There have been a couple of features in the news over the
past few weeks which drew a huge amount of attention. The first was Richard
Branson’s declaration that more companies should hire ‘disruptive talent’. This
means people who don’t fit in the classic company mould or rules and do things
their own way, but often achieve excellent results. The other item was around
management consultancy giant Accenture’s decision to change the way it does
annual performance reviews. They’ve decided to move away from end of year/end
of project ladderings and ratings which take a huge amount of time and don’t
compare like with like, to a more ongoing system of feedback between managers
and their staff.
Speaking as someone who is certainly disruptive (whether
talented or not is not for me to say) and who has experienced the Accenture
merry-go-round first hand, both of these announcements initially filled this
business director with glee.
Firstly, it seems obvious that performance is better managed
on an ongoing basis so everyone knows where they stand and that issues can be
ironed out quickly. The Accenture system of laddering, where nobody on a
project could be regarded as performing equally, seemed incredibly contrived, not
to mention the dark art of how a rating linked to one’s pay and bonus. As one
manager eloquently put it ‘it’s utterly bizarre that as we’re giving everyone more
money, we’re somehow managing to piss them all off.’ Secondly, a huge amount of the workforce,
primarily those under 40, are striving to be individuals who can make their
mark on the world, feeling fulfilled and passionate about what they do. It
seems clear that being oneself and doing things in an individual way, even if
it does involve being disruptive, makes for a happier, healthier and more
fulfilled employee.
However, my initial wave of positivity quickly wore off.
Just because Branson says it’s a good idea and just because Accenture have
changed an approach they’ve had for the last 20 years doesn’t make them
universally correct. As influential industry players it makes them fashionable.
Plenty of companies already work on a basis of creativity,
the media being a great example, where hiring freelancers rather than employees
is the norm. And a huge number of companies have quietly gone about doing their
appraisals through positive manager-staff relationships for years. So is not
really the case that the big consultancies were stuck in dog-eat-dog world of
the 1980s and were way behind a trend which they have suddenly ‘discovered’?
Taking a step back, surely the main point raised by this
flurry of activity is that one size does not fit all. In a regulated or process
orientated organisation, is ‘disruptive talent’ actually required or helpful?
In sales organisation, is it about monthly feedback and the softer skills, or
do the targets speak for themselves and allow people to be compared against
each other?
More importantly, if you’re a big organisation, how
disruptive can disruptive be? Does it mean that those employees considered to
be ‘artistes’ can swan in and out as they like, while those who get on and do
their jobs well are expected to be in from 9-5 and do as they are told? Are the
disruptive ones really going to work for their employer, or regardless of how they’re
treated, going to up and start their own company as soon as they possibly can?
Where is the line between acceptably and unacceptably disruptive? And when it
comes to performance and you want to give bonuses, how the heck does an organisation
work out who should get more and who should get less if they don’t have some
sort of laddered ratings scale?
It’s not about reading a news article and reworking an
entire organisational culture and hiring practices accordingly. It’s about focussing
on what works for the employer, the employees and ultimately, what works commercially. And that’s where a good HR consultancy like
Blacklarke, with an external perspective, can make a big difference.
