Put simply: the goal of diversity is not harmony. But most leaders approach the issue of diversity with a checklist in one hand (to make sure they’ve covered all the ‘diversity factors’ they’re being measured on) and a hope of maintaining harmony in the other. They see the management of diversity as the “taming of difference”.

The result is that you end up with something that looks and feels a bit like a zoo does: all the different species are there, neatly and carefully labelled, but they’re all locked up, artificially caged, and the visitors are not allowed to feed them. Zoos have their place, of course, and a lot of good work goes on in them. But they are not reality. They’re sterile places. And they are not self-sustaining.

The zoo and the wild both achieve the same goal: to have a broad range of animals living in close proximity to each other, and producing outcomes in their environments. The zoo does this by containing, constricting and controlling the way in which the animals live and ‘work’. The wild allows them more freedom to find their ‘natural’ ways of living and ‘working’.

If we get diversity right, what we will succeed in doing is creating work environments that are more like wild ecosystems than zoos. The benefits of true diversity would therefore include:

• Resilience – the more diverse an environment, the more resilient it is when change occurs and difficulty strikes. This is true in nature, and it is true in communities too.
• Understanding – in an ecosystem, it is vital to understand the different components and who does what (and to whom). True diversity will ensure that the full scope of your client base is understood within your company, regardless of how large or multinational your company is.
• Morale – your people will feel more comfortable and confident ‘being themselves’, and will be encouraged to discover and contribute their best selves.
• Creativity and innovation – it is only when we allow different people the space to see and experience the world in different ways that we can only really achieve innovative thinking. I firmly believe that the reason most companies never really achieve innovation is that they’ve never really embraced difference.

There are also benefits in product development, marketing, reduced staffing issues and much more. In fact, there will be benefits just about anywhere in a company where people and opinions make an impact on business performance. All of this is both well attested in business research and common sense if one thinks about it.

The role of leadership?

Leaders need to firstly change their mindset about diversity. The goal is to build a flourishing, self-sustaining ecosystem, in which there is a natural, but sometimes scary interaction of, attitudes, approaches, cultures and convictions. Leaders need to embrace this slightly chaotic environment, not attempting to tame or control it, but rather to immerse themselves in it and become guides to lead others through it.

This means, that leaders need to model a behaviour that is suited for the wild. In a zoo, the goal is to cage and tame the scary animals. In the wild, you want them to run free. You want them to be who they are best meant to be.

Thirdly, leaders need to promote diversity as a tool, not a goal in itself. Diversity is only a means to an end. The purpose of a zoo is to showcase animals. But the purpose of the wild is to live, to grow, to flourish together. That should be the goal of diversity.

And that should be what 21^st century leaders aim to achieve by creating – and sustaining – groups and teams that evidence – and celebrate – real differences.

Dr Graeme Codrington is an author, presenter and board advisor on the future world of work. He is co-founder and international partner of TomorrowToday, a business strategy consultancy. He can be contacted at graeme@tomorrowtoday.uk.com.

He is interim coach and was clearly promoted from assistant coach for the short term on the basis that he was the only one available.  He has a minimal track record in management and perhaps this lack of experience has been the reason for his great success?  He clearly inspires a team that was seriously de-motivated under the previous manager. He has picked the old heads, the experienced players that are nearing the ends of their careers, the players that the previous manager had already usurped with younger players. And they have performed beyond expectation in delivering Di Matteo’s strategy to near perfection; a strategy he has built himself, based on winning being the only valuable outcome.

At a time when businesses are investing so much in leadership and succession, Chelsea provide a fascinating case study.

• Interim head who has added enormous strategic value but is very unlikely to get the permanent job through lack of track record
• A permanent captain who has just been banned for kneeing an opponent in the back for no reason, and now misses the European final!
• The five best players (40% of the team) all on the verge of retirement
• Serious scarcity of talent in the local market, leading to the second largest investment in global Talent Attraction
• The largest investment in academy and apprenticeships to try to attract new talent

I wonder if they’d be interested in talking to Ochre House?

For more on inspirational leadership at Chelsea please check out Chris Roebuck’s blog.

The net result has been a reduction in population growth and a significant ageing of the workforce. In 1980, the median age (the age at which half the population is younger, half older) was 22. This has now increased to 34.5 and is predicted to rise to 49 by 2050; nearly nine years older than America at that point.

So what?

So what’s the implication? The impact of a rapidly ageing population has been evidenced in other countries around the world (think, Japan, America and many markets in Europe) ;spiralling healthcare costs, high dependency on social support and more people ‘consuming’ the economy than contributing to it. It also has a critical impact on the availability of talent to drive the economy forward.

Many agree that China is already in a grip of a talent crunch; not enough talent supply to meet that demanded of growing organisations. Given the above demographics, the picture is likely to get far worse.

Potential solutions?

Some may argue that a high proportion of the Chinese population is still to be employed in ‘modern’ jobs (despite rapid urbanisation, just under half the population still live in rural communities, and we can assume, fulfil ‘old economy’ jobs) and that this source will continue to meet the future talent needs. However, the transition for this population into new economy jobs is frequently difficult; the skillsets and experience required aren’t there.

Others believe migration could be the answer. Given the rate of consumption of land and raw materials, in China, opening the flood gates to young, highly educated immigrants does not seem a viable solution (nor is it likely to be attractive to policy makers in the country).

Unsolvable problem?

Whilst China has the ability to do almost anything it puts its mind to (for those of you that have witnessed the growth in the major cities will know what I mean), will dramatically shifting the population balance be a step too far?

And when The Great Unwashed did finally tweet a question, we took 17 days to answer.

Things are very different now as we skip merrily through the sunny meadows of connectivity, engagement and participation but what if our best people run off with someone else they met online or post something offensive that embarrasses our brand?

Our people are invariably our competitive advantage – whether they are leaders, innovators, market shapers, deal makers or simply sales and customer service. With the right framework and tools, not to mention guidance and inspiration, enabling our people to develop their own networks and brand is not just a way of maximising their return as a strategic asset, but a critical part of activating and realising the wider brand.

Of course people may still leave having met someone else, but aligning the corporate and personal aspirations and brands will shift the balance from great talent leaving towards inappropriate talent de-selecting. Not to mention actually deliver great performance…

So here is the important part: competency-based questions don’t have to be ‘past-behavioural’. They could also be ‘situational’ (“what would you do if…”), ‘motivational’, even ‘technical’ in some instances. Some people recoil in horror at this point and start screaming: “but… then they could just make stuff up… and say what they think we want to hear!”. And we all know that eternal damnation awaits those who say what they think the interviewer wants to hear. Or, more likely, they’ll just lie convincingly and be offered the job.

This is a weakness of all interview question types, including ‘past-behavioural’. But there is an additional reason why past-behavioural questions may encourage people to lie. Take this (real life) example: “Give me an example of a time when you have implemented an effective policy change during a period of uncertainty and with resistance from the key stakeholders”. Just think about that one a moment, and see if you spot the flaw.

Here is it: past-behavioural questions can be quite specific – so, what if someone has never encountered the situation you’ve just described? You’re assuming they have by saying “give me an example…”. But they haven’t. So instead of sitting there in awkward silence they just make something up. You’ve forced their hand. This is one of many reasons why interviewing alone is, at best, a mediocre way to make your hires. Where possible, go beyond interviewing and explore a candidates true potential using work-simulation exercises, psychometrics, and other forms of assessment. Because it works. And because we feel kind of bad about making people lie.

• Ochre House conducted a survey and they found that 20% of organisations do long term SWP (mainly in the technology/engineering industry sector)
• Approximately 40% of organisations are looking into this popular topic
• Metrics and SWP are the two most popular items that businesses are discussing today

Nick Kemsley from Henley Business School has conducted significant research in this area and he talked about some of the fundamentals, approaches, and what this topic is really about. He explained that we need to understand how we look at the issue and then think through whether we have the capability and buy in at the right level to deliver it. It is not about systems and analytics but about people.

Many organisations start to look at this topic when they feel pain that affects the business strategy. This was the case for ArcelorMittal also. They were faced with two situations; one in Canada and another in South Africa which forced them to start planning for the future. In Canada, for example, the City of Hamilton grew around the Steel industry and this was the home of steel production, however, Steel plants started closing down and there was a shift away from making steel and engineering jobs to other vocations. As a result ArcelorMittal started talent pipelining right from grassroots, putting on relevant courses at colleges encouraging the next generation of Engineers and offering student sponsorships. If they’d had a SWP process in place, they would not have had to experience this pain and cost.

Many people get confused between resource planning (3-6 months), demand planning (1 year) and strategic workforce planning (3-5 year business planning). All three are relevant and necessary, but the whole SWP starts with the following:

• You need business sponsorship from the top – you can pilot with a certain function, geography etc. however, it needs to be driven from the business leader who should communicate what their 3-5 year business plan is.  This plan can then be broken down into yearly goals that are reviewed on a frequent basis.
• HR are there to facilitate the discussion and dialogue and ask the right questions. SWP is like the “brain” of the HR strategy as it touches everything in the organisation, and as HR professionals, we need to focus on this.
• Critical roles need to be identified – again, the definition of a critical role will vary from industry to industry, but these are not always the senior management team roles, these are the roles that if taken away will have significant impact to a business e.g. in Disney, this would be the car park attendant!  If there is no car park attendant, no one can park and get into the premises! Therefore the critical roles are not about seniority or cost, it is about how the role affects on-going business.  Future roles for tomorrow also need to be taken into consideration, e.g. if the strategy is to change product lines in a couple of years, then focus should be on planning for those future roles in new product line areas.
• Also, the question should be asked around how rare a particular skill set is. The rarer, the harder it is to find, therefore the more planning required.
• Flexibility needs to be taken into consideration – this is not just about hiring plans against attrition, but it would include flexibility, multi-skilling during peaks and troughs and how those should be dealt with without on-going hiring and firing.
• There should also be a disaster scenario – what would happen if demand slowed down for example?

So in summary for a successful SWP strategy:

• Develop SWP against a long term business strategy - include retention, cross functional development, flexibility, graduate recruitment, changes in workforce demographics.
• Analyse where the gaps are and what needs to be planned for
• Forecast the demand…forecast the supply
• Define the strategic direction and work on the action plan

It was a great session, and there is a lot that can be learned from ArcelorMittal who will be presenting again at the next Strategic Workforce Planning think tank in Holland.

You may well argue that the report simply confirms something we already understand well, which is that having the right people (leaders in particular) in the right roles at the right time is vital for sustainable success.  What it does bring to life is that finding and retaining talent can no longer be viewed as one of many HR functions but as a major strategic priority for the Board (over 80% of respondents were Board members, CEOs, or CFOs) and firmly in the “what keeps you awake at night” category for business leaders.  Given the risks of getting it wrong I am continually surprised to discover how few organisations believe they have a coherent approach to talent management or fit-for-purpose capabilities to attract, retain and develop talent, even where the level of integration is low.  What I find even more alarming is the nature of conversations I am frequently party to when it comes to justifying innovation or transformation around talent, or the so-called business case for it.  Focussing on reducing supplier costs to make a business case, in the context of the Lloyd’s report, is surely a case of The Emperor’s New Clothes.  The true cost of a broken talent capability lies in an unproductive workforce, regrettable attrition, skills gaps and leadership deficiencies which dwarf any savings in direct HR costs an organisation can achieve by sticking to a cost-based dogma.

So my question is then, who’s to blame for confusing cost savings and efficiencies with real business value when it comes to investing in a talent management capability designed to drive growth and at the same time address what has evidently become a major business risk?  Is it a case of CEO’s not willing to walk the talk or of HR leaders (and their procurement counterparts) not interpreting what CEO’s are saying their businesses really needs to meet its goals?  Either way, this report places the debate firmly back on the agenda.

This song was the rallying cry for the youth and ‘rainbow’ movement in the late 70’s and early 80’s. It was born out of anger and frustration at the way men and women with different sexual preferences were marginalised and attacked. In the 70s and 80s god forbid that you should have different tastes, ideas or preferences to the mainstream. (And we attacked the communist regimes…)

Commentators are now saying that there is a revolution taking hold, and companies to take radical measures and adapt to the needs of Generation Y. In the same way that business is missing an opportunity in not promoting women, there is a double whammy…  Change the way you manage GEN Y or die…

Lots of the debate, suggests that we are facing a demographic time bomb and that only radical action to attract, train, retain and engage Gen Y is the key to business success, otherwise business will lose its cutting edge. This bleak assessment is based on the premise that the Gen Y are a generation like no other and because of the internet age, have different needs, wants and more importantly a different view of what they are looking for from a job and what they expect of the business they work for.

The next generation, it seems, has a shorter attention span, a greater focus on values and social responsibility, are less likely to stay in a job that isn’t satisfying and is less deferential. This isn’t, believe it or not the reactionary opinion of the Daily Mail but self-styled social commentators who think that we are in the midst of a revolution.

However, what is really different about this generation and the Tom Robinson or punk generation that I grew up in? We clearly, Rocked against Racism (some of us still do) there were clarion calls for a fairer society and we wanted to make the corporate world behave more responsibly (some of us wanted to smash it all together; my how times have changed). There is little reliable academic research to suggest this generation is wildly different to my generation.

The 70s was also a time of great technological and social change, car ownership became a huge liberator for young people, and there was a much less understanding between the generations… We were punk rockers after all!

Will Hutton of the Work Foundation suggests things aren’t shifting in the way that is suggested. In fact, we need to do more to ensure that Gen X stay at work for longer because of the pensions crisis. Does it really require a different way of managing different generations? Is it just that we need to give our workforce a voice, and a stake in the companies they work in?

Maybe we need to face facts and begin to listen to employees, begin a dialogue with them and understand what motivates them. Guess what? A 20 year old and a 50 year old may have more in common than we assume. Our workforce is more diverse than ever due to so many demographic and social changes which creates opportunity and a real diversity of thinking which can lead to greater innovation.

After all Punk Rock is back in fashion, they just need to turn it down a bit!

Either way, set against this kind of context, the employer/employee relationship doesn’t seem quite as exciting however don’t underestimate its impact or significance.

Having the right talent, in the right place, at the right time means understanding what the right talent is in the first place. Not just from the employer’s perspective, but from the employee’s too – think of it as a deal which has to be right for both parties. If one side doesn’t really know what they are offering or fudges their ability to deliver their part of the deal, then the other party is going to feel ripped off.

What’s different these days is it is now a candidate market place – access to information and peers means we are exponentially more aware of our own worth, the other opportunities out there and how to take them.

For those companies that haven’t thought this through, the consequences of a poor employment proposition or even worse, the promise and the reality not being the same, are increasingly damaging. Word is quick to get out through all the social, digital and connected channels and let’s face it, ‘disgusted’ from Tunbridge Wells has a lot more to say than ‘happy’ from Harrow.

Good talent knows where to look and whom to ask about your employment proposition – sometimes better than you. If it isn’t joined up, relevant and truthful, they will see you coming a mile away.

The discussion at our think tank along with meetings with many HR and business leaders has led me to conclude that, generally, organisations that are more successful or less successful in managing retention are differentiated by four common ingredients.

1: Increase pay and benefits to increase retention

When looking to ‘solve’ retention issues, less successful organisations will start with the easy medicine; offer more money or better benefits – easy to implement but not sustainable; competitors imitate by also increasing money and benefits, which reduces industry profitability and drives inflation – a negative outcome for all.

Conversely, more successful organisations focus on offering something unique to employees that will drive them to stay longer and, importantly, motivate them. Understanding the ‘leavers’ that have been applied to manage retention in this situation is less clear and therefore less open to competitor copying.

2: Focusing on retention rather than engagement

Less successful organisations focus on looking at the issue (retention) rather than the root cause (employee engagement and motivation). For example, organisations invest in collecting exit interview data to understand the reason why employees chose to leave.

Instead, more successful organisations seek to understand why employees have considered leaving in the first place – the catalyst. As a result organisations that focus on the drivers of disengagement typically see the retention issues dramatically decrease or disappear completely.

3: Measuring the wrong things

Less successful organisations report attrition as a percentage of leavers from the total workforce. Some of the better differentiate between ‘regretted’ and ‘non regretted’ leavers. This however only serves to differentiate between those you are pleased to see move on vs the population you’re generally happy with.

To truly understand the business issue of retention, more successful organisations recognise the need to identify the superstars that they really cannot afford to loose; the champion sales managers or R&D gurus. After all, these people may be responsible for generating many millions for current or future profits, so ensuring they stick around is of critical importance. By measuring these losses (and assuming a proxy value for the opportunity cost) the more successful organisations can really start to focus retention activities to where they are most valuable.

4: Applying ‘one size fits all’

Less successful organisations seek to rollout generic, global retention initiatives that are applicable to all segments of the workforce in all countries around the world. This is a big mistake. Not, only are the drivers of engagement (and therefore retention) very different across the workforce but the cultural differences across countries also need to be considered.

By contrast, more successful organisations develop a suite of tools centrally to be utilised and customised in the context of local needs.

In summary, when it comes to managing retention, there is no ‘silver bullet’. However these four ingredients go some way to helping differentiate those organisations that have had success with managing retention vs those that are still scratching the proverbial head.