Friday, November 17, 2017

Paul's Update Special 11/17



Here’s a question every leader should answer: Do you have a clear understanding of your people’s skills, and where the gaps are? Odds are, the answer is no. Although the cloud, digitization, and the Internet of Things allow businesses to gather and analyze all sorts of data, few organizations today have a system in place to track the skills they have. And even fewer apply that knowledge to gauge what skills they lack, both now and in the future.
PwC’s(Price Waterhouse Cooper) most recent CEO survey found that more than half of CEOs said they were exploring how machines and humans can work together. And 39 percent said they’re considering the effect automation will have on their workforce. Even now, with automation still in its early days, CEOs told us that finding the skills they need has become the biggest challenge to their business — a situation that will only get more acute as technology evolves and competition for talent tightens. 

Given the dynamics, it is vital for you to have a system in place that can track and analyze the skills your people already have — and those they may need soon. Building such a system is a significant undertaking. Breaking it down into four steps can help you get started.

Step 1: Make an inventory of your people’s dynamic skills. Start by considering the particular skills your business needs, and then categorize them. Creating an inventory can’t be a one-time exercise, or a static project. You’ll need to update it as your people’s skills evolve, as your organization’s needs change, and as people come and go.

Step 2: Organize your inventory. Organize it in a way that makes it highly searchable. The key here is to make sure you can search and access the data quickly, with good results. 

Step 3: Analyze your skills. The goal here is to gain insight into where your employees’ skills are the strongest, where they’re thin, and where the gaps are, and then whether those gaps are on the functional side or the technical side.

Step 4: Plan for the future. Trying to gauge the skills your company will need two to three years down the road with a few viable scenarios can be a valuable exercise. Rather than being caught off guard by a sudden gap in skills or having to hire people with certain skills at the last minute in the open market, companies armed with such knowledge can plan ahead through hiring, training, and career development strategies.

There’s a lot we don’t know about tomorrow. But workers and organizations should be as ready as possible. By identifying the skills you need and starting to concentrate on how to build them, you’ll be better prepared for the changes coming your way.



Gen Xers are known for questioning authority—and as they steadily infiltrate the C-suite, they’re living up to the reputation by rewriting the rules for corporate headquarters. While Millennials have been getting all the attention for transforming the workplace simply by joining it, the MTV generation has been coolly and quietly transforming it from the inside out, from where headquarters are located, to how they’re being designed. 

Generally more autonomous, Gen Xers are independent thinkers who grew up learning to be skeptical of old ways—and corporate real estate decisions. Generational differences are fueling all-new office designs, such as activity-based workplaces that will help carry organizations into the future of work, and designs that favor casual collisions over boxy offices. Plus, to aid a work-life balance, the GenX CEO knows they need to ensure their organizations are run efficiently and productively—and that means inspiring talent of all generations.

They also know that to get the business results they want they need to go where the talent is. With Millennials, who make up increasingly large proportions of the workforce, basing themselves in the cities, it makes sense to move headquarters back into urban centers. 

The commercial office market is shifting seismically, too, as developers and landlords work to accommodate the multi-generational interest in working in positive, collaborative environments. Innovative work spaces, such as coffee lounges, internal co-working areas, war rooms and incubator spaces are popping up to accommodate workers’ desire to come together.

Although there’s no one-size fits all approach for success, thinking outside of the box and not being afraid to do things a little differently – which Gen Xers do very well – go a long way in creating spaces where workers of all ages enjoy spending time. 

As digital transformation disrupts the workplace, one factor more than any other will determine which companies turn digital to their advantage. That critical element is people: the talented employees who are able to use existing digital technologies and adapt to evolving methods and new approaches. Without these employees, companies will struggle to benefit as they should from the latest advances—everything from Industry 4.0 and robots to artificial intelligence, data science, virtual reality, and new digital business models.

Companies should respond to this challenge by building new pools of skilled digital employees. To do so, they must understand who these potential employees are, where they can be found, and how they can be attracted and retained. Companies also need to know what kinds of talent can be nurtured within the existing employee base; digital talent must come not only from the acquisition of new personnel for specific jobs but also from the development of digital skills in existing roles.

The “Who”

For any digital people strategy, the first step is defining what “digital talent” means. To facilitate such understanding, we have identified (through analysis of nearly a million recruitment profiles and from dozens of interviews with practitioners) six areas where digital talent can have the most impact. These areas are digital business, digital marketing, digital development, advanced analytics, Industry 4.0, and new ways of working.

Inline image
We believe a strategic planning effort could help companies understand their digital talent needs—and provide valuable insights as they embark on the recruitment and development effort to fill the inevitable gaps. (See Exhibit 2 for a workforce planning example.) The planning effort can employ several scenarios based on various assumptions about the future demand for, and supply of, digital talent. And the scenarios can be updated as assumptions are confirmed or refuted.

Inline image
The “Where”

As companies begin their recruiting efforts, they need to know not only whom they are looking for but also where to look. This is particularly true for organizations with a global footprint. These organizations must identify cities that have a good supply of digital talent—cities where the company will seem attractive to native residents and where the company will be able to build up its digital resources over the medium to long term.

Inline image
The “How”

Once the company has a detailed understanding of the “who” and the “where,” it needs to tackle the “how”—how to recruit and select the right digital talent in an era when high demand for such talent and low-cost access to information put the power in the hands of the job candidates. Step into their shoes. On the basis of our analysis of more than 100 recruiting methods and interviews with more than 50 top recruiters, we have identified several best practices in the search for scarce digital resources. Most important of these, we believe, is understanding how digital employees think.

The employees with this mindset are entrepreneurial and inclined to data-driven decision making. They focus on user-centric product and service development and are passionate about creating and building. They are experienced in multidisciplinary teams and show a strong tendency toward collaborative and agile ways of working.

When it comes to the work environment, digital employees are more concerned about their product portfolio—the projects and products they build—than about prestigious titles or linear career paths. They want to be surrounded by inspiring peers and thought leaders in their field of expertise. In addition, they are more open than traditional employees to unconventional forms of compensation, such as stock options and shares in intellectual property. Many also want to make a meaningful, positive impact on the world, and most would like to define their own work-life balance. In short, digital employees make up a specific recruiting pool that requires new ways of attracting and selecting talent.

More than 90% of digital employees today use online tools and communities in their job search. And they find new jobs in an average of less than two weeks. To compete for these individuals, traditional recruiting practices are not enough. Companies today need recruiting staff with social media and online networking skills, HR software capabilities, and digital knowledge. Only programmers can recruit programmers; recruiters must speak the language of their candidates.

Most organizations have already developed some form of strategy for online recruiting; however, their plans often fall short. One reason is that the digital talent they seek might be using only group-specific recruiting platforms, such as AngelList for entrepreneurs, GitHub and Stack Overflow for engineers, Dribbble and Behance for designers, or Kaggle for data scientists. Recent technophile graduates may be using platforms such as The Muse or apps such as Debut in their job hunts. To reach these people, companies need to use the appropriate platforms.

Recruiters can also reach a broader pool of digital employees by addressing their interests directly. They can connect with digital talent in person, for example, by participating in targeted informal events such as CreativeMornings, a breakfast lecture series for the digital community that takes place in cities around the world. These events allow creative people of all types to mingle, network, and share insights before the workday begins. Other methods include sponsorship of virtual competitions through online communities such as HackerRank or of live events such as hackathons, or codathons, which bring together large groups of programmers—typically students—to build websites, mobile apps, and other projects in a relatively short amount of time.

A more costly approach to recruitment is “acquihiring”: buying a company not for its business or product line but for its talent.

Once the right target groups have been reached, it’s the selection and recruiting process that will distinguish the successful company from its competitors. Most traditional companies still need to speed up and automate this process—to become fully digital. With so many new digital employees in their ranks, companies need to create an environment in which these individuals will want to stay for the long term.

The “What”

Although recruiting a new pool of digital talent with specific profiles is essential, the enormity of the demand for digitally savvy employees means that not everyone can be brought in from outside the business. Nor would a company want to turn over the majority of its workforce. Instead, it is today’s marketing, finance, manufacturing, HR, and other staff who make up the core of the workforce for the digital journey.

To understand how much of the demand can be met internally, companies must first understand what digital skills are needed by which of their current functions and job profiles. When these needs are fully defined, companies can then create and institute a digital enablement program to train employees to the appropriate levels.
Inline image
The matrix shows the profile group (finance, for example), the subprofiles within the group (such as controllers, accountants, and treasurers), the top digital skills each subprofile needs, and the maximum skill levels that could be required. The matrix also includes the number of full-time employees in each profile, which allows the company to see how many employees will be needed and what kind of skill building each function will require.

To create a truly digital culture, the organization needs to introduce and adapt to new forms of cooperation, implementing more project-based work and running these projects in a more flexible way. It must introduce new working methods such as agile and user-centric product design, along with more experimentation and creativity, fewer fixed rules, and more tolerance for risk taking. Digitally savvy employees tend to be fast learners who crave responsibility and impact, but they will make mistakes; a culture that accepts failure is essential.

The new culture should also extend to the workspace, utilizing progressive office design to attract talent and foster innovation. Any company that is adapting to this mindset is also taking a significant step in the larger organizational transformation that is now underway, as the new ways of working go well beyond the field of digital. 

















Friday, November 10, 2017

Paul's Update Special 11/10




Organizations around the world are failing on one key metric of success: leadership development. According to research from the Corporate Executive Board (CEB), 66% of companies invest in programs that aim to identify high-potential employees and help them advance, but only 24% of senior executives at those firms consider the programs to be a success. 

The problem isn’t a lack of internal talent. We’ve identified the predictors that correlate strongly with competence at the top. The first is the right motivation. This predictor can’t easily be rated or compared meaningfully across individuals. However, the other predictors—curiosity, insight, engagement, and determination—can be measured and compared.

Unfortunately, many organizations haven’t figured out how to fully develop their prospective leaders. That limits these people’s advancement and eventually their engagement and, ultimately, leads to turnover.

Low engagement and high turnover are extremely costly for organizations, especially if the people jumping ship are high potentials in whom much has already been invested. How can companies prevent this massive waste of talent and create more-effective development programs?
  • First, by determining the most important competencies for leadership roles at their organizations. In our leadership advisory services at Egon Zehnder, we’ve identified seven that we believe are crucial for most executive positions at large companies: results orientation, strategic orientation, collaboration and influence, team leadership, developing organizational capabilities, change leadership, and market understanding. In addition, many leading companies are finding that an eighth—inclusiveness—is essential to executive performance.
  • Second, by rigorously assessing the potential of aspiring managers: checking their motivational fit and carefully rating them on the four key hallmarks—curiosity, insight, engagement, and determination.
  • Third, by creating a growth map showing how a person’s strengths in each of the hallmarks aligns with the competencies required in various roles.
  • Fourth, by giving high potentials the right development opportunities—including job rotations and promotions they might not seem completely qualified for but that fit their growth maps—as well as targeted coaching and support.
Before an organization can begin mapping managers’ potential to required competencies, it must determine what exactly it needs. That will vary from business to business. Requirements will vary from role to role within firms as well. Your organization should aim to identify the competencies that are most crucial for its top roles in light of its own challenges and goals. 

Inline image

You should cascade this process down through the ranks so that you have a clearer idea of the key skills needed to do lower-tier managerial jobs, too. With all positions, however, you must resist the temptation to demand high levels of all competencies, because you’ll never find leaders who are perfect. The next step is to comprehensively assess future leaders’ current competencies and their potential for growth. With this information, you can now take the critical third step: predicting where each executive is likely to succeed.

Armed with assessments of your emerging leaders’ current competencies and potential for growth in each area, you will be in a much better position to make development and succession plans throughout your organization. And that will help you ensure that you have a strong pipeline of people to fill C-suite roles in the future.

The fourth key step in turning high potentials—at all levels—into leaders: Give them the opportunities, coaching, and support they need to close the gap between their potential and their current competencies. Well-planned job rotations are also crucial. To help your high potentials build their strengths and make the most of opportunities, you can provide individual coaching and group interventions. 

When companies take this approach to leadership development—focusing on potential and figuring out how to help people build the competencies they need for various roles—they see results.




Taped to the wall outside Intuit CEO Brad Smith’s office is his unedited performance review from the board of directors. The board thinks he should “be willing to have more unstructured conversations—not everything buttoned up.” All of this feedback is publicly displayed. Of course most of Intuit’s 8,200 employees will never walk past Smith’s office—so he emails the whole package to all of them each year.

Transparency is great, but this, you might think, is ridiculous. No one seems to think so at Intuit, however, and that’s a clue to a mystery worth solving. It’s this: Why is Intuit still here? It’s No. 8 on Fortune’s new ranking of the Future 50, the companies best prepared to thrive and grow their revenue rapidly in coming years. Yet at age 34 it’s older than almost all the others. Its business, specialized personal-computing software, is brutally competitive. 

Here’s part of the explanation: Since its founding, Intuit has done what every company today must learn to do, disrupting itself continuously, reinventing its products and its business model before any competitor can beat it to it.

Its current self-disruption began five years ago when top managers decided Intuit had to be more than a provider of products and services. It had to become an open platform. “The average small business uses 16 to 20 apps, and we make three,” explains Brad Smith, 53, who has been CEO for 10 years. “So we had to open up our platform and trust that this would make our customers more loyal to us and also would give us insights into problems we could go solve.”

The company gambled that it would become stronger, not weaker, by welcoming outside developers—potential competitors —onto an online platform where they can offer apps that work with Intuit products. The open platform is working and now offers some 1,400 apps. It has also created unexpected opportunities for Intuit. Intuit thus is becoming an ecosystem in which several parties—customers, app developers, accountants, and Intuit—find new ways to interact for mutual benefit. 

The recurring pattern is that Intuit disrupts itself without the motivation of a crisis. That’s highly unusual. The key is to focus on the finding that makes no sense. Most organizations do the opposite, as Cook and his colleagues did at first. They ignore the information that doesn’t fit, or convince themselves it isn’t important. Time and again, digging into the puzzling discovery —“savoring the surprise,” as Intuit’s leaders call it—has enabled the company to reinvent itself before competitors caught on.  

These critical insights never would have happened if Intuit hadn’t been studying its customers rigorously—another vital element of its success. The employees are trained in how to do it: You don’t interview the customer; you just observe. They debrief immediately afterward because they all will have noticed something different, “so you get a complete picture much faster,” Smith says. “It puts a face to a problem. You see the humanity.” The underlying reality is that you can’t believe what customers tell you, as most companies learn the hard way. Customer behavior is the truth.

Intuit also deploys clever managerial techniques to evade or defeat the organizational change-killers. Among them:
  • Tiny teams. New ideas are initially developed by “discovery teams,” typically only three people. They don’t report up the chain of command but instead go straight to a division general manager. The teams get intensive coaching every week or two from the GM or Cook, which helps them stand up to the barrage of opposition they’ll inevitably face from those with a stake in the status quo.
  • Shared experiences. When new ideas get further along, shared experiences can often obliterate conflicts.
  • Shared data, fast decisions. “My staff meeting used to be just me and my 12 direct reports,” says Smith. “Now we broadcast it to our top 400 leaders every month, and they have 24 hours to cascade it to all 8,200 employees.” A lot of infighting disappears when everyone knows what the top leaders are doing and why. Decisions get made much faster, and when a conflict arises, Intuit follows a sunset rule: If you can’t resolve it in 24 hours, you get another 24 hours to escalate it high in the organization to get a decision.
Any company could adopt those managerial techniques tomorrow, at least in theory. Far more difficult to adopt, and perhaps more important to Intuit’s self-disruptive success, is a culture that facilitates reinvention. A key element is permission to admit mistakes, shortcomings, and failures, which is valuable in two ways.

First, when an organization tries to change, it is implicitly admitting something isn’t working. No organization wants to admit that. People get punished when something isn’t working, right? And if no one will go there, change is forever blocked.

The second advantage of an open, fess‑up culture is subtly different. Remember those performance reviews and feedback reports taped up outside Smith’s office? They’re Smith’s proclamations that he himself must change. When top leaders admit that they must fix their flaws, it’s hard for others to claim that they or their business unit are beyond improvement.

Intuit, in its disciplined way, is sending scouting parties in search of the next big transformation. Starting last fall, the company grouped 70 of its leaders into small teams and told them to investigate eight major trends that arose in customer interactions and tech forums.

No company tries harder to find the next big disruption before it finds them. Intuit understands that in the digital world there are no final victories but plenty of final defeats, and success is always tenuous.




“Great teams tend to happen by happenstance as people come together,” says Linda Adams, coauthor of The Loyalist Team: How Trust, Candor, and Authenticity Create Great Organizations. “They start with expectations around how people will perform, engage, and get their work done. In teams where expectations around behavior aren’t clear, people are left to show up and decide how they want to engage with each other.”

Adams and her partners found that teams are either saboteurs or loyalists, with varying levels of each. Some come together in trust, while others gather with internal conflict and strife.

Adams and her coauthors identify four types of teams, their traits, and how they impact a company’s success:

1. SABOTEUR TEAM
This team is focused on personal wins, and failure of others is the path to success. Members have a “watch your back” and “get them before they get me” mind-set. Behaviors include blaming others, engaging in one-upmanship, creating drama, and constantly pointing out what is going wrong without acknowledging what’s going right. This is the most toxic kind of team, and they can’t deliver results because morale suffers and good people quit.

2. BENIGN SABOTEUR TEAM
Members of this team are focused on self-preservation and survival. There is a false sense of harmony, with a “live and let live” mind-set. Behaviors include withholding feedback that could be helpful to others, staying within silos, delivering only on defined commitments, and being highly skeptical about the possibility for successful change in the organization and with each other. This kind of team isn’t productive because there’s little risk taking, and artificial harmony keeps real issues from being discussed.

3. SITUATIONAL LOYALIST TEAM
The members of this team are focused on keeping things moving in the right direction. There are pockets of trust, and people are given the benefit of the doubt, but there are weaknesses that keep the team from achieving high performance. Members carefully consider the impact of feedback before providing it, and they aren’t always candid. Strong alliances exist, but not equally across the team, and this team is often leader-centered, which means the leader is essential to accountability and decision making. This kind of team isn’t as productive as it could be, because members settle for good enough, and they rely too heavily on the leader.

4. LOYALIST TEAM
Members of this team are focused on the organization’s success, and the success of others is viewed as a success for all. This group believes “we win together; we lose together,” and they have a strong commitment to each other. Behaviors include proactive and candid feedback, actively engaging in productive conflict to the get-tough issues out in the open, sharing accountability for decisions and results, and helping others maximize their strengths.

“There is almost always a strong correlation between team dynamics and leaders,” says coauthor Audrey Epstein. "A lot of leaders don’t have a process or a methodology to build teams, and they build teams based on what they’ve seen or how they’ve been led during their careers.”

It’s possible to move your team from saboteur to loyalist, but it isn’t a quick fix. You need a plan and an agreement, says Adams. “The plan will help address issues, such as the nature and quality of team meetings, relationships that exist between team members, and the impact a team leader has on managing effectiveness,” she says.

Getting an agreement can be tricky, adds Epstein. “Sometimes you have a player who doesn’t want to go along with you, isn’t willing to extend trust, can’t get past their ego, and puts their personal agenda in front of the team’s,” she says. “You have to have lots of tough conversations with team leaders. You get what you tolerate.”
  • Start by changing your attitude. “When things aren’t clear, there is a tendency to give negative assignation to behavior, assuming there is another agenda,” says Adams. “If you are able to give others the benefit of the doubt and assume positive intent, you can stay in the conversation, extending and granting trust.”
  • Be willing to have tough conversations. “There are no elephants in the room with a top team, no non-discussables,” says Adams.
  • Make giving feedback a team requirement. “You see a much more rapid adjustment when the people around you are invested in your growth,” says Epstein. “We see a lot of failure in companies because individuals fail, and the people around those individuals have seen them on decline but haven’t stepped up. When people feel challenged but not afraid, they do their best work."
 
Everyone deserves to be on a loyalist team. Epstein says, “We spend so much time at work, why would we ever settle for anything less? Not only does everyone deserve a great team; every team has the potential to be great.”






Friday, November 3, 2017

Ask: How might this affect me, now and in the future?




The words "workplace culture" often bring to mind companies like Google or Pixar, with bright colors, open offices, company social activities, and an atmosphere of fun as well as hard work. The reality, however, is that a strong workplace culture does not have to be fun-loving to be satisfying – and if the culture is not already satisfying for your employees, then a foosball table is not going to help.

Prem Kumar, senior director of product for employee engagement solutions provider TINYPulse, defined workplace culture as the "ethos of the organization. It's what motivates, inspires and drives your organization. It's a sum of each employee's values, knowledge and interactions with one another."

S. Chris Edmonds, author of "The Culture Engine" and founder of The Purposeful Culture Group, narrows it further: "Culture is how the organization is operating: how people treat each other, what methods are in place [for interaction]." To Edmonds, successful culture, whether your company prefers T-shirts or ties, boils down to trust, respect and dignity.

Leaders, especially senior leaders, have not been asked to examine the culture aspect of the company, but it's becoming more important than ever. Edmonds said that the inherent impatience of millennials drives the need. The new generations are not content to put in 25 years with a company to get a gold watch. Rather, "they want a place where they are valued, mentored and allowed to work where they do their best. 

The first step for any leader looking to improve the workplace culture is to determine the values that reflect the company. Once you have determined the core values that define your organization, you need to determine what concrete behaviors reflect those values. 

It's up to the leaders to model the core values, from the CEO to the direct manager. When management models the defined values and behaviors, employees start to follow suit. 

Edmonds noted that an improved culture leads to improved productivity.

"We regularly see performance go up 30 to 35 percent, and service up 40 percent or more as a result of improving the culture," he said. Senior leadership must stay dedicated to the new culture, said Edmonds. "The behaviors have to become ingrained so that it survives any change of leadership and the organization can evolve with its mission."




There's a pervasive myth in the professional world that holding employees accountable for their work somehow prevents them from reaching their creative potential. This myth couldn't be further from the truth, but it's easy to see where it comes from -- a basic misunderstanding of what real accountability is.

True accountability isn't punitive. It is not something that comes to the fore only when someone makes a mistake. Rather, accountability means focusing on what can be done, rather than what's out of your control.

Most surprising of all: Dedication to accountability fosters creativity.
Far too often, people think that holding others accountable is a way of blaming or even punishing them for a perceived mistake. A culture of fear stifles risk-taking, the very life-blood of innovation. But positive accountability enhances the creative process by empowering employees to take ownership over circumstances.

Accountability is a positive force in any professional setting, representing a person's ability to rise above difficult circumstances by focusing on the things that she can control while accepting the things she can't. It's the ability to say, "What can I personally do to change this outcome?" and then follow a concrete course of action to achieve it. In this way, accountability opens the door to creative and innovative solutions.

The opposite of accountability is not creativity; it is finger-pointing and blaming others. A shortage of creative thinking from your team is a sign that employees are not taking accountability for results. By offering excuses about things outside of their control, they hold themselves back from accessing new solutions and generating new ideas. When people avoid taking accountability for the solutions, we don't access creativity, we don't get engagement, people commiserate around all the reasons why we can't get the result, and all the energy that could be applied to achieving the outcomes we need is wasted in the blame game.

Does accountability impact engagement and creativity? Absolutely! If you notice that an employee on your team is holding back ideas and is too concerned with "drawing inside the lines," open a dialogue to uncover what might be holding the employee back from feeling empowered to speak up and act. Redirect the focus, encouraging people to take accountability for factors that are within their control. With consistent leadership aimed at fostering a culture of accountability, the possibilities for innovation, productivity, engagement, and creativity are endless.




The obsession with predicting who may be a future star or the next top leader has influenced academic research and human resources practices alike. Yet 40% of designated “HiPos” — high-potential employees — end up not doing well in the future and at least one in two leaders disappointing, derailing, or failing to drive high levels of engagement and team performance. The main reason underlying this bleak state of affairs is that high potential nominations are contaminated by organizational politics. To be more precise, there are six dynamics that prevent organizations from identifying, promoting, and developing the right people for leadership roles, namely:

The politics of intuition. 
The foremost reason for the failure of HiPo identification programs is that without science it is virtually impossible to assess potential. People love and trust their intuition, but when our evaluations are based on intuitive judgments, they are ripe for being led astray by biases and political undercurrents. 

The politics of self-interest. 
Those in charge of spotting potential are usually more interested in their own career than others’, and they tend to perceive a personal cost to promoting people who are a key asset, particularly when those people are better than the spotters. 

The politics of avoidance. 
At times, politics may even drive managers to nominate faux-pos (fake HiPos) purely to avoid uncomfortable situations. 

The politics of favoritism. 
Leaders tend to have asymmetrical information on different employees, and this personal limitation is addressed simply by picking the more familiar candidate — after all, “better the devil you know.” 

The politics of ageism. 
While rarely discussed, age is also a factor underlying the politics of potential.

The politics of gender. 
As PwC’s seminal “leaking pipeline” report shows, a large number of women quit when they are experienced, mid-career, and at the level of manager/Senior manager. Decision makers (usually male-dominated groups) often ignore female HiPos.

In short, the politics of potential can prevent organizations from upgrading their leadership talent and make data-driven decisions an anomaly rather than the norm.