自行培養明星員工,別向外延攬

Grow Your Stars--Don't Buy Them
瀏覽人數:1848


影片載入中...
哈佛商學院教授鮑瑞思.葛羅伊斯堡,鼓勵你培養自家企業內的明星員工,例如,透過扎實的培訓和指導計畫來培養。

保羅.麥可曼:哈囉,我是哈佛商業數位業務的保羅.麥可曼。今天的來賓是哈佛商學院的鮑瑞思.葛羅伊斯堡教授。鮑瑞思謝謝你今天來上節目。

鮑瑞思.葛羅伊斯堡:謝謝你邀請我。

保羅.麥可曼:鮑瑞思,我們今天的任務是幫助觀眾了解,為何及如何在組織內部培養高績效人才,而不是從外部引進。鮑瑞斯,企業要填補重要職缺時,常會向外尋求,引進在其他公司已建立明星地位的頂尖績效人才。但你針對正在考慮這樣做的企業,建議他們務必要謹慎。為什麼?

鮑瑞思.葛羅伊斯堡:保羅,你說得很對。其實我們所知的是,愈來愈多企業延攬外部人才來填補職缺。我與南達和諾瑞亞一起進行的研究,基本上是取得投資銀行界裡,一千多名華爾街明星分析師的所有資訊。

我想先告訴大家,為何我們選擇這個勞動力市場。我們選擇分析師,是因為分析師是1990年代自由工作者的代表性人物,他們根本不在乎是為A公司,還是B公司工作。

我們觀察這些人,他們其實只要走到馬路另一邊,就能找到另一位雇主,而且做完全相同的工作,實際上連服務的客戶也一樣。我們發現,當他們被新公司雇用時,績效是下降的。那不是暫時性的,而是持續四到五年績效衰退。我們對此的解釋是,讓人們在組織中成為明星的原因,不只是個人能力,其實還包括他們身邊的同事、支援的職能部門、資訊系統、企業文化。

當他們換到另一家公司時,基本上就拋開了所有這些。精明的人,會嘗試在新雇主那裡重新建立這一切。但在人際關係方面,大多數關係是建立在信任之上。建立信任要花很長時間。正是這個原因,你才會看到他們表現不佳很長一段時間。

保羅.麥可曼:有證據顯示,從外部引進明星員工不是好的政策。這意味我們必須從內部培養自己的明星。這個過程應從哪裡開始著手?

鮑瑞思.葛羅伊斯堡:在我們研究的案例所屬的產業中,其實很少有公司有系統地思考,應如何完整地培養明星員工。我能想到的一些企業,像是高盛、阿爾弗雷德森伯恩斯坦等。

他們所做的,基本上是先確定,自己希望加入的員工應具備哪些合適的技能和特性,譬如在這個案例中是研究部門?同樣有趣的是,在這個案例中,他們也有很強大的培訓和指導計畫。其中有一些較正式,另一些則是非正式的。

他們實際上是親手帶著某人,教他如何與客戶互動,如何做產業報告,如何生產市場想要的產品。這些種導師制和培養方式,就是讓員工入門的關鍵。我認為在這之後,優秀的企業也在試圖找出辦法,把最佳實務傳播出去,讓頂尖人才繼續維持頂尖。

保羅.麥可曼:是否該讓高潛力人員知道自己具備高潛力?這是培養流程的一部分嗎?

鮑瑞思.葛羅伊斯堡:有一些爭議,是關於是否應該讓他們知道自己是高潛力人員,以及所找出的高潛力人員,與組織其他成員之間的關係。我認為,高潛力人員想知道自己是高潛力人員。我認為,對很多企業的關鍵是,該怎麼處理那些突然被貼上沒有高潛力標籤的大多數員工。我是指,當這個過程更加公開透明時,要如何處理這一點。

我認為,企業正在處理這個問題。他們公開獎勵高潛力人員,基本上是公開表揚。而且企業非常重視如何找出高潛力人員。對於其中一些人來說,這意謂在未來五年內,是否可以升遷兩次之類的情況。但關鍵也在於,你必須如何確保,其他人不會很氣餒自己不屬於高潛力類別。

保羅.麥可曼:就像你的研究所指出的,無論好壞,你的明星員工很可能會被外界、被其他企業注意到,當然,這個過程就是從這裡開始的。一旦你在培育高潛力人才方面表現亮眼,把他們栽培成績效最佳員工,該如何避免他們離開?

鮑瑞思.葛羅伊斯堡:我認為這是很好的問題,因為不只是要找出人才、培育人才,最終若想打贏人才戰爭,你還必須留住人才。有趣的是,我認為這有點與外界的迷思想反,即明星員工更有可能跳槽。

我和南達所做的研究發現,明星員工其實比非明星員工更不容易跳槽。他們可能會直接去找經理,大肆抱怨,威脅要離開,但實際上他們沒有離開。

如果你把明星員工的流失率,與非明星員的流失率做比較,前者是後者的一半。但這仍是個重大的數字。當

我總是想到一句名言:員工離開的不是工作,而是離開主管。明星員工也是如此。因此,組織從一位主管過渡到另一位主管時,必須非常小心,因為可能會完成了過渡,卻失去大量優秀人才,他們跳槽到其他公司。

我們發現的另一件事是,績效不佳的組織,比績效良好的組織更容易流失人員。我們也發現,若看看部門的情況,小型和大型部門都可以留住人。卡在中間的部門,往往會流失更多人才。這比較是組織層面的問題。

而在個人層面,我們有微詞的是任職過太多地方的人。如果你要翻到他履歷的第八頁才會知道,這個人是哪間大學畢業的,而在這之前你所看到的是一長串的雇主名單,這種人最有可能在短時間內離職。

另外我們也知道,在公司任職愈久的人,愈不可能離開公司。但在很多情況下,一切都歸結於主管創造的環境,是否能讓人保持生產力,保持工作動力。我們也確實發現,這與你的第一個問題有關,也就是明星員工任職的公司裡,如果也有其他明星員工,他們離職的機率較小。其他明星員工幾乎算是一種機制,可防止優秀人才離職。

保羅.麥可曼:乍看之下,很多組織都希望確保明星員工分散在公司各處,讓整個組織都能獲得價值。你其實是說,這未必是個好主意,如果我理解沒錯的話。你其實想把明星員工聚集在一起,對嗎?

鮑瑞思.葛羅伊斯堡:我們主張,我觀察你把優秀同仁放在各個部門或職能單位,仰賴他們開發產品,或向客戶銷售產品,這麼做是不是好的留才工具。我們發現,簡單來說,如果你在部門A協助生產某個產品,最好能讓那個部門擁有很多明星員工,因為我會擔心如果我跳槽,另外那家公司沒有明星員工。這些明星員工能協助我做出更好的產品。

保羅.麥可曼:好的,最後一個問題。

鮑瑞思.葛羅伊斯堡:好。

保羅.麥可曼:明星員工是否應該得到明星級待遇?感覺你的說法是,他們確實應該得到與普通員工不同的待遇。主管真能這麼做,而沒有不良後果嗎?

鮑瑞思.葛羅伊斯堡:我認為,如果你的績效評估流程是公平的,如果你的績效評估流程是透明的—我想要建議反思一下許多勞動市場,尤其是那種有贏者全拿現象的勞動市場,獎勵是不成比例地分配給最優秀、表現最耀眼的人。但即使你觀察他們的生產力,也只是比普通員工高出很多倍。

關鍵在於,擁有明星員工和非明星員工的主管,必須擁有B級員工(我的同事狄隆針對這個主題寫過大量文章),才能讓組織運作良好。A級員工未必會有最獨特的觀點,但他們之所以不同的唯一原因,就是他們的績效比其他人更好,這應該得到獎勵。

保羅.麥可曼:鮑瑞思.葛羅伊斯堡,非常感謝你。

鮑瑞思.葛羅伊斯堡:謝謝。


Boris Groysberg, Harvard Business School professor, encourages you to develop stars within your company, for example, through strong training and mentoring programs.

Paul Michelman: Hello, I'm Paul Michelman from Harvard Business Digital, and I'm here today with Harvard Business School Professor Boris Groysberg. Boris, thanks for joining the program today.

Paul Michelman: Thank you for having me.

Paul Michelman: Boris, our mission today is to help our audience understand the why's and how's of grooming top performers from inside the organization rather than importing it from the outside. Boris, when it comes to filling important roles, companies often look to the outside to bring in top performers who have established themselves as stars at other firms. But, your message to companies who are thinking about doing that is buyer beware. Why is that?

Paul Michelman: Paul, you are absolutely right. And actually, what we know is that more and more companies are actually fulfilling the positions from outside hires. So in the research that I did with Ashish Nanda and Nitin Nohria, what we did is we basically got all the information in investment banking on 1,000 plus star Wall Street analysts.

And just let me just tell everybody why we picked this particular labor market. The reason why we picked analysts is that, if you think about poster children for who free agents are, analysts in the 1990's were considered to be free agents who could not care less whether they worked for Company A or Company B.

So we looked to those people who actually just had to simply just cross the street to go to another employer. They did exactly the same jobs, they actually had the same clients. And what we found is that when they when they actually got employed by new firms, their performance declined. And it wasn't just a temporary performance decline. They suffered performs decline that lasted 4 or 5 years. So our explanation for this is that what makes people stars in organizations goes beyond their individual abilities. It's actually colleagues around them, it's supporting functions, it's IT systems, it's the corporate culture.

And when they actually move from one place to another, they basically leave all those things behind. Well smart stars are trying to recreate this with a new employer. But if you think about relationships, mostly relationships are built on trust. And to develop trust takes a lot of time. So that's why you actually see them under performing for a significant amount of time.

Paul Michelman: So the evidence suggests that bringing stars from the outside is not good policy. That means we need to develop our own stars from within. Where does that process began?

Paul Michelman: So in the industry that particular case was studying, there are actually very few companies that systematically think about developing stars like from the beginning to the end. And some companies that come to mind are like Goldman Sachs, Alfredson Bernstein.

And what they did is it starts basically with identifying what are the right skills and attributes that I would like to have in an employee who is joining, for example in this case my research department? And what was also interesting, in this case, is they also had very strong training and mentorship programs. And some of them more formal and some of them informal.

They actually take somebody with their own hand and teaches them how to interact with clients, how to do the industry reports, how to actually produce a product desired by the market. So you have this mentorship and development that's the key of making somebody into a start. I think after that, the great companies are also figuring out the way of trying to communicate the best practices so people who are the top stay at the top.

Paul Michelman: Should high potentials know that they're high potentials? Is that a part of the development process?

Paul Michelman: So I think there is actually somewhat of a debate of whether high potentials should know it and how identifying high potential relates to the rest of the organization. I think high potentials want to know that they're actually high potentials. I think the key with a lot of companies is what happens to the majority of employees who all of a sudden are labeled not high potentials. I mean when this process is more open and transparent.

So I think that's an issue that companies are dealing with. It's rewarding the high potentials by basically singing them out. And the companies very in how they identify high potential. For some of them, it's whether you can be promoted twice in the next five years or something like that. But the key is also, what do you have to do to make sure that others are not demotivated by not being in this high potential category.

Paul Michelman: As your research suggests, for better or for worse, your stars are likely to get noticed by the outside world, by other firms, which is of course where this process begins. So once you've done a good job of developing a high potential and turning them into a top performer, how do you keep them from bolting?

Paul Michelman: I think that's a great question because it not only requires you to identify talent, develop talent, at the end of the day to win the talent war, you actually have to retain it. What's interesting, I think is it somewhat goes opposite to the myth out there that stars are more likely to actually leave their employees.

What we do find in that research was this piece of research that I did with Ashish Nanda that stars are actually less likely to leave their company than non stars. They are out there talking to managers, they're out there complaining, they're out there threatening to leave, but they actually don't leave.

So if you look at the turnover of stars compared to the turnover of non stars, it's actually half the rate. But it's still a significant number. So when you think about retention, what are the processes that organizations have to be able to keep their best and brightest?

I keep being reminded of this great saying that employees don't leave jobs, they actually leave managers. That's also true for stars. So, organizations that are actually transitioning from one manager to another have to be really careful because they might actually get transition and lose a number of talented people who would leave to other firms.

The other thing that we will also find is that under performing organization tend to lost people more often than that of organizations that can perform well. We also find that when you look at the department's, the small and the large departments are able to retain the people. It's the departments that are stuck in the middle, who actually tend to lose a lot more people. So, that's more on an organizational side.

On an individual side, we whined that people who have extended service. If you go to page eight of somebody's CV to kind of realize where this person went to college and you see all these employers lineup, this person is most likely to leave you in a short period of time.

The other thing that we know is that the longer the person stays with you, the less likelihood that this person is actually going to leave. But it all comes down in many cases about the environment that the manager creates that keeps the person productive and keeps the person motivated. One of the things that we do also find—this relates to your first question-- is that stars who worked in organizations that have other stars are less likely to leave. So, other stars are almost used as a retention mechanism to keep the talented people from leaving.

Paul Michelman: So, at first blush, a lot of organizations would like to make sure their stars are well dispersed around the company to get value throughout the organization. You're actually saying that's not necessarily a good idea if I understand . You actually want to congregate your stars together. Is that right?

Paul Michelman: What we argue is, I looked at whether having quality colleagues in the departments and functions on which you rely in developing your product or actually selling your product to clients, whether that's a good retention means or not. And what we find is that, simply, if you are working with Department A to produce a product you're better off by having a lot of stars in this department because I will be concerned about leaving and not having stars in another firm. They are actually helping me to produce a better product.

Paul Michelman: Ok. So, last question.

Paul Michelman: Yeah.

Paul Michelman: Do star performers deserve star treatment? It feels like what you're saying here is that they do deserve something that's a little bit different than the average employee. Can you get away with that as a manager?

Paul Michelman: So, I think if your performance evaluation process is fair, if your performance evaluation process is transparent-- and I mean to suggest a kind of a reflection of a number of labor markets especially the kind of labor markets that have this winner take all type of phenomenon, is that rewards are disproportionately allocated to the best and brightest. But even if you look at their productivity, they are just many times more productive than an average employee.

Now, the key for a manager that has stars and non stars, you actually have to have B players-- a colleague of mine, Tom DeLong, has written extensively about this-- for a well functioning organization. A players might not be getting the most idiosyncratic views, but they're different for the sole reason they are actually performing better than everybody else and that should be rewarded.

Paul Michelman: Boris Groysberg. Thank you very much.

Paul Michelman: Thank you.



本篇文章主題人力資源管理