ground for politics and sub-optimal performance. Delivery should be the only criteria for defining and rewarding a talent. While saying this I am not decrying value of good people. I strongly believe, all people are good, but when are talking about growth and competitiveness of an organisation, ‘good people’ may not be defining criteria.
I recommend some simple strategies that I have experienced delivers results. One caution is not to copy-paste what other and typically large organizations do, whether in India or West. What works somewhere else may not necessarily work here. This is a strong thumb rule that SME must be wary of. SME leaders must do what they ‘feel’ is right not what others ‘think’ is right for them. This includes external advisors and consultants. Create a model based on information from the world and ‘gut from within’. This is the best way to deal with challenges of individual SMEs.
Recently, I was with a young entrepreneur and he was sharing his challenges to seek my advice. He arduously explained that lot of his time goes in HR issues including hiring. After patiently listening to him, I advised if he is spending 30-50% of his time in HR issues (including hiring talent), then depending on the maturity of the organisation, he is doing it right and must spend time. More quality time you spend in HR issues, the more you are likely to build a character that will ensure growth, competitiveness and innovation in the long run.
SMEs must focus more on processes – human behaviour part of the equation – than the structure part of it. There are many intelligent people in every organisation with enough experience to create a structure, including sequential list of activities – but very few have capabilities to institutionalise human behaviour around it. SME owners must therefore focus on it.
Another important element of the talent strategy is that if you take care of individual aspirations of your employees, they are more likely to turn in their best. One of the challenge here is to treat employees as a ‘group’ and not individuals. One size fits all, never works with people. SME leaders therefore need to critique what they bring to table for each individual employee and what are they doing to meet individual aspirations.
You also need to treat people differently and differentially. ‘All people are equal’ is a saying best left for GODs. Socialism does not work to bring organisational result. People turn in different levels of results and the way organisational system treats them must be closely linked with this. You could consider encouraging people with potential, but focus must always be on either result being delivered or possibility of results coming through. One of the simple ways of finding out potential of people is to understand and view their expansive perspective. People with higher potential have wider and broader perspective. Encourage this amongst employees and see who have the ability for this expansive perspective, promote such behaviour.
A strategy linked to his behaviour is what kind of values and narratives find place in actual work place. Espoused values and actual values must be understood clearly. If actual values that are demonstrated and encouraged in employee behaviour is at variance with espoused values, then those remain in prints only. No wonder you may have experienced that organizations print nice-sounding words and phrases on expensive papers, but employees do not remember them and there is no collective understanding of these terms. So things like respect for individuals, collaboration, innovation, customer first etc must be lived setting by examples and these stories should be part of organisational narrative. I have written in my earlier article on power of this narrative. Whatever you care for, must have some powerful narratives around it to ensure they are institutionalised in employee behaviour.
One important element that organizations look at for building competitiveness is a benchmarked salary. Often this is an external benchmark that adjusts compensation of the whole organisation, in a unipolar way. External benchmarks are good, but it should be extended and performance linked internal benchmarks should also be created for compensation. This works like a double edged sword. People always like and appreciate a sense of equity – equal compensation only for equal performance/ result. If employees do not see a sense a fair equity, then externally benchmarked compensation does not deliver for them.
Last strategy I recommend is to lead your team with authenticity. As mentioned in my earlier article, one of the simplest rules of this game – defined as 3 pillars of success are – Transparency, Fairness and Predictability. SME organizations must strive to build these 3 values in the way it operates and implements its policies, internally. If you look closely these 3 are outcomes of the way you behave over period of time – you will either get these outcomes or not. There are behaviours that have to be encouraged and monitored. For example, encourage and support straight talk in the organisation not necessarily pleasant talks only. Manner of speaking may be pleasant but organisation must build a spine in its employees to call a spade-aspade. Let people follow structures and demonstrate processes as laid out, without exceptions. Discretions should be cut down to minimum and only exceptions, and they must be called out as such. Seniors in the origination must call out such exceptions and ensure that they are not too frequent or else discretions lose their significance and give rise to narrative of being unfair. If transparency and fairness is ensured, predictability follows.
In conclusion, times are changing and we must view talent from their prism and not necessarily use our own prisms alone. Talent must be viewed as individuals and not treated in groups. Performance and contributions linked rewards go a long way in creating an enabling culture in organisation. If we can keep a tab on individual aspirations, help crate a linkage with organisational results and support them, we could breed a sustainable competitiveness and growth that could deliver innovative solutions.