Last week was a real HR week, I flew across Scandinavia and did four talks on Human Resources, about what people in the Expectations Society want out of their work lives and careers, how companies can attract human capital and be successful.
One of my points, in particular, made older managers, in all four countries, quite upset (and the rest a little nervous):
The old, terrible cliché “There’s no I in team” should be replaced with the more more compelling “There’s no eye in team“.
Successful teams do not crumble with their weakest link. Definitely not in the world of any, where any company can find a co-worker that is good enough, and where anyone, anywhere can reproduce what anyone else has done anytime before.
Successful teams thrive with their stars, the ones that (at least for a microsecond) are able to stand out and do something that no one else (most importantly, not the company itself) has done before.
In a world of any with hundreds of thousands of available offers to buy even a trivial product such as popcorn, you need a star, not an anonymous team, to catch people’s eye. And in the Expectations Society, everyone wants to, expects to, be that star.
What does Nextopia mean?
Nextopia på svenska
Facebook group
Illustrations for the Nextopia book blog appendix
Why would that make any manager, and HR managers in particular, upset? Do people still doubt the fact that people perform differently? Come on – we’re not living in the seventies. Why even bother with talent mgmt strategies if “the eye-rule” wasn’t the case?
Britta,
Totally agree. I have never been really happy with the whole idea of trainee programs – “here’s how we work, and what you need to do to follow in our footsteps”. Then came talent management, which I’ve understood is basically a reaction to the trainee flops, as companies learned that their boot camp recruits had a tendency to bail at first chance. But I haven’t really made sense of what talent management is. Apart from a fancier name and a way for the company to say “now you’re shining, in the manner and definition we’ve set…”
Maybe I’m walking on thin ice here, but to me it seems this opens up for severe redesigns in the structure of employments. One effect I guess could be more consultants in the companies, not only because the economic benefits of having somebody working in a time limited project but also not to get caught in company indoctrination. My thesis here is that this opens up for buying someones neutral eyes som the outside point of view and to keep that view and sustaining that bridge between the company and the consumer you can’t stay too long in the same company.
What is your view on that?
Bigge,
I’d say anything but thin ice – bullseye! I have long been fascinated by the very strong correlation between company size and age on the one hand, and use of consultants on the other hand. It seems like companies get totally stale and inhibit their employees to think free and new, or more to the point, they don’t expect them to! To the extent that they have to get outside help.
emvehå,
MD