Every week, I review blogs and other publications that cover leadership development to find the very best leadership development posts. This week, you’ll find pointers to posts about what you’re reading, the performance conversation, hiring criteria, and GE’s secret.
From Neil Bearden: Do You Think You’re Reading Brain Food
“Are we being intellectually nourished by the vast amounts of witty and anecdotal content proliferating on the internet? Or are we just killing time?”
From Beth Armknecht Miller: Repurposing the Performance Conversation
“When was the last time you had a performance conversation that went well? Or better yet, when was the last time you enjoyed having a performance conversation? Let’s face it; both parties of the conversation generally dread performance conversations, more commonly known as performance reviews. So, why not have a different conversation? How about shifting the conversation to focus on the future and how a person can improve through personal and professional development? The conversation you should be having is the development conversation. These conversations are about supporting and empowering your team members, which will allow them to take ownership for their own personal development.”
From Val Matta: If Google Doesn’t Care About Hiring Top Graduates, Should You?
“In a recent conversation with the The New York Times, Google’s head of people operations, Laszlo Bock, outlined what Google really cares about when it comes to hiring — and it has nothing to do with going to a top-tier school or earning a perfect SAT score. In fact, Bock asserted that students who traditionally have an ‘easier’ time earning top grades are taught to rely on their talent, which makes it hard to fail gracefully.”
From Raghu Krishnamoorthy: The Secret Ingredient in GE’s Talent-Review System
“GE is often highlighted as an organization that develops some of the most effective leaders. Most companies have a version of the talent-review system we use at GE. But judging from what I hear from managers of companies that visit us to benchmark our system, the difference between our approach and theirs does not lie in forms, rankings, tools, or technologies. It lies in the intensity of the discussion about performance and values. The debate, the dialogue, and the time taken to have an exhaustive view of an individual – evaluating them based on both what they accomplish and how they lead – are far more important than any of the mechanics. The heart of our system has always been about the enormous time commitment the organization and the leadership devote to the conversation about people. As the custodian of the talent-review process, I have been lucky to observe this at close quarters. Here is what I’ve learned”
