Are We Blocking The Development Of Our Next Generation Of Leaders: Thoughts From A Management Consultant As We Move Into The Next Millennium

In 1973 I was employed at the Head Office of a large Canadian company and was amazed at the employment dates for many of the existing employees (e.g. 1947). It wasn't only the hourly work force, many of the leaders or managers had similar seniority dates. Employers had a label for this employment practice. It was called the "cradle to grave" philosophy. A person coming out of school could expect a lifetime of employment with one employer. Correspondingly, employers would generally develop and promote from within the company.

It is 1999 and I am still amazed with employment dates - particularly my own. I entered the workforce in 1972. If you are age forty or more, no doubt you can relate. In any event, I think no one would disagree that our view of the employment relationship has been changing over the decades. The writer would like to share his views in this area, including a call for organizations (e.g. companies, government, labour associations) to start thinking on how they are developing the next generation of leaders.

In the post-war era, organizations would generally hire based upon a number of factors. For example, an organization would assess a candidate in terms of who they know (e.g. hiring relatives), education, skills, geography (e.g. availability to the plant), physical stamina, gender, and even his ability to play on the company hockey team. In addition, there would be one or two interviews and several reference checks regarding the person's previous attendance record, attitude, and skills. Leaders were most likely promoted from within and based upon technical skills.

In the 1970's and very early 1980's, it seems that a transformation started to occur. Employers started to understand that an organization could only realize its goals if it spent more time ensuring that there was a strong match or "job fit" between employee and job. Employers started to use more sophisticated tools and processes. For example, psychometric assessments became more common. However, it wasn't just the focus on organizational goals which drove this transformation. There were also external factors that caused employers to become more vigilant and realize the mounting costs associated with "hiring" errors. In terms of the law, we see the introduction of the Ontario Human Rights Code and Severance Pay (Employment Standards Act), changes to the Workers' Compensation Act, and an increase in legal challenges from terminated employees. The writer acknowledges that the weight placed on some of these factors by employers was more perceived than real, but such factors still had a serious impact on corporate thinking.

From 1983 to the mid 1990's, there were some highs for organizations but there were also some serious lows. During this period, many companies started to see the business climate become increasingly competitive and administratively challenging. Their frustrations ranged from politics (in Ontario: Liberals and Pay Equity; NDP and Bill 40) to profit margins. It became the sign of the times to downsize, merge, re-engineer jobs, or divide operations into a multi-plant format. During this period, we witnessed concession bargaining, including roll backs, freezes, and two-tier wage structures. For example, one of the writer's clients informed their union that they could move their plant from Toronto to New York State or it could go to London Ontario; however, to stay in Ontario would mean a $3.00 - $4.00 wage reduction. The employer got the concession. During this period, it appears that most companies were not talking of vision, culture and growth but focusing on survival and re-alignment.

It is important to understand our position today in terms of this historical context. The leadership of today has had their managerial "metal" tempered by events from the 70's and onwards. These events have certainly not all been negative; however, I suggest that many employers are still focused on survival and have a certain "hardness" which needs to be acknowledged and, just maybe, "softened". I use the word "softened" and it means viewing the organization at some distance in terms of vision, culture, and practices and then making the necessary modifications - not simply going with the current evolution or flow of events. Personally, I am troubled by certain employment practices which seem to be evolving and the impact such practices may have on our workforce, specifically in the development of the next generation of leaders.

When I talk of employment practices, I want to narrowly focus upon the vision and methods we use in selecting, retaining, and promoting employees. If such are seriously flawed, these will impact upon our ability to hire and develop our leaders. And we need leaders. The gurus of opinion surveys and statistics are predicting a vacuum in terms of the number (and I suggest quality) of leaders we will have available to run our nation - be they presidents, managers, team leaders, politicians, or union leaders.

What are some of these practices which trouble the writer:

Long Term Temporary Services:
This is not the practice of hiring a person for vacation relief or pregnancy leave but rather the practice of hiring hourly and salaried personnel for extended periods through the use of a personnel agency. These people have been given a "temporary" label; however, such people are often at an employer's plant every day for several years. This situation occurs in profit and non-profit sectors as well as with the governments.

Contract Employees:
There is a growing number of employers who hire all staff on a formal contract basis. At first glance, these employees appear to be any normal employee with the full range of benefits; however, the termination clause clearly states that the employer has the right to terminate for cause or, if not for cause, its liability is limited to the Employment Standards Act.

Re-engineering / Downgrading Roles:
We often here of re-structuring and a manager being terminated to make way for very junior person who then takes up a more modest role. In the past, such managerial or supervisory jobs may have been not only functional but also used as a training ground for future advancement. Often, this restructuring approach effectively ensures that all future senior hires come from outside the organization. (1. Note: Often this junior person requires outside assistance and the cost/benefit ratio doesn't get realized)

Practices For Hiring & Promoting:
Employers need to spend more time identifying who they are and what they want. This is the "rock" on which the house is built. With this information in hand, employers need to build upon the 70's approach to selection and also spend more time ensuring there is a "job fit" between employees and jobs. It is my opinion that, if more successes occurred in the hiring and promoting processes, some of the current practices used by employers would not be required (e.g. contract employees). It takes 30-60 hours to search for the right person, including screening for education, technical abilities, personality 1, 2, cognitive abilities, emotional being, attitude, organizational fit, and a job related physical. There are "no magic bullets". "There are no short, quick answers to save time."

1. Note: There is a growing consensus among psychology experts that four or five major factors have the main effect on individual personality: independence, conscientiousness, extroversion, stability, openness to new experiences (possibly imbedded in other factors). These "Big Five" can capture a wide range of general personality differences. (From Dr. David Bartram, Prevue AssessmentTM Workshop 1998).

2. Note: In the past few years, some employers have started to use terminology such as "core competencies". For the most part, this wording usually is associated with personality traits or qualities. If you have the Internet, visit Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and discover their use of "core competencies" - http://www.agr.ca/hr/hrtools/assessm.htm.

Why does this writer see such practices impacting upon the development of our workforce and our future leaders. Dr. Bartram, President Elect of the International Test Commission, has done some interesting research into 15 different attributes and ranked these based on impact to success on the job. A diverse group of raters independently agreed on the five (5) most important attributes:

1.) Honest and Integrity
2.) Motivation and Drive
3.) Interest in Work
4.) Conscientiousness
5.) General Personality

I would suggest the long term effects of employing people - and this is not to say that all employers are painted with the same brush - in a 'hardened" environment and utilizing the previously mentioned practices would certainly destroy or be counter productive in bringing out such attributes within people. Expressed in other terms, without these attributes our next generation of leaders will not be successful and be ill equipped for their jobs.

Mentoring
In looking at the development of our leaders for the next millennium, the writer must mention an issue which receives little attention. It is the notion of mentoring. Webster's Dictionary defines it as: "a wise and faithful advisor or tutor". In my experience with clients, the notion of mentoring or assisting employees as they develop and mature in their career is not given the time it deserves. However, it is known that many career mistakes have been prevented by a few words and a little direction from a mentor. Most of today's successful leaders can name people who were their mentors.

In the HRM Research Quarterly (Winter 1997, Vol.1 Number 4), some research was done which captures the concept of mentoring as well as how employers should handle their employees if they want to optimize their investment in their people. If you are currently in authority and reading this article, consider how you use your efforts in supporting, developing, and mentoring those under you (e.g. future leaders):

The data indicates that there is a high degree of consensus amongst employees with respect to what kinds of behavior they find supportive. A supportive manager is one who:

1. Engages in two-way communication with their subordinates (i.e. shares information, asks employee's opinion, has frequent face to face meetings, gives regular feedback);
2. Provides positive feedback (i.e. gives recognition when job is well done, expresses confidence in employee's ability to do a difficult job well, gives feedback on a regular basis);
3. Mentors their employees (i.e. utilizes employee's abilities, supports employee to higher-ups, encourages independent work, helps employee learn from his/her mistakes);
4. Allows their autonomy (i.e. encourages employees to make decisions on their own; lets employees do the work from start to finish);
5. Recognizes that their employees have a life outside of work (i.e. makes it easy for employees to rearrange their job schedule, allows employee to take advantage of flexible work arrangements);


Conclusion
Each generation is confronted with having to pass the torch to the next generation. As we approach the next millennium, our turn is here. Let us review our vision and practices and create an environment that supports the development of the next generation of leaders.

David Daugharty is President of Daugharty Group Inc., a London based Human Resources and Labour Relations firm and an authorized dealer of Prevue AssessmentTM and 20/20 Insight. Dave is a regular contributor to businessmatch-maker.com.