Great video from John Hagel of Deloitte’s Centre for the Edge on the Passion of the Explorer – a common characteristic of high performing people:

  • Long term commitment to a domain
  • Questing disposition
  • Connecting disposition

Call them Change Agents.  Call them leaders of the Responsive Organisation.  Call them Disruptors.  Call them bearers of the Challenger Spirit.  Call them innovators.  Call them rebels.  The pattern is consistent that change is driven by the passionate, the learning oriented and the networked.

What ever you call these people, make sure you treasure them.

Competency or Capability? Mindsets Matter

Competency and capability are near synonyms. However I find there is a world of difference in the mindset that lies behind each measure of individual development. The difference in mindset has major ramifications for careers, talent development and diversity. The two mindsets raise different questions when assessing individuals.

I have personal experience of the difference. When I have failed to win a role that I sought, the feedback is almost always framed in terms of lack of a demonstrated competency. However when I win new roles it is rarely because I had a demonstrated competency in the area of expertise that defined the role. My career has been based on bringing my set of capabilities to address the challenges and needs of each role.

Competency Mindsets vs Capability Mindsets

Discussions framed around competency are often conducted with a mindset of assessing an individual against a defined standard. Often competencies are defined quite specifically and related to limited areas of expertise. Compentencies are often seen as tools to enable someone to do a job. Competency assessment is much more likely to be oriented to formal qualifications, demonstrated prior experience or demonstration of specifically determined skills in action.  People seek to define a fixed goal for a skill relying heavily on past performance. Reaching competency is often seen as the end of the road for that skill. That mindset can be quite limiting in assessment & development of individuals.

Capability as a mindset should be focused on the ability to deliver an outcome, not a test score. Capabilites tend to be seen as infrastructure to achieve an outcome. This mindset tends to be more general, more open to allow more room for the application of other or similar skills and explicitly allows for a talented individual to prove a potential to show their ability in future.

Considering capabilities allows an individual to choose how to tackle at problems, roles or situations. Importantly, there is much less likely to be a defined limit to a capability which allows for the development of greater mastery over time.

Talent Development

A mindset of building competency in the development of talent often leaves the talent wondering why their career is not in their control. Talented people feel limited when pursuing competencies as a series of boxes to be ticked to progress to the next opportunity. There is little chance to skip ahead and prove the potential that made them talent in the first place.

Disruptive change also means that many narrow competencies individuals acquire can become rapidly irrelevant. At the very beginning of my career, I was quite proficient in the use of Wang messaging systems.  Thankfully my more general capabilities in communication supported my future career as email and now social technologies succeeded that now redundant system.

Focusing instead on the ability to achieve outcomes and building capability towards those outcomes gives the individual greater latitude to shape their career.  It also allows greater opportunity to demonstrate that ability in new or different roles that may not have the typical opportunity to show competency at a task.

Our Changing Future Demands Capability not Competency

In a rapidly changing world, defining the standard or even the actions required in a role in advance is challenging.  Organisations increasingly need to shift to outcome based performance measurement with less specific direction on tasks.  

The defined hierarchies that enabled graduated assessment of competencies and detailed command and control process management are proving more and more challenging to manage.  Flatter organisations are more focused on capabilities required to execute strategy.  Networked organisations help us see that the required capabilities+ may well exist in any part of the organisation’s network.  

We need people to bring diverse skills to solve new challenges and we need people to engage with their roles to build a continuous improvement in capabilities.  Allowing people the rewards of movement to mastery in any capability is critical to engagement.  

Merit: Think Capability, not Competency

Merit is a contentious issue in diversity. Often merit is used as an excuse for poor diversity outcomes. Merit can clearly influenced by conscious and unconscious bias. However, when discussing merit we are often unclear whether we mean merit considered on a competency or capability basis.  

Merit measured as competency tends to favour those who have had the opportunity to build prior knowledge and experience. Competency favours the usual suspects. Focusing instead on capability opens opportunities to consider new candidates and allows greater consideration of potential.

Any individual who has had limited opportunity to be fostered earlier in their career is likely to perform better in a mindset focused on their talent potential and ability to deliver, rather than prior experience or accrued skills.

Look Forward to Capability

The distinction between competency and capability is not one that is hard and fast. What this distinction does is open a new question in our decision making. Next time you are considering a role or a candidate reflect on whether there is a difference in your decisions if you look back to a competency or forward to capability. 

“The things to do are: the things that need doing: that you see need to be done, and that no one else seems to see need to be done. Then you will conceive your own way of doing that which needs to be done — that no one else has told you to do or how to do it. This will bring out the real you that often gets buried inside a character that has acquired a superficial array of behaviors induced or imposed by others on the individual.”

– R. Buckminster Fuller

http://www.swiss-miss.com/2013/09/the-things-to-do.html

Immersion is a Catalyst of Change

When making major change finding symbols and mechanisms that help accelerate the change can be important. These elements of your change management plan act as catalysts, helping make the change occur. Jim Collins described the power of catalytic mechanisms as a vehicle to help organisations achieve goals in a classic Harvard Business Review article

Immersion in the problem is an incredibly powerful catalyst of change in organisations. Too often change conversations can have an abstract or a theoretical flavour.  Improving customer satisfaction, employee engagement or community reputation can seem like moving the needle on an intangible measure.  These conversations are often lifeless.  They are very different measures and conversations when you are at the edge of the organisation, face to face with those affected and discussing the issues.

Immersion changes the nature of people’s understanding of problems.  Put the change agents or those doubting the need for change in the heart of the problem, face to face with the issues and people involved.  The need for change change is more tangible.  People see things with new eyes. Immersion shows you parts of the system that you have never seen before.  There is nothing like being on the spot.  Immersion also delivers passion and insights that can’t be found around a conference table.

We have a lot of ways to immerse ourselves in any situation requiring change.  I have seen the power of formal immersion programs that prompt reflection, discussion and action.  More simply, we can eat our own dogfood. We can go to Gemba. We can know our enemies. We can manage by walking around.  We can do the work or live the life for an hour, a day or a week.  We can turn back on our customer and community understanding and use our own radar to contribute to the change.

Immersion can be the easiest powerful action you can take to catalyse change.  Everyone in the organisation can be involved.  It can take as little as half an hour and as much as a lifetime.  Put your leaders in the heart of the problem and watch the results.

Four things change agents need

Driving change in any organisation is hard.  There are lots of approaches to driving change.  Two of my favourites are Kotter’s and the McKinsey influence model.  There are many more.

In my experience, getting traction and making change stick requires four key elements to be established.

This change is real:  You need leadership, a strong case for change and evidence of enduring intent.  The change must be needed.  It must not be temporary or a fad.  There must be evidence that the change is not going away or that management attention will drift elsewhere

This change can be done:  Are we clear on the symbols of success in this change?  Has anyone else done something similar?  Is there a role model that I can copy?  A clear statement of the world after the change is needed to help people make the abstract changes tangible for them.

We can make it happen:  The team needs the capabilities (skills, time, systems and resources) to make the change happen.  It needs to feel within reach and possible. Never easy.  Just possible.  Within our collective capabilities.

We are doing it together: Build a sense of community, discussion and engagement with the change.  We are not changing others.  We are all changing together.  

Ask new questions

Asking the old questions will give us the old answers. New thinking comes from considering new questions. Disruptive times ask us to challenge ourselves with new questions. If we don’t, the changes ahead will ask even more of us.

At a recent Startup Australia organised by Powerhouse HQ, Kate Bennett Eriksson of PWC made the powerful point that organisations trying to create a more innovative culture need to learn to ask new questions in their decision making. Referencing Victor Frankl, Kate noted that between stimulus and response is time for thought. Changing decisions with new questions that alter our thought process generates a different outcome.

New questions are a powerful technique of change. When I want to learn a new way of thinking or consider new issues I develop a mental checklist of new questions to help me think differently in decisions. The provocation of a new set of questions changes the process and outcomes of thinking.

New questions to consider

I believe we need to lead change in the way we work and organise ourselves to survive digital disruption. This belief led me to the panel session on Startup and Corporate collaboration at which Kate spoke. It also has driven my engagement with organisations like The Responsive Organisation Manifesto, Disrupt.Sydney and Change Agents Worldwide in search of new ways of thinking and techniques for responding to the challenges of disruption. I have come away from those conversations with many new questions to ask.

Here are some of the new questions that I have learned to ask:

All confronting questions and only a beginning of the new thinking ahead.

Questions for you:

What new questions do you need to add from your decisions? What old questions are getting in the way? How can new questions drive new thinking and new results in your world?

What are you waiting for?

Is your career a collection of cells or a portfolio?

If you look at any classical hierarchical organisation chart, what do you see most?

White space.

That white space is where the opportunity and ambiguity exists. The white space is where everything unplanned occurs, especially important in a time of fast paced disruption. White space is the territory of much needed collaboration. White space is where we make our difference.

Career as a series of cells

However many people lives their work lives constrained by the boxes. We each get to choose our contribution.  For some the boxes define the limits of their contribution.  Each job becomes the cell in which they live and contribute to the organisation. Too many people view their role as the limit of their authority and the limit of their opportunity. When these individuals change role, it is as if they have had their cell moved; new window, but same limited vision.

Worse still a proportion of people view this succession of cells as defining their life. They see themselves as only their job. Those jobs have needs, challenges and demands that dominate their lives and limit their broader contribution to the communities and societies in which they live.

What’s the alternative? Career as a portfolio.

We each have a rich purpose and lives full of opportunities.  Our workplaces and our lives are full of whitespace.

From all that opportunity we get to form a portfolio of opportunities to make a contribution.  Like investment managers, we allocate our limited time into many things to diversify the sources of our monetary, physical and emotional returns.  Some will be through our day job.  Some opportunities in our portfolio will be projects – collaborations that we run on the side to explore who we can be.  These side projects might be at work but they could equally be outside.  Not all side projects are economic.  Many are simply creative or social.

Beyond traditional work, we make a contribution with our leadership and participation in society.  We have families and relationships.  We volunteer.  We advocate.  We debate.  We join organisations.  We participate.  Most of all we discuss and help and build rich communities.  Given the complex issues society faces we need more of this broader contribution from everyone.  

Each of these activities helps define who we are as part of our rich portfolio of contributions.  After all, where we choose to spend our time and money is a much better indicator of who we are than a list of jobs or even our self-declared descriptions.

Having recently found myself without a day-job, I have entered the world of a portfolio.  I have been overwhelmed by the opportunities, the difference I can make and the richness of experience that each opportunity offers.  Each and every opportunity was possible if I was still working full-time, but I know I would have faced different incentives and pressures in exploring these opportunities.   I wouldn’t have made such a clear choice to manage a portfolio with my time.

It is time to step outside the cells.  

Make a bigger contribution.  Make your mark.  Manage your career and life as a portfolio of interests.  What more can you do in, around and on the side of your job?

Is your career a collection of cells or a portfolio?

If you look at any classical hierarchical organisation chart, what do you see most?

White space.

That white space is where the opportunity and ambiguity exists. The white space is where everything unplanned occurs, especially important in a time of fast paced disruption. White space is the territory of much needed collaboration. White space is where we make our difference.

Career as a series of cells

However many people lives their work lives constrained by the boxes. We each get to choose our contribution.  For some the boxes define the limits of their contribution.  Each job becomes the cell in which they live and contribute to the organisation. Too many people view their role as the limit of their authority and the limit of their opportunity. When these individuals change role, it is as if they have had their cell moved; new window, but same limited vision.

Worse still a proportion of people view this succession of cells as defining their life. They see themselves as only their job. Those jobs have needs, challenges and demands that dominate their lives and limit their broader contribution to the communities and societies in which they live.

What’s the alternative? Career as a portfolio.

We each have a rich purpose and lives full of opportunities.  Our workplaces and our lives are full of whitespace.

From all that opportunity we get to form a portfolio of opportunities to make a contribution.  Like investment managers, we allocate our limited time into many things to diversify the sources of our monetary, physical and emotional returns.  Some will be through our day job.  Some opportunities in our portfolio will be projects – collaborations that we run on the side to explore who we can be.  These side projects might be at work but they could equally be outside.  Not all side projects are economic.  Many are simply creative or social.

Beyond traditional work, we make a contribution with our leadership and participation in society.  We have families and relationships.  We volunteer.  We advocate.  We debate.  We join organisations.  We participate.  Most of all we discuss and help and build rich communities.  Given the complex issues society faces we need more of this broader contribution from everyone.  

Each of these activities helps define who we are as part of our rich portfolio of contributions.  After all, where we choose to spend our time and money is a much better indicator of who we are than a list of jobs or even our self-declared descriptions.

Having recently found myself without a day-job, I have entered the world of a portfolio.  I have been overwhelmed by the opportunities, the difference I can make and the richness of experience that each opportunity offers.  Each and every opportunity was possible if I was still working full-time, but I know I would have faced different incentives and pressures in exploring these opportunities.   I wouldn’t have made such a clear choice to manage a portfolio with my time.

It is time to step outside the cells.  

Make a bigger contribution.  Make your mark.  Manage your career and life as a portfolio of interests.  What more can you do in, around and on the side of your job?