Horizon Point Consulting

Category: Beyond Leadership

Beyond Leadership is Horizon Point’s line of resources for managers of people. Managing ourselves is a distinct set of behaviors from managers the work of others, and we are here to help. Read stories in this category if you are ready to take the next step into people leadership (or if you’re looking for articles to send someone else…).

How Neuroscience Is and Will Revolutionize HR
In December of 2014, my then four-year-old son started having seizures. After three of them occurred in a short period of time, we went to see a pediatric neurologist who first did an electroencephalogram (EEG) to begin to identify the cause of the seizures so we could determine a course of treatment.

Utilizing this technology as well as other techniques, she put our son on a medicine that has controlled his seizures. He hasn’t had one in over a year, and we are thankful for the doctors, the scientific discoveries and the technology that made this a reality.

Neuroscience has long been connected to understanding neurological disorders like seizures. It is also frequently used for explaining behavior, specifically behaviors tied to clinical diagnosis. However, neuroscience is beginning to infiltrate the workplace giving us the ability to use brain science for talent assessment. The EEG used to understand my son’s seizures is now being utilized to understand a variety of talent management questions, as Dario Nardi points on in his article “Your Brain at Work” in HR Magazine.

As we move forward into the future of behavioral assessment in the workplace, I believe neurological assessment will begin to gain ground to complement, and maybe even take the place of what is most commonly used now- the self-report assessment.

Why? Well, because it’s more honest. Self-reports are just that- self-reported. Monitoring brain activity points to a more objective approach to understand who we are and why we behave the way we do. Because of this, brain based assessments can help:
- Create self- awareness in employees to aid in the understanding of who we are (personality) and why we behave the way we do.
- Improve team building & talent placement by helping individuals and companies understand how to better work together. This will help companies answer the question, is there enough cognitive diversity on our team?
- Build better training programs through customized learning. Neuroscience can help us understand how individuals learn best and cater training and development to personalized needs.
Whereas brain science and the technology related to it is exciting to see in the talent assessment industry for the same reasons it is valuable in medicine- it aids in diagnosis which aids in better decision making- my family’s example also points to the need for caution in utilizing the technology.

When we went back last month with our son for his yearly EEG, the results still showed a “discharge”, as the doctor referred to it, in the left hemisphere of his brain. She explained to us that it was happening very infrequently, but because it was still present, there is a likelihood that if he were taken off the medicine, the seizures would begin to reoccur. Knowing that this area of the brain is tied to language, I asked her if we should be concerned about any issues in his language development. She said no. Given the amount of frequency seen, she said, it would have to be occurring 20-30% more than it is in order for there to be concerns about his language development.

This example points to why I’d be hesitant to utilize the technology (and you see I did not list it above) in selection because of the potential discrimination issues. It could lead to discrimination in hiring against individuals (like my son, who does have a diagnosis of epilepsy) based on factors that are not tied to an individual’s ability to perform the essential functions of the job. I would hate for someone who isn’t as knowledgeable in the science to see “discharge” on someone like my son’s EEG and assume has language issues, when he in fact does not. However, given a multiple-hurdles approach to assessment, EEGs could one day be a valuable selection tool as well, just as they are used as one technique among many to determine the best course of medical action.

So for all you talent development professionals out there or those aspiring to be, take more science classes. No field, even HR, is immune to the need for a strong STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) education.

How do you see neuroscience shaping human resources? Does it excite you or scare you?

Like this post? You may also like:

The Psychology Behind Why People Support Certain Presidential Candidates

and

Use Your Brain- Both Sides
May 3, 2016
Being a Great Leader Is a Lot Like Being a Standout Salesperson
Through involvement in a community group, I had the opportunity (or drudgery, depends on how you look at it, I guess) to sit through six companies presenting their “solution” to a need. After they were all done, it was obvious which company was the best. And everyone, meaning about ten people, who had heard the presentations, agreed. When was the last time you had ten people agree on something easily? Yeah, that’s what I thought; hard to think of a time when you have, right?

With this being said, the obvious winner knew what they were doing. But it wasn’t because the salesperson from the best company was the most dynamic or attractive. I think one company thought sending the most attractive and nicely dressed female was going to do it for them. They must have thought she was going to be able to distract us from realizing that their product was inferior… but I digress….

We often think that winning the award for best leader also involves characteristics like charisma and attractiveness. However, what hit home for me in seeing the round robin of presentations was a clear comparison and contrast of what makes a good sales pitch versus what doesn’t. Turns out, many of these things that make a good salesperson can also be applied to cultivating a great leader:
1. Know your audience. Who are your people and what makes them tick? What are their pain points? Adapt your communication and style to address these things. In other words, canned sales pitches usually aren’t that effective.
2. To get to know people better, ask good questions to calibrate your audience. Clarify expectations and needs.
3. Shut up. Ask good questions (#2) and then listen thoughtfully. Cater your responses to what you hear (back to #1).
4. Think like a marketer. People pay attention more when you talk in the form of analogies and visuals that tell a story. Facts are needed, but they are boring. Appeal to the heart first through storytelling to grab people’s attention and then back up what you are saying with facts to make sure the head gets it.
5. Your facts should mostly be in the form of results achieved. I was blown away by how the best company framed their entire discussion around the key results factor the group was looking for (#1) and had multiple client examples to prove it. Most of the others focused on the facts of how they would do what they do, not why to do it. The “what” doesn’t matter if you can’t capture the “why”.
6. Be authentic. People can spot a phony from a mile away and they can see past the short skirts and the corporate jargon. Being authentic involves:
  - Developing a distinct personality and brand (see #4) that is true to who you are and the company you represent.
  - Telling the truth.The best company was honest upfront about the things about their systems and offerings that weren’t perfect, but provided details on how they are working to address those issues.
  - Believing wholeheartedly in what you do and wanting to tell people about it not to make a sale, but because you know you can meet a need and help.
Are you a leader who thinks like a salesperson?
March 29, 2016
Why Communities Should Focus on Building Social Capital and How They Can Do It
I drive within a 50-mile radius of my home quite often to meet with clients or potential clients. On one particular drive from one town to the next, the highway used to be lined with dozens of nursery wholesalers. Thousands upon thousands of trees, shrubs and plants used to grow along this stretch of the highway and many of the remnants of these nursery farms can still be seen.

Why would all of these nurseries locate side by side? Wouldn’t that increase the proximity of their competition, thus decreasing their potential sales?

This small, rural Alabama phenomenon about nurseries can also be said of Silicon Valley. While the companies in this region don’t necessarily compete for customers due to proximity- most of them have a global sales footprint- they most certainly compete for labor, as the nurseries did at one point in time as well. Wouldn’t the competition for labor (and real estate/land) in such close proximity to each other drive the prices on everything up leading to a diminished ability to remain competitive or produce as large a profit?

Turns out, the opposite is true as The New Geography of Jobs points out. The proximity to the social capital of your industry leads to value and competitive advantage, not the other way around. And it creates a snowball effect. The more technology companies that locate in Silicon Valley, the higher likelihood that more will come because it creates a community that is desirable and attractive to similar companies and the talent who work for these types of companies. It creates a “thick” labor market.

While we’ve been talking a lot about individuals developing their social capital in order to grow their competitive advantage, communities can and should foster the growth of social capital as well.

But what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Do the organizations that create the jobs, thus producing the demand side of the economic equation provide the key to community growth or does the supply side, the people, create the growth?

Most economic stimulus policies focus on driving the demand or organizational side of the equation. Tax incentives focus on getting companies to locate in a community, and these packages continue to become more and more competitive. Some research even points to the fact that the ROI of many of packages isn’t there.

By and large, communities do not focus on stimulating the supply side of the equation through stimulus-type measures. Yes, communities work to improve their educational infrastructure and outputs to improve supply, but this doesn’t guarantee an increased supply of labor, especially in high growth or in-demand areas.

Because of the sheer power of social capital at a community level, stimulating supply side economics should be more of a focus for communities wanting to grow.

Some ideas for doing this include:
- Pay off the debt of students in high demand skill areas in exchange for them living and working in your community. This has been done for a while in rural communities and medical fields, but we are now seeing communities do this in technical fields like engineering and IT.
- Pay the best to come to your community and others will follow. If you want a good example of this, check out the Washington University example in The New Geography of Jobs on page 198-199.
- Create hubs for collaboration or co-work spaces in your community. This “turns isolated innovators into a real community, a creative ecosystem designed to maximize knowledge spillovers.”
- Incentivize entrepreneurs to come to your community through business incubation and accelerator programs. Although different, this can play quite nicely with creating hubs for innovation and co-work spaces.
Basically, all of this comes down to bribing people instead of bribing business. Because social capital is the competitive advantage driving innovation today, communities would do well to begin bribing people, not just business. Just make sure you bribe the right people- those with the skill sets and connections to drive innovation and create a multiplier effect of job creation and community growth.
March 22, 2016
GREAT REALITIES OF MANAGEMENT: It’s Not Your Fault, But It’s Your Problem…

By Kris Dunn

It’s one of the unwritten rules of management. It’s also one of the hardest things for new managers to wrap their heads around.

“It’s not your fault, but it’s your problem.”

Let’s deconstruct that a bit. New managers were often very high performing individual contributors (ICs). The great thing about being an IC is that you only have to worry about one person – and that person is you.

But your performance as an IC convinced us that you’d make a good manager of people. For the most part that’s true.

One point that sneaks up on new managers is taking feedback on what needs to happen related to their team as failure on the part of themselves (the new manager).

Here’s what I mean – If you’re managing other managers of people and some of those are first time managers, you’re going to spend more time talking about what’s going on within those teams than you will with a more experienced manager of people. You have to be the coach for the new manager.

As you’re coaching that new manager of people, it’s important to separate their individual identity as a high performer from the brand new – and at times, scary – role as a manager of people.

Example – someone on their team is struggling in a certain area, and the new manager delays a bit. Your job is to push as the director, but careful! Your feedback might be perceived as failure on the part of the new manager.

I’ve always found the best way to handle that with new managers is to use the title of this post –“It’s not your fault, but it’s your problem.”

What I’m trying to convey with that is simple – “Look, you’re going to manage people who struggle in your life as a manager. Just because they’re struggling doesn’t mean you’re a bad manager. It’s what happens next that is key – are you gong to address it, coach for improvement, etc. Or are you looking the other way?”

The only way you lose is if you don’t get in there and address it. Bias for action is the key for new managers. Left to their own devices, most will wait too long to address whatever performance issue is in question.

“It’s not your fault, but it’s your problem.” by Kris Dunn first appeared on November 30, 2015 at HR Capitalist

February 2, 2016
Measuring Leadership in the Classroom

By guest blogger: Scott Mayo

Schools love to measure things. With accountability being the buzzword in educational circles, measurement has become an even greater priority. However, we often fall trap to measuring things that are easy to measure, not because they are the most important things. Leadership is one of those important things – we all want it – that has been notoriously hard to quantify. How do I know that I have a teacher who is a leader?

Kris Dunn, HR professional and blogger, has suggested we consider the ideas of Leadership Gravity and Leadership Birth Rate to judge leadership results. Leadership Gravity describes the phenomenon of a manager whose department consistently generates the most internal transfer in requests. Simply put, leaders attract people who want to be part of what they are doing. Likewise, Leadership Birth Rate looks at the number of people influenced by that manager who go on to become leaders themselves in the future.

How would those concepts play out in a school setting? Are those appropriate categories of thought for measuring leadership among teachers? Leadership Gravity wouldn’t be the same thing as saying which teachers are the most popular or have the most students requesting their elective. But leadership in education isn’t a popularity contest. However, if students did flock to a teacher while also providing feedback of “challenging” and “rigorous,” it might be a sign of classroom-based Leadership Gravity.

Likewise, if students come into contact with a leader in the classroom in such a way as to make a lasting impact (e.g. major choice in college, career path), that could illustrate the concept of Leadership Birth Rate in an educational setting. In schools, some feedback on progress comes at every test and every report card. However, much of what schools do doesn’t come to fruition until years down the road.

The long-term impact on leadership development in the students may be one of those harder-to-measure things. It is easy enough to track who steps up for student leadership roles (e.g. class and club officers) during the students’ tenures at the school. To neglect to take a longer view, though, might miss the impact faculty are having as they attract students to their disciplines and guide their life choices into adulthood.

Maybe we need to take a more longitudinal approach to measuring leadership in education by measuring student success at various intervals post graduation. Longitudinal studies have been done to show the value of Pre-K . Could it be done to show the value of various other facets of education including teacher leadership?

What can educators and private business learn from each other to develop more leaders in the classroom and in business?

January 26, 2016