Drum roll, please………….

“Companies with Integrated Talent Management Strategies See 26% More Revenue Per Employee and 41% Lower Turnover among High Performers, According to New Bersin & Associates Research.” 

This is a pretty significant result, and came from a sample of 773 HR managers and executives. 

If you dig into the report (or at least the press release, since I am not shelling out $595 for the full report!), development plans were a particularly important indicator of success: 

“Employee development strategies are critical to success. High-quality development planning is one of the practices most highly correlated to reduced turnover and increased revenue per employee. Unfortunately, today this process is very immature. Only about half of respondents widely use development planning and only 8% said plans were effective. ”

If you saw my last post on development planning, you can probably guess that I am smiling.  Without solid development plans, all of the good work done to identify and develop talent falls short. 

I also found it interesting that online systems are increasingly being used to underpin talent management efforts.    Some will say, “it is not about the technology, it is about having good discussions about talent.”  My reponse is that it is hard to have good conversations without good information, and good information means up to date information that is readily available…and that requires a system of some sort to store and manage it.

This would seem to be a reasonable request, right?

Actually, I don’t think that providing examples of “good development plans” is the best way to help a person guide their own development.  Why?  Well, a good development plan doesn’t necessarily look much different from a bad development plan.  

The most critical components of a good development plan are all those things that don’t make it onto the development plan form–the quality of the process used to get meaningful feedback on strengths and weaknesses; the effort invested in reflecting on where you are trying to go in your job and career; the extent of personal insight and self-awareness behind the plan, etc… Of course, the problem is that all of this other work is the hard work of development that many people aren’t ready to do. 

So, the interest in “well-written development plans”  can be a sign that there is too much emphasis on the talent development process and not enough on the hard work of actually helping to develop capability. 

Don’t get me wrong.  Development plans are important and useful tools, and it is good to have one that is based on a thorough self-examination.  My point is simply that the writing of the plan is actually pretty easy when you know what you are trying to accomplish. It is every other part of the process that is difficult. As a result, looking at “well-written development plans” is not that instructive for the individual wanting to drive their own development in the most effective manner.

This reminds me of something once told to me by a college classmate that has stuck with me through the years.  He was describing his experience in trying to write a paper for our philosophy class:   

 ”At first, I thought I knew what I wanted to say, but I just didn’t know how to say it.  Then, I realized, that’s just another way of saying I really don’t know what I want to say.” 

It’s not that people don’t know how to write good development plans. Its that they don’t really know what they need to develop and how to develop  it.  Unfortunately, that is a much harder problem to solve.

His point was simply this:  “Would you want to have a surgeon operate on you who did not have a deep understanding of physiology?”  I know I would want my surgeon to have both a theoretical or conceptual understanding of body systems, and a lot of experience actually doing the surgery. 

So, why is it that so often “theory” is used as a dirty word.  As in, “that is just a bunch of theory,”  or “that is too theoretical.”  Yet, one never hears anyone saying, “that’s just based on experience,” or “that is just too practical.” 

But, perhaps they should. 

In the best sense of the word, “theories” simply help you to make sense of complex situations by helping you to understand the pricniples or elements that are in play.  We create and test theories–though we don’t call them that–all the time. Any time you use your prior experience to guide your actions in a new situation you are doing so because you have created an implicit theory about how things work and you believe that your theory will apply to the new situation.  Of course, the only evidence to support your theory is your own experience. 

In contrast, well done research leverages the experience of others in similar situations and distills down the essential lessons. In addition, since theories in the academic world are more formal, they must stand up to intense scrutiny, and can be tested with enormous amounts of data and well-designed experiments.  I don’t actually know any reputable academic who deals in the type of theory that some think of when they think of academic theory–the armchair theorizing that is disconnected from the real world. I think the last great armchair theorist was William James, and he died in 1910. However, I do know of plenty of consultants who sell themselves as experts based on their experience, yet lack even a basic theoretical foundation for their work.  For example, many executive coaches operating today do coaching that crosses the line into therapy…and don’t even realize it because they lack sufficient knowledge of psychology.

Good executive education recognizes the importance of practical experience and theoretical knowledge and presents a blend of ”theory” and “practice.”

Someone once suggested that the defining feature of a totalitarian state is that anything that is not required by the state is prohibited by the state.  In other words, all activity is structured, and there is no room whatsoever for individual discretion.  When you talk to some people about their personal development, you might think that you were talking to citizens of a totalitarian state.  “My day is so filled with a constant barrage of activity—much of which is driven by the need to respond to others—that I don’t have the discretionary time to work on my own development.” 

The most powerful thing you can do to deal with the demands of an oppressive schedule is to impose a little structure on your development agenda.  If you create specific goals with action plans and timelines associated with them that are written down on paper, you will be more likely to make the time to follow through and improve yourself.  If you leave your development goals as vague outcomes you would like to achieve when you get the time, you will be much less likely to accomplish them.