CLC Driving Breakthrough Performance in The New Work Environment

CEB Corporate Leadership Council
Driving Breakthrough Performance in the NewWork Environment
Critical Insight for HR Executives

General Manager Warren Thune Executive Directors Mike Griffin Jean Martin Managing Director Leah Johnson Brian Kropp Practice Manager Adam Brinegar Project Manager Tiffany Fountain Consultants Amanda Joseph-Little Jessie Knight Senior Research Analysts Chris Krahe Mary Lyons Martin Manville Akbar Naqvi Research Analysts Nigarish Ahmed Sushant Gupta Senior Research Associate Anuradha Dewan
Content Publishing Solutions

Print Designer Kelly Suh Contributing Designer Nick Adams Editor Nidhi Vikram Choudhury
Confidentiality and Intellectual Property These materials have been prepared by The Corporate Executive Board Company and its affiliates (CEB) for the exclusive and individual use of our member companies. These materials contain valuable confidential and proprietary information belonging to CEB and they may not be shared with any third party (including independent contractors and consultants) without the prior approval of CEB. CEB retains any and all intellectual property rights in these materials and requires retention of the copyright mark on all pages reproduced.
Legal Caveat CEB is not able to guarantee the accuracy of the information or analysis contained in these materials. Furthermore, CEB is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or any other professional services. CEB specifically disclaims liability for any damages, claims or losses that may arise from a) any errors or omissions in these materials, whether caused by CEB or its sources, or b) reliance upon any recommendation made by CEB.
CLC4284612SYN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Advisors to Our Workiv INTRODUCTION: DRIVING BREAKTHROUGH PERFORMANCE IN THE NEW WORK ENVIRONMENT1 CHAPTER I: IDENTIFY COMPETENCIES TO MAXIMIZE ENTERPRISE CONTRIBUTION36
Enterprise Contributor Competencies38 Define competencies to balance individual and network performance. Future-Focused Performance Criteria50 Align performance profile to customer needs, not just organizational needs, to ensure long-term relevance.
CHAPTER II: EVALUATE ENTERPRISE CONTRIBUTORS WITH THE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM58
Reimagined Performance Management64 Merge evaluation of past performance with consideration of future capabilities and talent needs. Crowdsourced Associate Evaluations76 Source 360-degree feedback based on peers knowledge of one anothers workflows, not the organization chart.
CHAPTER III: BUILD ENTERPRISE CONTRIBUTION THROUGH ROLE DESIGN86
Knowledge Advocates94 Define the types of contributions that are most valuable, not just the quantity of contributions. Manager Guide: Help Direct Reports Navigate Complex Roles104 Boost manager effectiveness at advising and facilitating. Relationship-Based Role Charters108 Design employee roles based on key relationships, not just tasks.
CHAPTER IV: DRIVE ENTERPRISE CONTRIBUTION THROUGH THE EXTENDED PERFORMANCE "ECOSYSTEM"110
Value Chain Talent Development115 Ensure high performance across the value chain through co-development or internal and external critical talent. External Partner Talent Support122 Embed responsibility for fostering external connections into employees roles. Connection-Making Exemplars130 Drive quality of external talent using a collaborative approach.
Getting the Most Value from Your CEB Corporate Leadership Council Membership139 APPENDIX147
CLC4284612SYN
Advisors to Our Work

CEB expresses its appreciation to all of the individuals and organizations who have so generously contributed their time andexpertise to our work. Their contributions have been invaluable, and we extend our sincere thanks.
Acciona ADP Albany International American International Assurance Company Anheuser-Bush/InBev ArcelorMittal Arla Foods Asciano Associated British Foods Asurion ATCO Group Australian Taxation Office Autodesk Axis Bank BAE Systems Banco Crdito e Inversiones Baptist Health South Florida Bayer AG Black Hills Corporation Bombardier Bose Corporation Bremer Financial Group Burger King C.N.A Canadian Tire Corp Celanese Corporation CH2M Hill Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation ConocoPhillips CoreLogic CSC CSX Corporation CVS De Beers Department of Defense Department of the Treasury Digitas (VivaKi) EarthLink Elan Corporation EMD Millipore Corporation Eni S.p.A FINRA FirstRand Fisher & Paykel Appliances Limited GE Inc Genentech Grainger Grupo Carvajal Guardian Life Insurance Hallmark Hollard Illinois Tool Works Inc. Ingram Micro Insurance Australia Group Interglobe Enterprises International Power Juniper Networks Kansas City Southern Railway KPMG Ladbrokes Lenovo LionCo Meadwestvaco MEDIA 24 Methanex Metro de Santiago Ministry of Health Mirvac Group MISC Berhad Munich America Reinsurance N.V. Luchthaven Schiphol (Schipol Group) National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Nestle NetApp New Zealand Department of Corrections NII Holdings Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment Public Service Division PwC Qantas Airways Queensland Health Quintiles Transnational Red Bull Religare Enterprises Limited Rio Tinto Roche Holdings SABMiller Sanlam Schneider Electric Schweppes Australia Sherwin Williams Standard Charter Starbucks Statkraft Sundaram Clayton Sutherland Global Services University of Southern California Volkswagen Brasil W.L. Gore Washington Gas WebEx Western Power Corporation Wipro World Vision Inc Xerox Yahoo! Yum! Restaurants Australia Pty. Limited Jeff Saperstein & Hunter Hastings Authors of Bust the Silos: Opening Your Organization for Growth Sheila Coyle Sheila Coyle Associates Limited
Symantec Corporation OMERS Administration Corporation Syngenta Otsuka America Pharmaceutical TAL PartnerRe Paypal Pearson PepsiCo PG&E Plantronics Polycom PPG Industries Printpack Inc Tata Group TD Bank Telefnica Europe plc Thales Group Australia The Dow Chemical Company The Lego Group Thermo Fisher Unilever United Nations
CLC4284612SYN
iv
Introduction: Driving Breakthrough Performance in the NewWork Environment
2012 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.CLC4284612SYN
Between 2010 and 2012, global GDP growth shrunk by 1.2%.

Organizations cannot rely on a quick economic recovery to help meet profit and revenue goals. Expansion into emerging markets, such as China and India, does not provide the same growth opportunity that it did in the past.
Economic outlook cloudier than ever

Year-Over-Year Real GDP Growth
12%
European Union 15 United States
10%
Brazil China
8%
India
6%
4%
2%
We still think the global economy is going to present quite a mixed picture. [We expect] still very slow growth in the United States, and probably ongoing recession in the European periphery, with a somewhat better picture in the core [European] economies...And maybe some improvement at the margin in the emerging world after a generally disappointing first half of the year.
Jan Hatzius, Chief Economist Goldman Sachs
0%
(2%)
(4%)
(6%) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Source: World Bank World Development Indicators, International Financial Statistics of the IMF, IHS Global Insight, and Oxford Economic Forecasting, as well as estimated and projected values developed by the Economic Research Service. All converted to a 2005 base year.
Introduction: Driving Breakthrough Performance in the NewWork Environment2
Despite an uncertain economic landscape, an overwhelming majority of executives still expect increasing demands for topand bottom-line performance, without additional head count.
Executives anticipate increases in revenue but decreases in resources needed to meet those goals. In particular, only one-third of executives expect to receive additional staffing resources in the near future.
REVENUE PRESSURE REMAINS DESPITE ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY AND RESOURCE PRESSURE

Business Executive Expectations of Revenue Growth Pressure, Cost Pressure, and Head Count Change
Q3 2012
Increase Stay the Same
32% 32%
Decrease
59% 59%
Percentage of Executives
67% 67%
33% 33%
15% 15% 17% 17% 35% 35% 26% 26% 16% 16%
In the past three months, the global recovery, which was not strong to start with, has shown signs of further weakness.
Olivier Blanchard IMF
Revenue Revenue Expectations Expectations
Cost Pressures Cost Pressures
Head Head Count Count
Source: CEB, Business Barometer Quarterly Report, Q3 2012.

Executives, managers, and HR leaders say they need breakthrough performance from employees to meet their business goals in the next 12 months.
Business leaders require a 20% improvement in employee performance to achieve their goals. Managers need to see the performance of their teams rise by 22%. HR leaders believe that the workforce needs to improve by 25% to achieve business goals.
Widespread agreement that organizations need breakthrough employee performance

Employee Performance Improvement Needed to Achieve Business Goals Across the Next 12 Months Executives Managers Mean = 22% CHROs Mean = 25%
Mean = 20%
0% 0%
n = 2,046.
10%
25%
40% 50%
0% 0%
n = 3,819.
10%
25%
40% 50%
0% 0%
n = 69.
10%
40% 40% 50%
Mean Employee Performance Increase Needed by Region and Industry Asia = 29% Europe = 18% North America = 19% Consumer Goods = 23% Financial = 24% Government/Non-Profit = 18% Health Care = 25% Manufacturing = 22% Pharmaceuticals = 21% Professional Services = 22% Retail = 22% Technology = 22%
To afford [to meet our goals we will] continue to drive transformational productivity across the entire enterprise.
John Compton CEO PepsiCo Inc.
My employees are really good at meeting goals and following timelines, but thats not the kind of performance that will get the company out of this rut.
Manager of Operations European Professional Services
If we can get employees to collaborate better with each other, I think well see more innovation coming out of these interactions.
Chief HR Officer APAC Consumer Goods Organization
How to Read This Chart
1st Quartile = 25% of respondents answered below this value.
Mean = The sum of all responses divided by the total number of responses
3rd Quartile =75% of respondents answered below this value.
Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council High Performance Survey, 2012; CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council Performance Management Head of Function Survey, 2012.
Across the last few years, employees have been asked to do more and more.
Employees multitask more frequently to manage increased workloads without adding hours to the work day. Although employee complaints about heavy workloads may be expected, an increase in the percentage of employees reporting that they have too little time to complete their work suggests the workforce is pushed more than it has been in the past. Organizations cannot simply rely on employees doing even more with even less to achieve business goals.
Employees striving to meet high expectations but reaching the limit

Percentage of Employees Experiencing an Increase in Workload in the Past Three Years
80% 78% 56%
Common Employee Reactions
Percentage of Employees
I just have too much to do and not enough time to do it in.
I dont know how management expects me to take on any more responsibilities. Im already stretched too thin and so is my team.
Your Workload Your Teams Workload Hours Worked per Week
Average Percent Increase in Time Spent Multitasking, by Year

Indexed
Indexed Percent Increase in Time Spent Multitasking
Percentage of Employees with Too Little Time to Complete Their Work, by Year
1.00x
1.15x
55%
32%
2009
2012
2002
2012
n = 23,339.
Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council High Performance Survey, 2012.
Organizational structure, engagement strategy, learning and development, compensation, and performance management can improve employee performance.
Eighty-six percent of HR leaders indicate they are focused on improving employee performance.
MANY FACTORS DRIVE PERFORMANCE

Organization Design

CLC HUMAN RESOURCES
Redesign on how and where work is performed. Prioritize the informal connections that facilitate employee workflow. Monitor and reevaluate redesign success (beyond financial metrics) based on how work is performed.
Lost in Transition
Maximizing Employee Performance Outcomes from Organization Redesign Initiatives
Engagement Strategy

CLC HUMAN RESOURCES
Use temporal, not static, engagement measures. Consider engagement driver longevity, not just initial impact. Diversify agents responsible for engagement beyond the manager. Inform strategic decisions with engagement capital.
Building Engagement Capital

Creating and Leveraging Sustainable Employee Engagement
Rewards and Recognition
CLC COMPENSATION
Incentivizing behaviors helps employees achieve results that are 40%higher and 13% more sustainable. To incentivize behaviors: Fix common breakdowns in pay for performance; Move from a broad-based to a tailored behavioral incentive design; and Adapt incentives to evolving behavioral priorities.
Redening Pay for Performance: Incenting Behaviors to Achieve Organizational Results

2012 CLC Compensation Book
CLC Compensation
Learning and Development
CLC LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Reorient needs analysis to capture the shared development needs of employees. Place greater emphasis on learning through interactions in classroom trainings. Sustain ongoing development by raising the learning value of day-to-day coworker interactions .
Building High Performance Capability in the New Work Environment
CLC Learning and Development
Performance Management
Driving Breakthrough Performance in the New Work Environment
This Study
HR PRACTICE FOCUS ON PERFORMANCE IN THE NEW WORK ENVIRONMENT

CEB Corporate Leadership Council CLC Learning and Development CLC Compensation
CLC Compensation
Building High Performance Capability in the New Work Environment
Redening Pay for Performance: Incenting Behaviors to Achieve Organizational Results

2012 CLC Compensation Book
Only incremental gains are available through conventional performance management; to get breakthrough performance, organizations need to focus on improving all employees ability to improve the performance of others. Organizations should adjust their performance management systems to better identify high performance through crowdsourced input and future-focused, less rigid performance criteria. Organizations should help employees navigate complex roles, not simplify work. Organizations should manage drivers of employee performance that reside outside the organization.
L&D functions should reorient needs analysis to capture the shared development needs of employees who work together,not just the needs of individuals or categories of employees. The best L&D functions reweigh classroom trainingto place significantlygreater emphasis on enabling employees to learn high-performer capabilities through interactions, not mere instructions. Sustain the ongoing development of highperformer capabilities by raising the learning value of day-to-day coworkerinteractions.
Pay-for-performance strategies have plateaued due to an over-focus on pay-for-performance systems that incentivize results while ignoring behaviors. Organizations should tailor their incentive designs to specific behaviors and key employee segments to increase the effectiveness of behavioral incentives, rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach. Organizations should focus their incentive strategies to embed behaviors, which allows them to eventually remove the incentive without negative consequences to the demonstration of that behavior.
Organizations investments in performance management have led to substantial improvements in performance management effectiveness.
The average effectiveness of organizations and managers at performance management has nearly doubled in the past 10 years.
Performance management investments have paid off

Typical Performance Management Activities
Manager Training
Comparison of Performance Management Effectiveness Between 2002 and 2012

Percentage of Employees Agreeing
2002 2012
Performance Management Technology

Goal Alignment
Pay for Performance

360 Assessments
Rating Scales
Competency Models
A Players
Forced Ranking
Individual Development Plan

Do the Math Average manager yearly time spend on performance management activities: 210 hours Average individual contributor yearly time spend on performance management activities: 40 hours
My Organization Effectively Pays for Performance
38% 68%
Manager time on performance management activities Individual contributor time on performance management activities Average yearly budget for performance management upkeep A company of 10,000 employees will spend ~$35,000,000 on activities related to performance management.1
My Manager Is Effective at Performance Management Activities
39% 65%
The Performance Management System Is Fair
34% 55%
Average manager hourly rate: $52 Average individual contributor hourly rate: $22 $52 x 210 hours = $10,920 per manager $22 x 40 hours = $880 per individual contributor
1
The Performance Management System Helps Me Identify Development Areas
18% 48%
n (2002) = 13,047; n (2012) = 23,2339.
Based on an estimate of 2,500 managers per 10,000 employees.
Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council Performance Management Survey, 2002; CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council High Performance Survey, 2012; National Compensation Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010.
Despite improvements, most HR executives still dont feel that their systems are effective, and two in five have made significant, costly changes to those systems.
HR leaders dissatisfaction with current performance management systems reveals a need for solutions beyond incremental improvements to existing tools and processes.
DESPITE IMPROVEMENTS, Heads of HR DISSATISFIED WITH PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Our Performance Management Process Accurately Reflects Employee Contributions
Percentage of HR Executives
Significant Changes Needed or Made to Performance Management

Percentage of Organizations
23% Agree
14% Does Not Need Changes
41% Changes Recently Made
77% Neutral or Disagree
45% Significant Changes Needed
n = 69.
Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council Performance Management Head of Function Survey, 2012.
Most organizations execute well enough on their current performance management systems, limiting gains from additional improvements.
Improvements to existing performance management processes will only produce a 3 to 5% improvement in employee performance, which leaves a 15 to 17 percentage point gap to the average organizations goal.
IMPROVING CONVENTIONAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT ONLY PROVIDES INCREMENTAL GAINS

Employee Performance Gains Available Through Improving Conventional Performance Management
1.20 Performance Improvement Needed: 20%
Target
3 However, organizations need a 20% improvement

in employee performance to achieve business objectives.
Employee Performance
1.04 Today
2 Due to past gains, organizations can only achieve

an additional 3 to 5% improvement in employee performance through conventional performance management approaches.
1.00
1 Due to improved performance management
strategies, the average organization has improved employee performance by 10 to 12% since 2002.
Current Approach to Performance Judged on SixFactors

0.89
Pay linked to performance High-quality goals Manager skill at performance management Consistent performance standards Useful performance feedback Precise performance criteria
2002
2012 Time
20132015
The Performance Gap The average organization must improve employee performance by 20% to achieve its objectives. However, conventional performance management approaches will only improve performance by 3 to 5%.
n (2002) = 13,047; n (2012) = 23,339.
Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council Performance Management Survey, 2002; CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council New High Performance Survey, 2012.
Widespread changes in the organizational environment have led to fundamental changes in how work gets done.
Employees increasingly workacross multiple time zones, cultures, and customer segments. An employees responsibilities expand as more managers and stakeholders become involved in his or her day-to-day work. Multiple generations, who may each have unique work behaviors and expectations, are represented in most workforces. An abundance of information can improve employees performance but also complicate decision making and create distractions from work priorities.
The organizational environment has changed

Geographically Dispersed Workforces
Change in Amount of Work with Coworkers in Another Location in the Past Three Years, by Percentage of Employees
5% Decreased 57% Increased 50% Increased 38% Stay the Same
n = 23,339.
More Matrixed Organization Structures

Change in Number of Individuals Involved in Decisions in the Past Three Years, by percentage of Employees
7% Decreased
43% Stay the Same

n = 23,339.
Performance Implication: Employees must now coordinate work across multiple regions and time zones, limiting opportunities for an organization to observe performance.
Performance Implication: Multiple managers involved in performance feedback creates potential inconsistencies in performance evaluations.
Changing Workforce Demographics

Percentage of the Workforce, by Generation
Higher Volume of Information

Change in Time Spent Finding and Reviewing Data and Information in the Past Three Years, by Percentage of Employees
6% Decreased 18% Stay the Same 76% Increased
n = 23,339.
16% Generation Y 22% Baby Boomers
62% Generation X
n = 23,339.
Performance Implication: Performance drivers that worked in the past may not necessarily motivate younger generations.
Performance Implication: Employees are more easily distracted from their highest priorities or overloaded with information that can create indecision.
Greater interdependence in work has led to changes in how employees get work done.
Employees work requires greater collaboration, which also calls for improved soft skills, such as social awareness and negotiation. Greater coordination among employees requires more effective process management and execution. Employees must manage workflows across the organization, not just up and down a formal reporting structure. As collaboration and coordination increase, an employees performance is increasingly dependent on the performance of his or her peers.
Employees Work is More Interconnected

Greater Amount of Collaboration Required
Change in Amount of Work That Requires Collaboration with Others in the Past Three Years, by Percentage of Employees
Interpersonal Coordination
Number of People Involved in Day-to-Day Work, by Percentage of Employees
30% Remained the Same 3% Decreased
67% Increased
40% 09
30% 20 or More
30% 1019 Performance Implication: Employees must manage demands of multiple stakeholders, which creates conflicting performance expectations.
Performance Implication: Performance criteria must reflect new competencies, such as collaboration, that are harder to measure and evaluate.
Cross-Silo Coordination
Percentage of Employees Who Regularly Coordinate with 67% 66% 63% 57%
Increased Reliance on Others to Get Work Done

Change in Reliance on Others in Past Three Years, by Percentage of Employees
9% Decreased
Work used to be simple and obvious. Now, youre lucky if someone can describe their job toyouits hard to understand how the work actually gets done.
Chief Human Resources Officer Government Organization
...People on ...People at ...People in Di erent Di erent Job Di erent Locations Levels Teams
...People Outside of My Department or Function
50% Increased 41% Stayed the Same
Performance Implication: High performance characteristics differ across different groups, which creates confusion.
Performance Implication: Managers must support employees by helping them navigate complex work processes and numerous working relationships, not just by providing helpful informal feedback.
n = 23,339.
Significant changes in the work environment mean that achieving the breakthrough performance needed will become increasingly unlikely through conventional means.
Organizations could achieve a 3 to 5% improvement in employee performance with enhancements to existing performance management approaches. However, most existing performance management systems have not adapted to changes in the nature of work; work is more collaborative, integrated, matrixed, and complex than it was 10 years ago. If performance management systems do not adjust to changes in the work environment, organizations will not only struggle to achieve 3 to 5% improvements but also fail to achieve the average organizations goal of 20% improvement.
Without Changes to Performance Management Strategy, Performance Will Start to Decline

Employee Performance Gains Available Through Improving Conventional Performance Management
Target
3 Failing to act will

Employee Performance
1.00
Today
further increase the performance gap and prevent organizations from achieving business goals.
2 Failing to change 1 Gain achieved

to date
deteriorates potential performance.
0.89
2002
2012 Time
20132015
CEB Corporate Leadership Councils Hypothesis Due to changes to the nature of work, even improved conventional approaches to performance management will become less effective at driving performance over time.
CEB Corporate Leadership Council surveyed more than 35,000 employees at more than 40 organizations.
Over one-half of survey participants were located outside of North America, including Asia (28%), Europe (13%), the Middle East (5%), and Latin America (4%). Survey respondents work ina diverse set of functions, including operations (16%), sales (13%), information technology (13%), and callcenters (9%). Survey participants represent a variety of industries, including technology (14%), nonprofit and government (9%), business services (9%), and energy and utilities (9%).
A global survey
Partial List of Participating Organizations
Note: Please see Appendix D for survey demographics.

This study examines high performance, not high potential.

CEB Corporate Leadership Council evaluated strategies and practices that improve employees performance in their current role. For this study, CEB Corporate Leadership Council did not examine employees potential to succeed in the next role.
STUDY SCOPE: DRIVING HIGH PERFORMANCE IN ROLE, NOT POTENTIAL FOR NEXT ROLE
Illustrative
This study focuses on driving an employees performance within his or her current role.
This study is not focused on building employees potential to perform at higher levels.
Level 3
Level
Level 2
Level 1 (Current Job) To learn how to build and manage a robust internal pipeline of future leadership talent, visit CEB Corporate Leadership Councils HighPotential Employees topic center on our website.
Time
Employee performance scores provided by business units do not reflect achievement of financial goals.
Performance scores are not good predictors of business unit performance because these scores are often: Applied differently across segments within an organization; Subject to manager bias; Used to reward or punish employees; and Forced into a normal distribution or ranking.
Employee Performance Scores Not Accurate Predictor of Business Unit Performance

Correlation of Business UnitSpecific Employee Performance Score with Business Unit Profitability1,2
100
Business Unit Performance Against Profit Goals
No Correlation
Methodology CEB Corporate Leadership Council compared the average business unit performance score assigned to employees through each business units performance management system to each business units achievement of profit goals.
Performance Score Definition: This is the numeric performance rating assigned to an employee. CEB Corporate Leadership Council normalized this across employees on a scale of 1 to 100.
0 Business UnitSpecific Average Employee Performance Score

n = 23,339.
1 2
100
No correlation exists between performance review scores and business unit revenue. Business unit profitability provided by participating organizations.
Individual task performance impacts profit, but CEB Corporate Leadership Council hypothesizes there issomething more toperformance.
Increasing the percentage of employees with high individual task performancehigh output per hour worked, ontime task completion, error-free work, and highquality outputimproves organizational performance. However, employee performance requires more than effective execution of individual tasks.
IMPROVING Employees EXECUTION OF INDIVIDUAL TASKS HELPS, BUT HR AGREES IT IS NOT ENOUGH
Percent Change in Profit, by Percentage of High Individual Task Performers1
8 8%
Employee Performance Is More Than Individual Tasks Individual contributors dont really exist anymoreeveryone serves some type of [broader] role.
Percent Change in Profit
High Individual Task Performance

4 4%
VP Global HR Electronics Organization
I would argue that managing individual performance isnt enough anymore.

VP HR Retail Organization
0 0%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Many of our roles are based on the value and impact the individual can bring, not the job itself.
Chief Human Resources Officer Technology Organization
Percentage of Employees in Business Unit with High Individual Task Performance
Methodology Managers were asked to rate their direct reports effectiveness at achieving individual task outcomes, such as high output per hour, ontime task completion, error-free work, and high-quality work.
In this new environment, employees need to be able to contribute in multiple ways; they no longer have the luxury of specialization.
Chief Human Resources Officer Manufacturing Organization
n = 23,339.
1
An employees effectiveness at achieving his or her individual tasks and assignments as rated by the manager.
Note: CEB Corporate Leadership Council used a two-stage least squares regression to estimate the causal relationship between business unit profit change and percentage of employees achieving individual task outcomes. The effects are modeled using a variety of multivariate regressions with appropriate control variables. Please see Appendix A for more information about Methodology.
An employees enterprise contribution consists of their individual task performance and network performance.
Employees were evaluated by their managers and peers on their effectiveness at achieving outcomes such as: 1. Individual Task Performance High output per hour worked On-time task completion Error-free work High-quality work 2. Network Performance Introduction of improved processes Implementation of new product or service ideas Improved working methods, techniques, ortools Transfer of great ideas from other parts of the organization Transfer of skills and knowledge
CEB Corporate Leadership Council Model of High Performance
Individual Task Performance

An employees effectiveness at achieving his or her individual tasks and assignments
Network Performance
An employees effectiveness at improving others performance and using others contributions to improve his or her own performance
Enterprise Contribution
An employees effectiveness at his or her individual tasks, contribution to others performance, and use of others contributions to improve his or her own performance Business Unit Outcomes

Profit Revenue
Note: Please see Appendix B for more details regarding how individual task performance and network performance were assessed.
Achieving breakthrough performance means all employees must display individual task and network performance.
Organizations that increase enterprise contribution can achieve improvements in business outcomes two times greater than those achieved by organizations that only improve individual task execution. When CEB examined the effect of enterprise contribution on revenue, gains were largely similar to those realized for profits. By moving 100% of the workforce to the enterprise contributor profile, organizations can realize up to 12% change in profit or revenue.
To Achieve Goals, The Entire Workforce Must Display Enterprise Contribution

Percent Change in Profit, by Percentage of Enterprise Contributors in Business Unit
15 15%
High Individual Task and Network Performance (High Enterprise Contribution) High Individual Task Performance Alone
Percent Change in Profit1
10 10%
5 5%
0 0%
0%
25%
50% Percentage of Employees
75%
100%
Implication 1: To dramatically improve outcomes, employees must display individual task performance and network performance.
Implication 2: As more employees achieve enterprise contribution, business unit performance increases. Thus, all employees should display these performance traits, not just a small handful of A players.
n = 23,339.
1
Models for revenue produce similar results.
Note: CEB Corporate Leadership Council used a two-stage least squares regression to estimate the causal relationship between business unit profit change and percentage of employees achieving individual task and network outcomes. The effects are modeled using a variety of multivariate regressions with appropriate control variables. Please see Appendix A for more information about Methodology.
In the last 10 years, the importance of network performance has doubled.

From 2002 to 2012, the relative importance of network performance compared to individual task performance has increased from 22% to 49%. The relative importance of network performance ranges from 44% to 55% across different job categories.
Importance of Network Performance Has Increased Over the Last 10 Years

Relative Importance of Employee Performance Component to Business Unit Profitability1
Network Performance Individual Task Performance
Relative Importance of Employee Performance to Business Unit Profit by Employee Type, 2012
Network Performance
Relative Importance to Business Unit Profitability
51% 78%
51%
56%
52%
46%
45%
51%
51%
51%
49% 22%
2002 2012
49%
44%
48%
54%
55%
49%
49%
49%
Knowledge Workers Knowledge Workers
Sales Sales
Enterprise Contribution in Call Centers To learn how one organization supported network performance behaviors in a traditionally individual environment, see Fidelitys practice, Call Center Rep-Owned Spaces Platform in the appendix.
1
Relative importance in business unit profitability is determined by conducting a MANOVA analysis.
n (2002) = 13,047; n (2012) = 23,339.

Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council Performance Management Survey, 2002; CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council High Performance Survey, 2012.
Director and Above Director and Above
Retail Retail
Part-Time Hourly Part Time Hourly
Call Center Call Center
Full-Time Salaried Full Time Salaried
Manufacturing Manufacturing
Enterprise contributors excel at all elements of network performance.

Enterprise contributors are significantly better at contributing to the network and using others work to improve their own performance, compared to low performers. Use refers to an employees effectiveness at seeking, accepting, and adopting others contributions to improve his or her own performance. Contribute refers to an employees effectiveness at providing resources, feedback, advice, innovations, and improvements that improve the performance of the organization and his or her peers.
Enterprise contributors Use and Contribute to the Network

Effectiveness at Key Network Performance Outcomes, by Performance Level
Enterprise Contributors Low Performers
Use
Contribute 81% 81% 72% 72%
74% 74% 63% 63%
78% 78%
22% 22% 14% 14% 17% 17%
20% 20%
22% 22%
Effectively Transfers Great Ideas from Other Parts of the Organization into Own Work
Improves Procedures and/or Processes Based on Ideas from Others
Effectively Transfers Skills and Knowledge to Coworkers
Provides Useful New Ideas for Products, Services, and/or Process Improvements for Others
Improves Working Methods, Techniques, or Tools for Others
n = 23,339.
Even though more than one-half of employees perform well at individual tasks, only one in five are high-network performers.
Fewer than one in five employees currently achieve high individual task and network performance. Three percent of employees achieve network performance but not individual task performance.
LESS THAN ONE-FIFTH OF EMPLOYEES ACHIEVE HIGH INDIVIDUAL task AND NETWORK PERFORMANCE
Effectiveness at Individual Task Performance Versus Network Performance
Only 20% employees display high levels of network performance.
High Individual Task PerformanceAlone

High1
Enterprise Contributors
Two-fifths of employees perform well at their individual tasks but are not high-network performers. A full 40% of employees do not excel at both individual task and network performance.
40%
17%
The majority of employees (57%) display high levels of individual task performance.
Average and LowPerformance

Core2
High Network PerformanceAlone
Most organizations can significantly increase the number of enterprise contributors by improving network performance among high individual task performers. Learn more about specific learning strategies in CLC L&Ds Building High Performance Capability in the New Work Environment.
40%
Core2 Network Performance
3%
High1
n = 23,339.
1
Employees who were rated as a 6effective or 7very effective on a 7-point scale. Employees who were not rated as 6effective or 7very effective on a 7-point scale.
Note: Please see Appendix H for employee performance by region, function, and industry.
One in seven business units have already seen the 20% improvement in employee performance needed to achieve business goals.
Workforces in 13% of surveyed business units have achieved enterprise contribution that is 20% above average.
SOME Business Units Already ACHIEVING BREAKTHROUGH PERFORMANCE

Average Enterprise Contribution by Business Unit
20% Above Average Level of Enterprise Contribution Average Enterprise Contribution
Employees in approximately 13% of business units have already achieved the breakthrough performance needed by organizations.
Business Unit
n = 359.
Organizational change makes it difficult for employees to maintain high levels of enterprise contribution.
Nearly all employees have experienced significant change at their organization and in their role across the past four years. About one-fourth of enterprise contributors are not able to sustain that performance through these changes.
Organizational CHANGE MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN Performance Over Time

Frequent Organizational Change
Percentage of Organizations That Experienced Significant Changes in the Previous 12 Months 81%
28% No
Unstable Enterprise Contributor Population

Percentage of Enterprise Contributors Who Remain Enterprise Contributors in the Following Year1
56%
53%
56%
72% Yes
2009
2010
2011
2012
n = 23,339.

An estimated 98% of organizations have seen significant change in the past four years. Top Reasons Why Enterprise Contributors Do Not Sustain Performance

Shift in organizational goals Change in performance criteria Disruption of informal employee networks
Learn how to maintain employee performance during organization redesign with CEB Corporate Leadership Councils Lost in Transition.
1
Managers provided a rating as to whether his or her direct reports were performing at a lower level, the same level, or higher than the previous year across individual task and network performance outcomes.
Note: Please see Appendix J for percentage of unsustained high enterprise contributors by region, function, and industry.
Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council Quarterly Global Labor Market Survey, 2012; CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council High Performance Survey, 2012.
Failing to maintain enterprise contributors levels of performance results in year-over-year declines in profitability.
If performance management strategies focus solely on short-term performance gains and not sustainability, 48% of employees who were enterprise contributors today may not be enterprise contributors in two years.
Failure to Sustain enterprise contributors creates risk to business outcomes

Percentage of Enterprise Contributors Who Change Across Two Years1
1.00x
Percentage of Employees Who Are Enterprise Contributors
0.72x
Without adjustments, the typical company will see a 48% change in the number of enterprise contributors and a 1 to 2% drop in profitability across two years. 0.52x
1.00x 0.72x
0.52x
Year 0
1 Year
Year 2
n = 23,339.
1
Estimates based on the average percentage of enterprise contributors in a business unit (17%).
Enterprise contribution must be sustained across time to drive business unit outcomes.
Organizations must focus on three imperatives:
CEB Corporate Leadership Council Model of High Performance
1. Build more enterprise contributors. 2. Sustain employee performance. 3. Drive breakthrough performance in the new work environment.

An employees effectiveness at achieving his or her individual tasks and assignments
Network Performance
An employees effectiveness at improving others performance and using others contributions to improve his or her own performance
An employees effectiveness at his or her individual tasks, contribution to others performance, and use of others contributions to improve his or her own performance
Business Unit Outcomes

Profit Revenue
Sustained Performance Maintaining high levels of performance even as the organization, job, and other factors change
Note: Please see Appendix B for more details regarding how individual task performance and network performance were assessed.
Four Critical Challenges to Building Enterprise Contribution
hat do enterprise W contributors look like?
oes my performance D management system evaluate enterprise contributors?
o my roles support enterprise D contribution?
ow do I support the extended H performance ecosystem?
Rank Order of Competencies, by Importance According to Executives Versus Impact on Enterprise Contribution
Zone of Alignment
Business UnitSpecific Employee Performance Score Compared to Enterprise Contribution
My Role Reflects How I Work with Others Percentage of Employees
Maximum Impact on Enterprise Contribution, by Others Across the Performance Ecosystem

34%
Rank Order of Importance by Executives
High Enterprise Contributors
1%
10%
6%
36% Agree
29% 24% 17%
Executives correctly ranked 9 of 32 behaviors.
Medium Enterprise Contributors
2%
32%
9%
5%
Rank Order by Impact on Enterprise Contribution
Low Enterprise Contributors
6%
31%
3%
Immediate Team
in Coworkers Manager Coworkers My Business Outside My Unit Business Unit
External
Lowest
Middle
Highest
Business UnitSpecific Employee Performance Score
Lack of clarity on the most important competencies for performance in the new work environment threatens organizations ability to recruit, develop, and assess high performers.
Many executives underestimate the importance of some competencies, such as prioritization and organizational awareness.
CHALLENGE 1: ORGANIZATIONS DO NOT ACCURATELY IDENTIFY ENTERPRISE CONTRIBUTION Competencies

Rank Order of Competencies, by Importance According to Executives Versus Impact on Enterprise Contribution
Most Important Zone of Alignment
Executives Overestimated Importance
Executives correctly ranked only 9 of 32 competencies.
Executives Underestimated Importance

Least Important Least Important
Most Important
Implication: Most executives prioritize the wrong competencies for the new work environment.
Note: Please see Appendix F for further information.
Longer tenures allow employees to gain the organizational awareness needed to identify and prioritize network performance.
Improvements in enterprise contribution continue beyond 23 years tenure. Enterprise contributors are not easy to buy; typically, they are built over time. Organizations must identify effective means to quickly onboard new hires and accelerate organizational awareness to improve enterprise contribution.
Challenge 1 (continued): Enterprise Contributors Are Built

Maximum Impact on Enterprise Contribution of Tenure at Organization
8%
Maximum Impact on Enterprise Contribution
Compared to employees with two years tenure, employees with 15 years tenure are:
20% more likely to serve as a critical resource to others; 21% more likely to contribute new ideas for products or services; No different in output per hour worked; and No different in likelihood to complete tasks on time.
4%
0%
Average Tenure by Region Europe: 12.3 years North America: 10.7 years Middle East and Africa: 7.8 years Australia and New Zealand: 7.5 years South America: 7.3 years Asia: 5.4 years
11
16 Tenure in Years
21
26
Implication: Organizations cannot rely on buy strategies alone to shift the performance curve; they must build highperformers.
n = 23,339. Note: The maximum impact on enterprise contributions is calculated by comparing two statistical estimates: the predicted impact when an employee scores relatively high on a driver and the predicted value when an employee scores relatively low on a driver. The effects of all drivers are modeled using a variety of multivariate regressions with controls.
Two in three employees who received the highest performance score by their organizations are not enterprise contributors.
Organizations do not accurately assess and identify their most valuable employees.
CHALLENGE 2: organizations MISIDENTIFY TWO-THIRDS OF Enterprise Contributors

Business UnitSpecific Employee Performance Score Compared to Enterprise Contribution Percentage of Enterprise Contributors Who Receive Highest Business Unit Specific Performance Score
High Enterprise Contribution
1%
10%
6%
Medium
2%
32%
9%
65% Enterprise Contributors Who Do Not Receive the Highest Performance Scores
Low
6%
Lowest
31%
Middle
3%
Highest
Percentage of Employees Receiving Highest Business UnitSpecific Performance Scores Who Are Enterprise Contributors
Business UnitSpecific Employee Performance Score 67% Receive Highest Performance Scores But Are Not Enterprise Contributors
Implication: Most performance management systems misidentify their high performers.

n = 23,339. Note: Please see Appendix I for percentage of misidentified enterprise contributors by region, function, and industry.
Only one-third of roles are aligned to expectations for network performance.

Almost four in five HR executives believe that collaborative roles are more important than individual roles for employees. Only 36% of employees have a role that reflects increase in interconnected work.
Challenge 3: ROLE DESIGN MISALIGNED WITH PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS

Compared to Three Years Ago, Which Role Has Been More Important for Employees to Play?
Percentage of HR Executives
My Role Reflects How I Work with Others

22% Individual Tasks
36% Agree
78% Network Performance Activities
n = 69.
n = 23,339.
Implication: Organizations must refocus role design on the interfaces between employees, not just the relationships between managers and employees.
Note: Please see Appendix K for role challenges by region, function, and industry.
Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council Performance Management Head of Function Survey, 2012; CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council High Performance Survey, 2012.
Individuals outside the organizationsuch as partners, suppliers, and vendorscan have almost as much impact on an employees enterprise contribution as his or her manager.
The effectiveness of an employees team and manager can have a 34% and 29% impact on his or her enterprise contribution, respectively. Employees in the same organization, but outside of the employees direct team, can have a 10% impact on his or her enterprise contribution. Individuals outside the employees organization can have as much as a 24% impact on an employees enterprise contribution.
CHALLENGE 4: enterprise contribution Affected by others outside the organization

Maximum Impact on Enterprise Contribution by Others Across the Performance Ecosystem I Effectively Work with Individuals Outside My Organization
Percentage of Employees Who Agree
34% 29% 24% 17%

83% Neutral or Disagree 17% Agree
5%
Immediate Team
Manager
Coworkers in Coworkers My Business Outside My Business Unit Unit
External
Closer Distance from Employee
Farther
For example, external could include:

Vendors Partners Professional associations Alumni networks
Implication: Organizations must extend their performance management philosophy to include entities beyond theirorganization.
n = 23,339. Note: The maximum impact on enterprise contributions is calculated by comparing two statistical estimates: the predicted impact when an employee scores relatively high on a driver and the predicted value when an employee scores relatively low on a driver. The effects of all drivers are modeled using a variety of multivariate regressions with controls.
Breakthrough performance is achievable if organizations focus on individual competencies, performance management systems, role design, and external networks.
The average organization has an opportunity to achieve 20% or greater improvement in enterprise contribution.
Breakthrough performance is achievable

Employee Performance Gains Available
Enterprise Contribution 4 Drive Through the Extended Performance Ecosystem
Enterprise Contribution 3 Build Through Role Design Target Enterprise Contributors with 2 Evaluate the Performance Management System
2 Improvements of 30% in
enterprise contribution can be achieved by solving four critical challenges.
Competencies to Maximize 1 Identify Enterprise Contribution
1 Average
organization needs 20% improvement.
Performance gain achieved
2002
2012 Time
20132015
DRIVING BREAKTHROUGH PERFORMANCE IN THE NEW WORK ENVIRONMENT

1 2 3 4
Identify Competencies to Maximize Enterprise Contribution

Define competencies to balance individual and network performance.
Evaluate Enterprise Contributorswith the PerformanceManagement System

Merge evaluation of past performance with consideration of future capabilities and talent needs.
Build Enterprise Contribution Through Role Design

Define the types of contributions that are most valuable, not just the quantity of contributions.
Drive Enterprise Contribution Through the Extended Performance Ecosystem

Ensure high performance across the value chain through codevelopment of internal and external critical talent.
Enterprise Contributor Competencies Align performance profile to customer needs, not just organizational needs, to ensure long-term relevance.
Reimagined Performance Management

o
Knowledge Advocates
Value Chain Talent Development Drive quality of external talent using a collaborative approach.
Source 360 feedback based on peers knowledge of one anothers workflows, not the organization chart.
Boost manager effectiveness at advising and facilitating.
Future-Focused Performance Criteria Crowdsourced Associate Evaluations
Manager Guide: Helping Direct Reports Navigate Complex Roles
External Partner Talent Support Embed responsibility for fosteringexternal connections intoemployees roles.
Design employee roles based on keyrelationships, not just tasks.
Connection-Making Exemplars Relationship-Based Role Charters
DRIVE BREAKTHROUGH PERFORMANCE IN THE NEW WORK ENVIRONMENT

Key Takeaways and Implications for HR Key Takeaways
1. Managers, executives, and chief HR officers agree that their organizations need breakthrough performanceabout 20% more performance from employees to achieve goals. 2. Allthough conventional performance management approaches have provided a 10 to 12% improvement in employee performance since 2002, perfecting these approaches will only provide an additional 3 to 5% improvement. 3. The key to achieving these performance gains is to focus on building employees enterprise contribution, which is the sum of individual task performance and network performance. 4. Employees network performance is twice as important to achieving business outcomes as it was 10 years ago. 5. Only 17% of employees are enterprise contributors. 6. At the average organization, 48% of this years enterprise contributors will not be enterprise contributors in two years, which translates into a 1 to 2% loss in profit across two years. 7. The four key challenges to improving enterprise contribution are as follows: Organizations do not accurately identify enterprise contribution competencies. Organizations misidentify two-thirds of enterprise contributors. Role design is misaligned with performance expectations. Enterprise contribution is affected by others outside the organization.
Implications for HR
1. Update current performance management approaches to better align with changes in the nature of work. 2. Orient talent investments toward improving individual task and network performance. 3. Focus on shifting all employees, not just a handful of A Players, to higher enterprise contribution to achieve breakthrough performance for the organization. 4. Build and sustain enterprise contribution by improving critical competencies, adjusting performance management systems, improving role design, and managing external factors that influence enterprise contribution.
Chapter I: Identify Competencies to Maximize Enterprise Contribution
36

1 2 3 4





o
Knowledge Advocates
Chapter I: Identify Competencies to Maximize Enterprise Contribution37
Common demographics age, gender, remote work, or educationdo not explain an employees ability to balance individual task and network performance.
Generation Y employees are not more likely to be enterprise contributors than other generations. Gender does not explain an employees ability to achieve individual task and network performance. Employees working on-site are not more likely to be enterprise contributors. A college degree does not guarantee high enterprise contribution.
Common Demographics Do Not Explain Enterprise Contribution

Age1
Percentage of Employees Who Are Enterprise Contributors 21% 17%
Gender1
Above Age 30
Under Age 30
Female
Male
Remote Work1
Education1
Less Than 50% of Time Working Remotely

n = 23,339.
1
More Than 50% of Time Working Remotely
No College Degree
Bachelors Degree or Higher
Excludes individuals who chose not to provide personal information.
Enterprise contributors are not defined by how they spend their time.
In comparison to their peers,enterprise contributors spend only three hours more per week working with others. An employee who spends allof his or her time working withothers will diminish hisor her own individual taskperformance. To achieve high enterprise contribution, employees must balance their time so their individual task performance does not come at the detriment of network performance and vice versa.
More Time Working With Others Does Not Improve Enterprise Contribution
Employees Time Spend
Number of Hours per Week
Maximum Impact on Individual Task Performance of Time Spent Working withCoworkers

44
Time Spent on Individual Tasks Time Spent Working with Others
47
Average Number of Hours Spent per Week
19 19
Other
26
23
Maximum impact = (6%)
2
Enterprise Enterprise Contributor Contributor Implication 1 Average Average Employee Employee
2
Percentage of Time Spent Working with Coworkers
Implication 2 Spending too much time working with others will result in decreased individual task performance.
Enterprise contributors do not spend significantly more time working with others.
n = 23,339. Note: The maximum impact on enterprise contribution is calculated by comparing two statistical estimates: the predicted impact when an employee scores relatively high on a driver and the predicted value when an employee scores relatively low on a driver. The effects of all drivers are modeled using a variety of multivariate regressions with controls.
IDENTIFY AND TRANSLATE COMPETENCIES TO MAXIMIZE ENTERPRISE CONTRIBUTION

Enterprise Contribution in a New Work Environment Requires Employees to Exhibit Different Competencies
Key Challenges
Organizations Ignore Necessary Network Performance Competencies in Their Competency Models
Competency Models Are Quickly Irrelevant or Out of Date
HR Imperatives
Identify Critical Competencies That Help Employees Fulfill Both Their Individual Task andTheir Network Performance Responsibilities
Ensure Relevance of the Competency Model byAligning to Customers Future Needs
Define Competencies to Balance Individual and Network Performance Tool or Profile Solution
Align Performance Profile to Customer Needs, Not Just Organizational Needs, to Ensure Long-Term Relevance
A few competencies help employees balance individual task and network performance.
Enterprise contributors balance individual task and network performance with the application of the following competencies: Prioritization Teamwork Organizational Awareness Problem Solving Proactivity Self-Awareness Influence Decision Making/ Judgment
Key Competencies Help Balance Individual Task and Network Performance

Maximum Impact on Enterprise Contribution of Employee Effectiveness at Competency
Top Eight 13% 12% 11%11% 9%9% 9% 9%
Enterprise Contributors Do Four Things Differently: 1. PrioritizationPrioritize contributions for the organization, not just the role. 2. TeamworkPossess knowledge of peers work, not just personal characteristics. 3. Organizational AwarenessUnderstand organizational context, not just formal structure. 4. Problem SolvingIdentify and initiate change, not just positively react to change.
7%7% 6% 6% 5%5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3%3% 3% 3% 2%2% 2% 2% 1% 0%0% < 1%< 1%

Process Design Continuous Learning Creativity Project Management Technical/Functional Expertise Relationship Management Cross-Cultural Agility Information Management Customer Orientation Technology Fluency Resource Allocation Social Intelligence Systems Thinking Managing Others Analytical Ability Learning Agility Professionalism Self-Awareness Inuence Risk Management Problem Solving Proactivity Teamwork Communication Business Acumen Critical Thinking Prioritization Integrity Organizational Awareness Decision-Making/Judgment Change Receptivity Network Building
For more information on how to build these competencies, please see CLC Learning & Developments study Building High Performer Capabilities in a Changing Work Environment.
n = 23,339.
Note: Please see Appendix C for competency definitions. The maximum impact on enterprise contribution is calculated by comparing two statistical estimates: the predicted impact when an employee scores relatively high on a driver and the predicted value when an employee scores relatively low on a driver. The effects of all drivers are modeled using a variety of multivariate regressions with controls.
Some Variation in Competencies Across Employee Segments

Top 8 Competencies, by Employee Segment
Top 4 Overall Top 8 Overall Other Competencies
HR
IT
Finance
Manufacturing
Engineering
Operations
R&D
Sales
Customer Service/Call Center Problem Solving
Organizational Awareness Decision Making/ Judgment
Teamwork
Influence
Prioritization
Influence
Prioritization
Prioritization Technical/ Functional Expertise Problem Solving Continuous Learning Risk Management SelfAwareness
Self-Awareness
Prioritization
Teamwork
Systems Thinking
Prioritization
Influence
Problem Solving
Self-Awareness
Teamwork
Decision Making/ Judgment Organizational Awareness Process Design
Proactivity Decision Making/ Judgment Business Acumen
Problem Solving
Problem Solving Technical/ Functional Expertise Proactivity
Teamwork Technical/ Functional Expertise Problem Solving
Managing Others
Organizational Awareness
Information Management
Project Management
Proactivity
Integrity
Proactivity
Teamwork
Communication
Continuous Learning
Analytical Ability
Analytical Ability
Prioritization
Influence
Teamwork
Organizational Awareness Project Management
Social Intelligence
Learning Agility
Learning Agility
Problem Solving
Problem Solving SelfAwareness 7 of Top 8
Organizational Awareness Relationship Management 6 of Top 8
Proactivity
Resource Allocation
Prioritization
Communication 4 of Top 8
Customer Orientation 5 of Top 8
Learning Agility 4 of Top 8
Process Design 5 of Top 8
Social Intelligence 4 of Top 8
Prioritization 4 of Top 8
Professionalism 4 of Top 8
n = 23,339. Note: Please see Appendix C and Appendix G for competency definitions and additional segments.
Enterprise contributors identify the highest-value activities to focus on by aligning to organizational objectives.
Prioritizing work according to the organizations goals, not just formal job responsibilities, improves an employees enterprise contribution. Only about one-half of employees prioritize their work based on the organizations goals.
ENTERPRISE CONTRIBUTORS UNDERSTAND ORG CONTEXT, NOT JUST FORMAL STRUCTURES

Maximum Impact on Enterprise Contribution of Prioritization Strategies
7%
Percentage of Employees Who Prioritize Work Based on Organizational Goals, Not Just Individual Job
45% of Employees Disagree That They Prioritize Work Based on Organizational Goals Prioritizes Work to Adequately Fulfill Job Description Only Prioritizes Work to Be More Aligned with Organizational Goals
55% of Employees Agree That They Prioritize Work Based on Organizational Goals
(2%)
Prioritization
Teamwork
Organizational awareness
Problem solving
Coordinating work and performance with peers requires understanding of peers workflow, not just their personal characteristics.
While personal relationships build camaraderie, knowledge of peers workflow is more important for enterprise contribution.
GREAT Teamwork requires knowledge of peers work, not just Strong personal relationships
Maximum Impact on Enterprise Contribution of Peer Knowledge and Relationships
Knowledge of Peers Work Characteristics Average Impact = 4%

Personal Relationships Average Impact = 2%
6%
6%
4% 3% 3% 3%
<1% 1%
Knows How Work Relates to Coworkers Work
For best practices on building employees understanding of peers workflow, see CEB Corporate Leadership Councils ThePower ofPeers.
n = 23,339.
Note: The maximum impact on enterprise contribution is calculated by comparing two statistical estimates: the predicted impact when an employee scores relatively high on a driver and the predicted value when an employee scores relatively low on a driver. The effects of all drivers are modeled using a variety of multivariate regressions with controls.
Prioritization
Teamwork
Maintains Close Personal Relationships with Coworkers
Problem solving
Maintains a Large Network of Contacts
Knows Coworkers Priorities
Shadowed or Observed Coworkers Work
Shares Performance Objectives with Coworkers
Knows What Coworkers Are Accountable For
Enterprise contributors understand the informal, not just formal, structures and processes of the organization.
Understanding the context behind organizational decisionssuch as market conditions, resource tradeoffs, and rationaleimproves an employees enterprise contribution by up to 5%. Knowledge of informal structures, workflow, and processes at the organization can have a 4% impact on enterprise contribution. While employees need formal details about the organization, these details will not greatly improve enterprise contribution.
ENTERPRISE CONTRIBUTORS UNDERSTAND ORG CONTEXT, NOT JUST FORMAL STRUCTURES

Maximum Impact on Enterprise Contribution of Organizational Knowledge
Understands Informal Structure Average = 4%

Understands Formal Structures Average = < 1%
5% 4% 4%
< 1%
< 1%
Understands Context of Decisions of the Organization
Understands Decision-Making Processes of the Organization
Obtains Information Through Informal Discussions with Coworkers
Obtains Information Through Formal Meetings
Understands Formal Details About the Organization (e.g., Reporting Relationships, Structure)
Prioritization
Teamwork
Problem solving
Problem solving competencies help employees identify changes that need to occur and solutions when appropriate.
Enterprise contributors are able to identify problems or changes that need to occur at the organization.
ENTERPRISE Contributors identify and initiate change, not Just react positively to change
Maximum Impact on Enterprise Contribution of Change Behaviors
Initiates Change Average = 10%

Capacity to Change Average = 7%
Open to Change Average = 3%
Enterprise contributors do not just point out problems but also identify solutions and initiate change when appropriate. The ability to quickly learn new skills can improve enterprise contribution by 7%, on average. While positive reactions to change are important, employees must also be proactive to achieve enterprise contributions.
11% 9% 8% 7% 6% 4% 2%
Identifies Problems and Necessary Changes
Initiates Change When Appropriate
Masters New Operating Rules, Systems, and Processes
Learns New Knowledge and Skills
Adapts Work as Necessary to New Situations
Is Willing to Change or Learn
Responds to Change
Prioritization
Teamwork
Problem solving
Prioritization
Enterprise contributors prioritize their contributions and take initiative based on the organizations goals and peers work.
They prioritize work by the contribution it can make to the organization. Enterprise contributors understand peers workflow, objectives, and challenges.
Four implications for competency model design

From... 1
Prioritizes Tasks Prioritizes activities to fulfill job description and manager directs work Prioritizes Contributions Prioritizes activities based on organizational goals and self-directs work
To...
Teamwork
2
Builds Connections Increases the number of, and maintains strong, personal relationships Understands Peers Motivations Coordinates ones work and performance with that of others to achieve mutual outcomes
They also understand the context that surrounds organizational decisions and operations. Enterprise contributors identify problems and initiate necessary changes.
3
Knows Formal Organization Understands business basics and the formal structure and mechanics of the organization Understands Organizational Context Understands the informal structures and decision-making processes of the organization
4
Problem Solving Receptive to Change Displays openness and willingness to change behavior in response to new situations
Initiates Change Identifies problems and opportunities for changes and implements solutions when appropriate
IDENTIFY AND TRANSLATE COMPETENCIES TO MAXIMIZE ENTERPRISE CONTRIBUTION

Enterprise Contribution in a New Work Environment Requires Employees to Exhibit Different Competencies
Key Challenges
Organizations Ignore Necessary Network Performance Competencies in Their Competency Models
Competency Models Are Quickly Irrelevant or Out of Date
HR Imperatives
Identify Critical Competencies That Help Employees Fulfill Both Their Individual Task andTheir Network Performance Responsibilities
Ensure Relevance of the Competency Model byAligning to Customers Future Needs
Define Competencies to Balance Individual and Network Performance Tool or Profile Solution
Align Performance Profile to Customer Needs, Not Just Organizational Needs, to Ensure Long-Term Relevance
Common approaches to developing competency models often produce results that lack clarity or relevance for employees, making it difficult for them to adapt.
CEB Corporate Leadership Council research shows that improving employees effectiveness at a core set of competencies can improve enterprise contribution. However, these competencies will not be accepted, understood, adopted, or developed if they are not translated for the unique needs and job roles with an organization.
EMPLOYEES STRUGGLE with NEW COMPETENCIES DUE TO LACK OF CLARITY AND RELEVANCE
Recent Changes to Competency Models
Percentage of Employees for Whom Competency Model Changed in the Last Two Years
Top Reasons Employees Struggle to Adapt toNew Competencies

Identified by Percentage of Employees Selecting Challenge Lack of Clarity
37% No
1. Too many competencies 2. Competencies not specific enough 3. Stakeholders disagree about competencies
63% Yes
Lack of Relevance 1. Unclear how competencies were identified 2. Competencies do not reflect customer needs. 3. Competencies do not reflect employees work.
Employees Struggle to Align to New Competencies

Percentage of Employees Who Had Difficulty Adjusting to New Competencies in the Last TwoYears
24% Did Not Have Difficulty 76% Had Difficulty
n = 23,339.
Future-Focused Performance Criteria
Overview At the end of 2009, KPMG recognized that it needed to reorient its brand and performance criteria to reflect changes in the environment and customers needs. Solution highlights Rather than rely on a top-down approach, KPMG used input from across the value chain to identify performance criteria that will be critical for success five years into the future.
Gather Customer Feedback on Future Needs, Not Past Experiences: KPMG interviews customers and potential customers to understand how their needs and priorities will change across the next five years. Use Stakeholder Input to Balance Customer Needs with Organizational Realities: KPMG gathers input from senior stakeholders to balance customer feedback and ensure criteria meet the needs of all groups to whom the organization is accountable. Conduct Employee Focus Groups and Interviews to Translate Criteria Beyond Customer-Facing Roles: KPMG uses employee input to validate the criteria and articulate how criteria should be applied across the organization.
Company Overview KPMG is a global network of professional firms providing Audit, Tax, and Advisory services. KPMG operates in 152 countries and has 145,000 people working in member firms around the world. The independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International), a Swiss entity. Each KPMG firm is a legally distinct and separate entity and describes itself as such.
At the end of 2009, KPMG recognized that it needed to reorient its brand and performance criteria to reflect changes in the environment and customers needs.
To effectively reposition the organization, KPMG gathered customer input on future needs rather thanrelying only on leadersto articulate drivers of past success.
KPMGs Existing Brand and Criteria Revealed a Need for Greater Customer Input
How do we update our brand and performance criteria in a way that
Accounts for the changes in the environment and our customers needs? Reinforces our existing strengths and brand assets? Is forward looking and wont quickly become outdated? Captures the strengths that differentiate us in the marketplace?
Performance Criteria
Performance Criteria
Company Overview
KPMG is a global network of professional firms providing Audit, Tax, and Advisory services. KPMG operates in 152 countries and has 145,000 people working in member firms around the world. The independent member firms of the KPMG network are affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International), a Swiss entity. Each KPMG firm is a legally distinct and separate entity and describes itself as such.
Key Themes of KPMGs Criteria Definition Approach 1

Customer Oriented KPMG collects customer inputnot just leader or vendor inputto develop more relevant and long-lasting performance criteria.
2
Future Focused KPMG identifies behaviors that will make the organization successful in the future, not what has made it successful in the past.
Note: The KPMG name, logo, and cutting through complexity are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International).
CHALLENGE
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
RESULTS
Rather than rely on a top-down approach, KPMG uses input from across the value chain to identify performance criteria that will be critical for success five years into the future.
Use Customer Input to Develop FutureFocused Performance Criteria

Top-Down Approach KPMGs Approach
Identify skills and behaviors of highperforming leaders at the organization.
Gather customer feedback on future needs, not past experiences.
Align manager expectations with leadership values.
Use stakeholder input to balance customer needs with organizational realities.
Align employee expectations with manager expectations and leadership values.
Conduct employee focus groups and interviews to translate criteria beyond customer-facing roles.
Narrow, Backward-Looking Performance Criteria
CHALLENGE
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
RESULTS
KPMG interviews customers and potential customers to understand how their needs and priorities will change across the next five years.
The Global Branding Team manages the collection of customer input with ongoing support and feedback from the HR and the executive team. KPMG develops interview questions through internal testing and feedback from employees and executive leadership. Interviews with more than 100 customers and potential customers reveal the attributes that best support customer needs and priorities across the next five years.
Customer Interviews Focus on Future Needs, Not Past Experiences

KPMG Collects Customer Input Through Interviews
Customer Interview Questions: Thinking five years into the future 1. Which of the following attributes do you most want to see from KPMG employees you interact with? 2. Consider the following themes and rank the top three in terms of how important they are to your business relationship with KPMG: Anticipating change Helping make better decisions with confidence ... 3. Which of the following propositions characterize the experience you desire from working with KPMG? Inspiring others Forward thinking ... Future Customer Priorities KPMG Brand Attributes 1. Forward Thinking 2. Global Mind-Set 3. Value-Adding 4. Passionate 5. Expert
Customers Input Helps KPMG Update Existing Performance Criteria

Customer Feedback Old Performance Criteria 1. Solves problems effectively Forward Thinking We will need KPMG to be more proactive in surfacing emerging challenges, not just reacting to things we ask for. HR Takeaway Problem solving does not fully address the Forward Thinking our customers need. We must be more creative and innovative in surfacing challenges. Future-Focused Performance Criteria 1. Demonstrates curiosity and innovation
CHALLENGE
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
RESULTS
Input from senior stakeholders balances customer feedback and ensures criteria meet the needs of all groups to whom the organization is accountable.
HR combines customer priorities with stakeholder feedback to develop a draft of performance criteria. HR reconciles the high volume and variety of input by identifying the root behaviors they represent (e.g., strives for continual improvement can incorporate seemingly different inputs, such as developing people, drive, and determination).
Stakeholder Input Balances Customer Priorities with Organizational Realities

Identification of Key Stakeholders
What Stakeholders Must We Consult toBalance Customer Input? 1. What groups is the business accountable to besides customers? 2. What groups, besides staff members, are impacted by changes in performance criteria? 3. What groups must approve of and buy in to the new criteria?
1
Senior Stakeholders and Shareholders (Partners)
Key Priority: Commercial Success What behaviors ensure we hit our growth and profitability goals?
2
Regulators (via Risk/ Compliance Dept.)
Key Priority: Independence and Judgment What behaviors ensure we maintain our independence and professional judgment?
Balancing Customer Priorities Based on Key Stakeholder Input

KPMG Brand Attributes 1. Forward-Thinking 2. Global Mind-Set 3. Value Adding 4. Passionate 5. Expert Quality and Risk Management Input We must meet customer needs in a way that ensures we comply with regulations. HR Takeaway To fulfill our role as Expert we cant just possess expertise; we must use our judgment to apply it in a way that drives accuracy and independence. Partner Input We need to meet customer needs but must do so in a way that is profitable. HR Takeaway We need to be more collaborative and work across borders to leverage our knowledge and capability. Future-Focused Performance Criteria 1. Demonstrates curiosity and innovation 2. Exercises professional judgment 3. Seizes business opportunities 4. Drives collaboration and inclusion
CHALLENGE
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
RESULTS
Employees are best equipped to validate the criteria and articulate how they should be applied across the organization.
KPMG received input from approximately 300 employees across countries, levels, and positions over a three-week period. Global employee feedback ensures performance criteria are simple and articulated clearly for employees at all levels. Employee feedback also ensures criteria are translated effectively for employees across the organization, not just customer-facing employees.
Employees Translate Criteria Beyond Customer-Facing Roles

Employee Translation of Performance Criteria 1 HR-Led Focus Groups Validate and Clarify Future-Focused Behaviors
Target: Employees across regions, functions, tenures, and levels Key Questions:
Appendix Global Behavioral Capabilities framework I am a KPMG person who..

Seizes Business Opportunities Demonstrates Curiosity and Innovation Drives Collaboration and Inclusion Strives for Continual Improvement
I build long-term client relationships with my clients and my colleagues. I demonstrate business and commercial acumen by applying knowledge to both global and local clients. I spot and develop business opportunities, anticipate change and respond to client needs. I adapt to changing circumstances and respond to fluid environments. I propose and build solutions, am keen to learn and drive through change. I add value by seeking out new insights and perspectives, developing new ideas and implementing practical solutions. I share knowledge and work across boundaries. I build positive working relationships internally and externally. I am culturally sensitive, globally-minded and respect the views and opinions of others. I make a positive difference to my colleagues and communities. I am dedicated to achieving success and adding value to my clients. I set ambitious goals and challenge both myself and others to improve, giving and seeking honest feedback along the way. I continually coach and develop others, and work well under pressure. I am passionate about consistently delivering high quality work to meet my clients needs and the needs of my team. I take pride in the efficient and effective way I organize and structure my team and client engagements. I organize well and always plan for contingencies. I demonstrate professional expertise in all aspects of my work. I understand the bigger picture and make the right decisions. I demonstrate integrity and maintain objectivity and independence at all times. I conduct effective analysis, consult appropriately and manage risk. I display confidence and passion. I can inspire my colleagues and influence my key stakeholders to change their thinking. I cut through complexity in my verbal and written communications, presenting information clearly and concisely. I know how to listen and I adapt my approach to suit my audience.
What does this behavior mean to you? Is this behavior clear? Do any of these behaviors seem to overlap? Are there critical behaviors we are missing? When you see this behavior in the organization, whatdo you see?
Delivers Quality
2 HR Interviews with High Performers Reveal How Key Behaviors Are Achieved Across theOrganization Makes an Impact
Target: Employees identified as exceptional inkey behavior areas Key Questions:
Exercises Professional Judgment
Appendix Seizes Business Opportunities

2012 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. All rights reserved.
myself, and in how I lead others

34
Fundamentals (Staff)
Leading self Pro-actively seeks to build positive and long standing relationships with clients Shows a personal commitment to understanding and meeting client needs Builds understanding of the client business and its markets across the globe Works to add value to client relationships Demonstrates knowledge of key commercial objectives and measurements of success Shows an awareness of all of KPMGs service offerings Anticipates clients future needs and requirements and plans for these when appropriate Identifies opportunities that can add value for the client Understands how projects and activities impact the wider business Leading people Encourages others to raise the bar in relation to levels of client service and quality of work Promotes the need for the client to be central to decision making
Accomplished (Manager)
Leading self Monitors client service standards and takes action to resolve poor quality service Maintains global relationships and actively seeks out the global networks best experts to address client needs Is pro-active in identifying and taking forward business opportunities for the long term benefit of both KPMG and the client Adds value by enabling improvements in client processes Considers both client and financial implications when making decisions Understands KPMGs broader service offerings to enable identification of business opportunities Uses client feedback to prepare business plans and priorities Maintains an awareness of market trends, competitor activity and products/services Contributes to shaping proposals and propositions across countries, functions, sectors and accounts Leading people Encourages others to use their initiative to achieve better client service Encourages others to spot new business opportunities Promotes and rewards high quality client service Leads by example ensuring client needs, quality and adding value remain at the forefront of decision making
Advanced (Leader)
Leading self Continuously reviews business strategy in line with changing client needs and demands Demonstrates broad business thinking and sound commercial judgment in generating plans to add value for clients Ensures we act in the clients best interest including not undertaking work when this does not fit with our capabilities Ensures that the client is a critical part of decision making and business planning Demonstrates deep knowledge and awareness of current market trends and activities of key competitors Builds long-lasting, trusting relationships with client organisations based on adding value to their business Focuses on improving profitability while managing business risk Invests in and supports initiatives to drive client and business focused results across functions and borders Leading people Implements processes and procedures to support and drive a client service culture across functions and countries Supports initiatives that promote and reward adding value and delivering the highest quality of service Inspires and champions a client service culture Identifies opportunities for the firm to broaden its offering Aligns business objectives across functions and countries to ensure delivery of the business strategy
What is necessary to demonstrate this behavior in your role/at your level? How do you achieve this behavior in your work? What are negative indicators of this behavior? What does it look like when this is done wrong? How does this behavior look different in astaffrole versus a manager role?
Failstrademarks to say no to the client when necessary Note: The KPMG name, logo, and cutting through complexity are registered or trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative Shows little regard for internal cost or budget considerations Misses opportunities to develop business and/or relationships (KPMG International).
2012 KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. All rights reserved.
Negative indicators: Fails to recognize internal as well as external clients Delivers inconsistent quality to clients
35
CHALLENGE
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
RESULTS
Redirection of the brand and performance criteria aims to improve customer satisfaction and propensity to work with KPMG on a long-term basis and improve employees understanding of how to continue to exceed customer expectations moving forward.
KPMG plans to collect data and feedback on an ongoing basis to track the success of the new approach, but early signs are extremely positive.
KPMGs Approach Receives Early Praise from Customers and Employees

This example of customer praise of the new approach from Nationwide Building Society appeared in the UK newspaper, The Times, on 17 May 2012.
Our success owes much to KPMGs expertise and passion. Together we forged a very effective partnership that delivered significant benefits for our business. Agreat firm to work with.
Mark Rennison Group Finance Director Nationwide Building Society Operational performance in the private sector award winner 2012
Employees Feel More Confident About Their Performance The real value of the behavioral capability framework is that we have articulated the things we do that matter. Taking an example from China, we had an opportunity to put forward an important bid in the banking market but we were up against tough competition. We knew we didnt have the expertise we needed solely in China so we quickly brought together a team from across seven countries and we won the bid. This ability to collaborate rapidly is vital to our success as a business.
Babak Nikzad Partner KPMG China
www.kpmg.co.uk
2012 KPMG LLP , a UK limited liability partnership, is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and cutting through complexity are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. MC-000106|May2012
CHALLENGE
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
RESULTS

1. Effectiveness at key competencies explain employees effectiveness at enterprise contribution, not necessarily age, gender, remote worker status, or education. 2. For the workforce, key competencies include:
Implications for HR
1. Update competency models to reflect fundamental changes in how employees prioritize their contributions, work with others, understand the organization, and initiate change. 2. Tailor core competency model for critical employee segments. 3. Incorporate customer input to improve the relevance and impact of competency models.
PrioritizationPrioritize contributions for the organization, not just the role. TeamworkPossess knowledge of peers work, not just personal characteristics. Organizational AwarenessUnderstand organizational context, not just formal structure. Problem SolvingIdentify and initiate change, not just positively react to change.
3. While prioritization, teamwork, organizational awareness, and problem solving are critical for the workforce, some variability exists across employee segments. 4. Nearly 80% of employees struggle to implement new competencies.
Chapter II: Evaluate Enterprise Contributors with the Performance Management System
58

1 2 3 4





o
Knowledge Advocates
Chapter II: Evaluate Enterprise Contributors with the Performance Management System59
Organizations correctly identify enterprise contributors about one-third of the time.

Sixty-five percent of enterprise contributors did not receive the highest performance scores from their organizations. Sixty-seven percent of employees who receive the highest performance scores are not enterprise contributors.
Organizations MISIDENTIFY TWO-THIRDS OF Enterprise Contributors

Business UnitSpecific Employee Performance Score Compared to Enterprise Contribution Percentage of Enterprise Contributors Who Receive Highest Business UnitSpecific Performance Score
High Enterprise Contribution
1%
10%
6%
Medium
2%
32%
9%
65% of Enterprise Contributors Do Not Receive the Highest Performance Scores
Low
6%
Lowest1
31%
Middle2
3%
Highest3
Percentage of Employees Receiving Highest Business UnitSpecific Performance Scores Who Are Enterprise Contributors
Business UnitSpecific Employee Performance Score 67% of Those Receiving Highest Performance Scores Are Not Enterprise Contributors
Implication: Most performance management systems misidentify their high performers.

n = 23,339. 1 Employees who received a rating below expectations on their organizations rating scale.
2 3
Employees who received a score in the middle of their organizations rating scale (i.e., not the lowest possible score or the highest possible score). Employees who received the highest possible score on their organizations rating scale.
While the importance of network performance has risen dramatically in the past 10 years, performance evaluations are still overly weighted toward individual task performance.
The relative importance to business unit profitability of network performance, compared to individual task performance, has increased from 22% to 49% between 2002 and 2012. Individual task performance accounts for 83% of employee performance ratings, while network performance accounts for only 17%.
Performance Has Shifted, Performance Evaluations Have Not

Relative Importance of Employee Performance Component to Business Unit Profitability Relative Weighting of Individual Task Performance and Network Performance in Current Employee Performance Evaluations
Network Performance Individual Task Performance
Network Performance
51% 78% 83%
49% 22%
2002
n = 13,047.
17%
2012 Individual Task Versus Network Performance
n = 23,339.
n = 23,339.
Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council Performance Management Survey, 2002; CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council High Performance Survey, 2012.
Three BARRIERS TO Evaluating ENTERPRISE CONTRIBUTORS

Current Performance Management System Misevaluates Enterprise Contributors
Key Challenges
Lack of Manager Training at Evaluating Performance Access CEB Corporate Leadership Councils Manager Resource Portal at the following website: https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ Portals/ManagerResourcePortal.aspx
Performance Criteria Primarily Focused on Past Performance Merge Evaluation of Past Accomplishments and Capabilities for the Future
Inadequate Peer Input
HR Imperatives
Crowdsource Feedback Based on Employee Knowledge of Their Peers Work
Tool or Profile Solution
Crowdsourced Associate Evaluations
The performance management system is much more likely to identify enterprise contributors when it assesses both past accomplishments and capabilities for the future.
Sixty-seven percent of enterprise contributors are correctly identified by the performance management system when it assesses both past accomplishments and capabilities for the future, versus 22% correctly identified when it only assesses past accomplishments.
Assess Future, not Just Past, Capabilities and performance

Identification of Enterprise Contributors, by Time Horizon
Percentage of Enterprise Contributors Who Are Correctly Rated through Each Type of Review 67%
To ensure performance management truly drives performance, we need to run it the way we run talent reviews reserved for our HIPOs and key talent. We should be considering results and future career moves all at once.
VP, HR Financial Services Organization
22%
See CEB Corporate Leadership Councils Performance Management Topic Center for insights, resources, and tools to:
A well-designed performance appraisal process can look backward and forward at the same time.
SVP, HR Retail Organization
Design Your Performance Management Strategy; Conduct the Performance Review; Reward and Recognize Employees; and Provide Ongoing Feedback and Development.
Review Considers Past Accomplishments Only1

n = 23,339.
Review Considers Past Accomplishments1 and Future Capabilities2
Note: The identification of enterprise contributors is the predicted percentage of enterprise contributors correctly identified when an organization scores relatively high on a driver. The effects of all drivers are modeled using a variety of logistic regressions with controls.
1 2
Past accomplishments are demonstrated behaviors and achievement of objectives. Capabilities for the future refers to the ability to deal with change, ability to innovate, and consideration of future place within organization.
REIMAGINED Performance Management
Overview Juniper found that the classic performance management system was a barrier to its goal of disruptive innovation. To achieve that goal, Juniper required both empowered, connected employees and a brand system aligned internally and externally. The performance management system, however, was misaligned with Junipers values and actually demotivated its employees. Solution highlights Juniper reimagined its approach to performance management to drive disruptive innovation in the following ways:
Allow employees to self-develop objectives based on direct managers and senior leaders objectivesAllow employees to set their own objectives each year by first viewing the objectives of their direct manager and the relevant senior leader(s). Conduct holistic assessment of past performance and future capabilities and needsSimultaneously consider both past and future elements of an employees performance, rather than just evaluate past accomplishments. Assess employees contribution to the organization, not their performance scoreAssess employees by considering their overall contribution to the organization, rather than assigning them a performance score; calibrate employees based on their relative contribution, rather than to justify a performance score. Merge discussion of past and future performance into one conversationDiscuss past accomplishments and future career and capabilities in one conversation to ensure a peer-like discussion of shared decision making.
Company Snapshot Juniper Networks, Industry: 2011 Revenue: 2011 Employees: Headquarters: Key Regions of Operation: Inc. High Technology US$4.48 Billion 9,400 United States Employees in 46Countries Juniper was founded in Sunnyvale, California in 1996. It offers a broad product portfolio of network products and services that span routing, switching, security, application acceleration, identity policy and control, and management. Its customers include the top 130 global service providers, the Fortune Global 100, as well as federal, state, and local government agencies and higher education organizations throughout the world.
Juniper Networks recognized that its internal work environment was a barrier to achieving its business goal of disruptive innovation.
To achieve disruptive innovation, Juniper seeks both empowered, connected employees and a brand system aligned internally and externally. However, the classic performance management approach was misaligned with Junipers values and evoked a fear state that demotivated innovation. Juniper believes all meaning is situated in context, while its practices vary in the degree of innovation, they learned that aligning and applying them in the context of their values and business resulted in differentiated and desired outcomes.
CLASSIC PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM a barrier to disruptive innovation

Classic Performance Management System Misaligned with Junipers Company Vision and Brand System
Company Vision: Connect Everything. Empower Everyone To achieve disruptive innovation, employees at Juniper must be: Connected Clear about the organizations needs Clear about peers needs Able to generate productive relationships
Junipers Aligned Brand System Juniper strives to deliver its business strategy of disruptive innovation by aligning its brand experience, values, leadership, and talent systems with the aspirations of its nearly 10,000 colleagues.
Outside - In
Leadership Business Strategy
(Disruptive Innovation)
Empowered Able to act without excessive bureaucracy Forward looking Proactive Risk taking
Brand Promise & Experience
(Values & Culture)
Juniper Way @ Juniper
Talent Systems & Structure
Individual Aspirations & Abilities
Inside - Out
Attributes of Reward State Performance Management1
Copyright 2010 Juniper Networks, Inc.
www.juniper.net
Juniper turns to neuroscience to reimagine its performance management system for disruptive innovation. Junipers new approach aims to align with its values and put employees in a reward state rather than a fear state, enabling them to do their best work. A reward state enables employees to:

1
Focus on solutions Take a broad view Approach rather than avoid Work with confidence Act with autonomy
The philosophy behind Junipers approach to performance management is based on its partnership with Dr. David Rock, CEO of the NeuroLeadershipGroup; Ann Rhoades, author of Built on Values: Creating and Enviable Culture that Outperforms the Competition and former HR executive at Southwest Airlines and JetBlue Airways; and Chris Ernst, author of Boundary Spanning Leadership: Six Practices for Solving Problems, Driving Innovation, and Transforming Organizations, Organization Thought-Leader at Juniper, and adjunct faculty member at Center for Creative Leadership.
Source: Beiske Ben, 5 July 2009, http://www.flickr.com/photos/benbeiske/3688830511/.
Challenge
Solution Overview
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Component 4
Results
Junipers approach drives individual and organizational performance.

Four distinguishing features of Junipers talent process include: 1. Self-developed objectives aligned directly to manager and senior leader objectives; 2. Holistic assessment of past and future performance; 3. Formal performance scoring replaced with unified Talent Framework that describes talent scenarios; and 4. Two-way conversation of past and future, rather than top-down delivery.
JUNIPER DRIVES EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE WITH THE BELIEF THAT TALENT MATTERS
Juniper Networks Approach Drives Disruptive Innovation
1. Self-developed objectives based on direct managers and senior leaders objectives

CEO
2. Holistic assessment of past performance and future capabilities and need

Capabilities Has, applies, and grows the capabilities required for success at their career stage and to scale with the role Best Talent for Juniper Career Connections Has professional Develops energyinterests aligned with generating relationships our vision and are highly by practicing the Juniper motivated by the purpose Way (Junipers values) of our work Contribution Makes a contribution that enables Juniper to win in the marketplace
CFO
CIO
COO
Manager
Employee
3. Formal scoring replaced with unified Talent Framework that describes talent scenarios
4. Two-way conversation of past performance and future capabilities and needs

Recommended Conversation Day Agenda
Illustrative Career
Scenarios Key Talent High Potential Promotable Well Placed New to Role Performing with Concern
Contribution
Connections
Discuss how this employee exhibits and applies the capabilities required for success at their career stage and to scale with their role. Discuss how the employee can continue to grow the capabilities for future success at Juniper. Discuss the alignment of this employees professional interests with Junipers vision and purpose. Discuss the employees degree of motivation by Junipers vision and purpose. Discuss how this employee develops productive, energy generating relationships that align Junipers values (the Juniper way). Discuss how this employee contributes to the organization in a way that enables Juniper to win in the marketplace. Refer to the contribution goals and related success measures when discussing contributions. Share compensation information. Discuss how compensation decisions were made.
Capabilities
Connections
Contributions
Compensation

Challenge
Solution Overview
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Component 4
Results
Juniper employees link their contribution goals (objectives) to those of their direct manager and relevant senior leaders contribution goals.
Employees set their own goals by viewing those of their direct manager and the relevant senior leader, bypassing interim levels; direct managers approve the goals. Senior leader goals provide context to employees when setting their goals, while direct manager goals provide content. To support crossorganizational alignment of goals, Juniper employees also view the goals of managers and senior leaders in matrix business units or functions.
ALIGN OBJECTIVES TO manager and SENIOR LEADER OBJECTIVES

Employees at Juniper Set Their Own Contribution Goals by Reviewing Their Direct Managers and the Relevant Senior Leaders Goals
Junipers Goal-Setting Process
To maintain focus on organizational needs: CEO
CFO
CIO
COO
Manager
Employee
Employees set their own contribution goals based on those of the direct manager and the senior leader they ultimately support. Senior leader goals provide employees with better context than traditional top-down communications, whereas direct managers goals inform the content of employees goals. Direct managers approve rather than write the goals. Employees consider matrix managers and senior leaders goals as a secondary input.
Juniper Goal-Setting Template

Contribution Goal Goal Type Choose from five goal types. Success Measures Choose 1 to 3 measures; where possible, align your success measures to your managers and senior leaders success measures. Alignment (Optional) Indicate how the goal aligns with your managers and senior leaders goals.
People Innovation Winning Customers Driving Satisfaction Growing the Business
Challenge
Solution Overview
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Component 4
Results
Rather than limit assessment of employee performance to the past, Juniper includes assessment of future capabilities and career alignment.
As a high-growth company, Juniper recognizes that assessment of past performance limits employees to reacting to the past rather than proactively ensuring future success. Merging assessment of future capabilities and career also allows both employees and the organization to continually assess the ability to fulfill future talent needs.
HOLISTIC evaluation OF PAST AND FUTURE PERFORMANCE elements

Juniper Simultaneously Considers the Four Elements of Both Past and Future Performance
Junipers Four Elements of a J Player1
Juniper assesses both what an employee contributed and how an employee performed across the performance period.
Capabilities Has, applies, and grows the capabilities required for success at their career stage and to scale with the role J Player Best Talent Career Connections for Juniper Has professional Develops energyinterests aligned with generating relationships our vision and are highly by practicing the Juniper motivated by the purpose Way (Junipers values) of our work Contribution Makes a contribution that enables Juniper to win in the marketplace
Elements of Future Performance
Elements of Past Performance
Juniper assesses future capabilities and career alignment to enable proactive action by both employees and the organization.
J Players refer to the best talent for Juniper.
Source: Juniper Networks, 2010 Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability Report, November 2011.
Challenge
Solution Overview
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Component 4
Results
Juniper assesses employees contribution to the organization by considering talent scenarios rather than performance scores.
Managers use talent scenarios as guidance for considering employees performance across the four elements of performance; the talent scenarios serve as reference points for managers, not prescriptive action steps. Juniper believes that classic performance scores distract employees, their managers, and the organization from having the high-utility conversations that let employees know where they stand.
ASSESS EMPLOYEES BY IDENTIFYING THEIR value, NOT THEIR PERFORMANCE SCORE

Juniper Replaces Performance Scores with Talent Scenarios to Assess Employee Contributions to the Enterprise
Junipers Talent Scenarios and Strategies (Excerpt)
J Players Juniper aims for 100% J Players, the best talent for the organization. To be a J Player, employees must meet the expectation against all four performance elements. Non J Players Non J Players do not meet the expectation against one or more of Junipers four elements of performance.
Scenarios Key Talent High Potential Promotable Well Placed New to Role Performing with Concern Extenuating Circumstances Not Scaling Underperforming Challenged
Contribution
Connections
Capability
Career
Compensation
Juniper provides broad guidance to managers about how to assess, develop, and reward employees using Talent Scenarios as a reference point rather than a performance rating.
Consistently meets goals Could be an expert in function but may not aspire to a bigger role
Lives the Juniper Way Maintains highly productive relationships
Skills acceptable for current level Could need more time in role to develop skills for next level Develop in role
Well placed at career level Support existing growth and career plan
Competitive base and bonus Competitive equity (if eligible)
Managers Use the Talent Scenarios as Guidance to Assess Employees Across Junipers Four Elements of a J Player
Conversation Starter, Illustrative
Please describe your colleagues performance for each element below. Career Capabilities Managers and employees are encouraged to fill out a simple onepage form against the four elements that is used to start a conversation between manager and employee.
Juniper also eliminates the bell curve as the ideal distribution of performance, aiming instead for 100% J Players; Junipers goal is that all employees are high performers but, that at a minimum, every employee meets the expectation against all four elements of performance.
Connections
Contribution
Challenge
Solution Overview
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Component 4
Results
Juniper calibrates performance against employees relative contributions and connections to make compensation decisions, rather than to justify performance scores.
Managers ladder each J Player within their teams based on their past contribution and connections, during the calibration session, peer managers create a oneover-one relative ladder based on each employees relative contribution and connections. To prevent laddering from becoming a hidden ratings process, Juniper relies on managers practicing its values and does not record or communicate results of the laddering process. Orienting calibration discussions on employees overall contribution also ensures the quality and utility of the feedback an employee will receive.
CALIBRATE PERFORMANCE TO UNDERSTAND EMPLOYEES RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION

Juniper Calibrates Employees Based on Their Relative Contribution to Juniper, Rather Than to Validate a Performance Score
Junipers Relative Laddering Calibration Process
2
Manager Submits Preliminary Team Ladders Peer Managers Review Aggregate Ladder and Validate by Discussing Each Employees Performance
3
Manager Allots Compensation
Preliminary Team Ladders Illustrative

Manager A 1. Jean Y. Promotable 2. Manager B 1. Kevin T. Well Placed 2. Manager C 1. Jose G. 2. Jennifer P. 3. Key Talent Promotable
Peer Laddering Results Illustrative

J Players 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Jose G. Jean Y. Francisco S. Jennifer P. Gabrielle F.
Compensation Guide Illustrative

Colleague: Jose G. Talent Scenario: Key Talent Consideration: Career Capabilities Connections Contribution Pay Range: $X$Y Compensation:
Non J Players
Individual managers consider each employees relative contribution and connections to create a relative ladder. Calibrating performance in the absence of performance ratings increases the quality of the feedback employees receive. Managers must clearly articulate an employees contribution to Juniper to a peer group before sharing it with employeeswithout relying on a score. Employee ladder positions are only used to consider against broad pay guidance for employees; ladder positions are not recorded or communicated. Managers are provided with broad pay guidance for each employee based on the relative laddering process. They have full discretion to determine compensation within their budgets.
Challenge
Solution Overview
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Component 4
Results
To prevent performance review conversations from evoking a defensive response from employees, Conversation Day is a peer-like conversation that discusses past and future performance.
Junipers performance reviews are two-way conversations between manager and employee, rather than a top-down conversation, so decisions about performance can be made together. To set the tone for an effective conversation, employees and managers start by discussing the future elements of performance; this allows for a more honest conversation by taking the stigma out of negative development feedback and enables employees to play a greater role in proactively discussing their performance.
MERGE DISCUSSION OF PAST AND FUTURE IN ONE CONVERSATION

Junipers Conversation Day Drives Decision Making and Action Rather Than Information Delivery Recommended Conversation Day Agenda
Illustrative Career
Discuss how this employee exhibits and applies the capabilities required for success at his or her career stage and to scale with his or her role. Discuss how the employee can continue to grow the capabilities for future success at Juniper.
Discuss Elements of Future Performance First Managers and employees discuss the future elements of performance first, setting the stage for a more honest, balanced conversation and minimizing the stigma associated with negative feedback.
Capabilities
Discuss the alignment of this employees professional interests with Junipers vision and purpose. Discuss the employees degree of motivation by Junipers vision and purpose.
Connections
Discuss how this employee develops productive, energy generating relationships that align to Junipers values (the Juniper Way).
Contributions
Discuss how this employee contributes to the organization in a way that enables Juniper to win in the marketplace. Refer to the contribution goals and related success measures when discussing contributions.
Compensation

Share compensation information. Discuss how compensation decisions were made.
Challenge
Solution Overview
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Component 4
Results
Junipers approach ensures employees understand their value and contribution to Juniper, enabling them to make proactive decisions about their careers.
After each Conversation Day, Juniper surveys employees to understand the days utility; 82% of employees who had conversations indicate that it was helpful or extremely helpful. Of the employees identified as non-J Players, 65% self-select out of Juniper; those employees proactively identified the need to make a career move without being placed on a performance improvement plan.
JUNIPERS APPROACH PROVIDES CLARITY ABOUT PERFORMANCE AND ACTIONABLE FEEDBACK

To What Degree Did You Find Your Conversation Day Helpful?
On a Five-Point Scale of Not Helpful to Extremely Helpful
Percentage of Non-J Players Self-Selecting Out of Juniper Based on Their Conversation Day
18% Neutral to Not Helpful
82% Helpful to Extremely Helpful
Self-Selected Out of Juniper 65%
Weve reimagined the classic approach to performance management to be consistent with our company values and our Aligned Brand System. This approach enables us to deliver on our business strategy as disruptive innovators and create a climate where each one of our colleagues can do their best work.
Greg Pryor Vice President, Leadership and Talent Matters Juniper Networks
Challenge
Solution Overview
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Component 4
Results
Three BARRIERS TO Evaluating ENTERPRISE CONTRIBUTORS

Current Performance Management System Misevaluates Enterprise Contributors
Key Challenges
Lack of Manager Training at Evaluating Performance Access CEB Corporate Leadership Councils Manager Resource Portal at the following website: https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ Portals/ManagerResourcePortal.aspx
Performance Criteria Primarily Focused on Past Performance Merge Evaluation of Past Accomplishments and Capabilities for the Future
Inadequate Peer Input
HR Imperatives
Crowdsource Feedback Based on Employee Knowledge of Their Peers Work
Current approaches to 360-degree feedback do not improve identification of enterprise contributors.

Seventy percent of managers receive feedback from at least two other sources when evaluating their employees, including self reviews, reviews from peers, and reviews from direct reports. Despite this use of 360degree feedback, only 35% of enterprise contributors are correctly identified. Managers struggle to use 360-degree feedback due to the high volume, variation in quality, and inability to clarify feedback.
Managers COLLECT 360-degree Feedback, but it does not Solve the identification Challenge
Prevalence of Various Feedback Sources for Performance Evaluations
Percentage of Managers Self-Reviews 77% Receive Peers 80% Receive
Identification of Enterprise Contributors by Usage of Feedback Sources

Percentage of Enterprise Contributors Who Are Correctly Rated 35% 35%
Direct Reports 62% Receive
Other Coworkers 57% Receive
Multiple Sources of Feedback
Manager-Only Feedback
Managers struggle to use 360-degree feedback for the following reasons:
Seventy percent of managers receive feedback from at least two sources.

n = 23,339.
There is too much feedback to easily navigate; The quality of the feedback varies greatly depending on the source; and Managers lack a vehicle to get additional detail or context about unclear feedback.
Rather than assuming that peers in the same team or business unit are able to evaluate one anothers work, base 360-degree feedback on peers actual knowledge of one anothers work.
When peer input is based on knowledge of one anothers work rather than the formal organization chart, the performance management system is more likely to correctly identify enterprise contributors. For example, the performance management system correctly identifies 63% of enterprise contributors when peers only provide feedback when they understand how their work relates to their peers work.
CROWDSOURCE FEEDBACK BASED on EMPLOYEE KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR PEERS WORK, Not org CHARTS
Identification of Enterprise Contributors by Criteria for Providing 360-Degree Feedback
Percentage of Enterprise Contributors Who Are Correctly Rated Knowledge of Work 63% 55% 55%
Organizational Structure Overall Average: 35%
29%
26%
Access CEB Corporate Leadership Councils research on The Power of Peers to learn how to use peers to build engagement capital and drive peer interactions that enable effective completion of work.
n = 23,339.
Peers Provide Feedback Only When They Understand How Their Work Relates to Their Peers' Work
Peers Provide Feedback Only When They Have Shadowed or Observed Their Peers' Work
Peers Provide Peers Provide Peers Provide Feedback Only for Feedback Only for Feedback Only Individuals Who When They Have a Individuals in the Report to the Same Same Business Unit Close Working Manager Relationship with Their Peers
CROWDSOURCED ASSOCIATE EVALUATIONS
Overview W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc.s unique approach to management requires use of peer-based performance evaluations. Because employees at Gore (referred to as associates) do not have traditional day-to-day managers, Gore crowdsources evaluation of its associates. Gores crowdsourced approach enables it to overcome common pitfalls of 360-degree feedback, such as poor quality and questionable sources of feedback. Solution highlights Gore drives the quality of its crowdsourced evaluations in three ways:
Identify peer inputters based on knowledge of peers workIdentify potential sources of input based on visibility into peers work rather than formal reporting relationships. Solicit peer feedback about the value of associates contributions to enterprise successSolicit input on peers broad contributions to the enterprise rather than detailed performance criteria (e.g., specific job objectives, competencies, and behaviors). Identify and explore anomalies in peer performance inputsReconcile peer feedback by surfacing divergent or contradictory feedback on any given associate.
Company Snapshot W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc. Industry: Manufacturing 2011 Revenue: US$3 Billion 2011 Employees: 9,500 Headquarters: United States Key Regions of Associates in Operation: 30countries Founded in 1958, Gore is a privately held company headquartered in Newark, Delaware. Gore has associates in 30 countries, with manufacturing facilities in the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, Japan and China, and sales offices around the world. Gores fluoropolymer products provide innovative solutions in electronics, medical products, and with high-performance fabrics, including GORE-TEX.
Gore relies on peer feedback, rather than manager feedback, to evaluate employee performance.
Gore relies on Contribution Committees to manage the quality of peer feedback.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AT GORE

Gores Approach to Evaluating Employee Performance
Gores Approach to Calibrating Performance Evaluations

To manage the quality of peer feedback, Gore uses a series of Contribution Committees, small groups of four to eight leaders with in-depth knowledge of a particular associate group.
Associates at Gore do not have traditional dayto-day managers. Instead, management at Gore consists of sponsors (e.g., career coaches) and leaders. To provide input on employee performance (referred to as associates), Gore relies strongly on peer feedback.
Role of Contribution Committee: Contribution Committees operate similarly to traditional manager-led calibration sessions, calibrating performance rankings and making compensation and development decisions. Committee members are typically functional leaders or experts. Role of Committee Chair: Each committee is headed by a chair with responsibility for managing the input process for their associate group. Committee Chair
Evaluated Employee
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
Component 4
Results
Crowdsourced performance evaluations, can be less effective if evaluations are poorly identified, relevant feedback is not provided, and feedback is ineffectively reconciled.
Gore crowdsources performance inputs by: Identifying peer inputters based on knowledge of peers work; Filtering sources by allowing peers to opt out; Soliciting peer feedback about the value of associates contributions to the enterprise; and Surfacing anomalies in performance inputs.

Common Challenges with Peer Evaluations
1 Poor identification
of appropriate peer evaluators
2 Inability of peers to
provide relevant feedback on most evaluation criteria
3 Ineffective reconciliation
of peer inputs in final performance evaluation
Underlying Reasons
Organizations identify peer evaluators based on the organization chart.
Organizations seek feedback for an abundance of overly specific criteria.
Managers/leaders overvalue the peer feedback most consistent with their own perspectives.
Gores Crowdsourced Associate Evaluations
1 Identify peer inputters

based on knowledge of peers work.
3 Solicit peer feedback
2 Filter feedback sources

by allowing potential inputters to opt out.
Potential Inputters for Engineering Function Illustrative
Tim
about the value of associates contributions to enterprise success using one question.
4 Identify and explore
anomalies in peer performance inputs.
Peer Ranking Form

Name of Inputter: Jason White Function: Procurement
Rank associates in order of highest to lowest contribution. Consider their contributions to the enterprise over the past 12 months. Please provide comments where possible to support your ranking.
Agenda for Contribution Meetings (Excerpt)
Review aggregate peer ranking reports. Discuss each associate and their appropriate placement on the contribution list. Identify associates with performance issues. Determine placement of associates new to the enterprise. Take a diversity scan to ensure fairness in rankings. Create final ranking list.
Blanc, Engineer Clark, Engineer John Smith, Engineer Jason White, Technician Scott Cole, Quality Officer Jacque Foster, Engineering Lead Jose Flores, Technical Lead Kristen Hayes, Quality Lead
Wanda
Associate
Tom Blanc, Engineer
Rank
3
Comments
Pioneered the idea of focusing on both consumables and hardware for better integration of functions Work on consumable components has substantially reduced supplier dependencies
Wanda Clark, Engineer
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
Component 4
Results
Rather than limit feedback sources to associates formal relationships, Gore identifies potential sources based on their visibility into peers work.
Committee chairs are leaders responsible for determining which peers are best-suited to provide input on one another; this ensures feedback sources (referred to as inputters) for a particular function or associate group provide diverse but knowledgebased perspectives. To refine the functional lists, committee chairs consult leaders, senior associates, and experts to identify individuals with sight intothat particular functionswork. Gore shares lists of inputters with associates, allowing them to suggest additional inputters if their contributions are not appropriately represented.
IDENTIFY RELEVANT FEEDBACK SOURCES BASED ON sight INTO Associates WORK

Source Potential Peer Inputters Based on Their Knowledge of Others Work 1 Committee Chairs Prepare 2 Associates Validate Potential
Feedback Sources
Preliminary Lists of Inputters Potential Inputters for Engineering Function Illustrative

Considerations for Identifying Potential Inputters Committee chairs create lists of 5to 30 associates in one function or work group. They refine lists byconsidering:
Peers frequently interacting across functions; Peers on cross-functional teams or projects; and Functional or project leads who are likely to have visibility into associates work.
Tim Blanc, Engineer Wanda Clark, Engineer John Smith, Engineer Jason White, Technician Scott Cole, Quality Officer Jacque Foster, Engineering Lead Jose Flores, Technical Lead Kristen Hayes, Quality Lead
Associates review the publicized lists of inputters, appealing to the committee chair to add peers if they feel they are not appropriately represented. Committee chairs may:
Add the suggested inputter to the functional list or Seek one-off feedback if it is relevant only to the concerned associate
Overview of the Committee Chair Role
The committee chair is typically a leader with: 1) deep knowledge of a particular function, 2) cross-functional expertise, and 3) understanding of the broader business. Committee chairs are responsible for developing inputter lists and otherwise managing the input process for the associates on their respective lists.
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
Component 4
Results
To ensure the relevance of peer feedback, inputters may opt out of providing feedback.
Potential inputters may decline to provide feedback for a peer on their list if they lack sufficient knowledge about the contributions of that associate.
ALLOW PEERS TO DECLINE FEEDBACK REQUESTS

Inputters May Decline Feedback Requests Depending on Their Knowledge of an Associates Contributions
Considerations for Providing Feedback About Your Peers Review the list of considerations below to ensure you are able to provide effective feedback to your peers. You must have:

Knowledge of at least one contribution Knowledge of the impact of their contributions on project, functional, divisional, or enterprise success Ability to support your input with direct evidence
You may opt not to provide feedback under the following circumstances: Final Inputter List Illustrative

You have had few direct interactions with the associate. You worked together for a very short span of time. You lack understanding of your peers job or functional expectations.
Tim Blanc, Engineer Wanda Clark, Engineer John Smith, Engineer Jason White, Technician Scott Cole, Quality Officer Jacque Foster, Engineering Lead Jose Flores, Technical Lead Kristen Hayes, Quality Lead
Gore runs workshops to educate associates on the contribution process, including how to think about contributions and when to opt out of providing feedback.
Unlike typical approaches for collecting peer feedback, inputters are not specifically asked to consider strengths and weaknesses but rather contributions to the enterprise.
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
Component 4
Results
Inputters rank associates in order of the value of their contributions rather than by their progress against detailed performance criteria.
Traditional performance systems require performance inputs across a wide range of detailed criteria such as specific job objectives, competencies, and behaviors that mask an associates real impact on enterprise success. Gore inputters provide qualitative comments to justify their rankings and may give the same rank to multiple individuals if their contributions are of equal value. Specifically, inputters consider the impact, effectiveness, and behavioral alignment of their peers contributions.
SOLICIT INPUT ON BROAD CONTRIBUTIONS RATHER THAN DETAILED PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Inputters Rank Peers Based on the Impact, Effectiveness, and Behavioral Alignment of Their Contributions
Peer Ranking Form Name of Inputter: Jason White Function: Procurement
Rank associates in order of highest to lowest contribution. Consider their contributions to the enterprise over the past 12 months. Please provide comments where possible to support your ranking.
Inputters provide qualitative comments to justify their rankings. Comments highlight the contribution itself as well as the outcome or overall value of the contribution.
Associate
Tom Blanc, Engineer
Rank
3
Comments
Pioneered the idea of focusing on both consumables and hardware for better integration of functions Work on consumable components has substantially reduced supplier dependencies.
Wanda Clark, Engineer
Considerations for Determining Peers Contributions1
What was the impact of this associates contribution? How effective was this associates contribution? Did the associates behavior align with our enterprise values when making this contribution?
See Appendix M for more details.
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
Component 4
Results
Contribution committees analyze and interpret peer feedback to surface divergent or contradictory feedback on any given associate and then reconcile that feedback.
Contribution committees, headed by committee chairs and comprised of a small group of functional leaders, review each peer to determine his or her final placement on the list. Committee members pay particular attention to anomalies for each associate, such as a significant increase or decrease in ranking compared to the previous year, wide spread in rankings, and their consistency. To reconcile anomalies, contribution committees gather additional feedback about associates contributions and reconsider inputters abilities to provide feedback.
SURFACE AND RECONCILE ANOMALIES IN PEER INPUT TO ENSURE ACCURACY

Contribution Committees Surface Potential Discrepancies in Peer Rankings Before Finalizing Rank-Ordered Contribution Lists
Indicators of Anomalies in Peer Inputs Agenda for Contribution Meetings (Excerpt)

Review aggregate peer ranking reports. Discuss each associate and his or her appropriate placement on the contribution list. Identify associates with performance issues. Determine placement of associates new to the enterprise. Take a diversity scan to ensure fairness in rankings. Create final ranking list.
Aggregate ranking reports help contribution committees compare peer inputs to quickly identify associates with inconsistent rankings. To surface anomalies, contribution committees pay particular attention to the following:
Significant increase in an associates ranking from the previous year Significant decrease in an associates ranking from the previous year Wide variation in rankings for a given associate Highly consistent rankings for a given associate
Approaches for Reconciling Anomalies in Peer Input

Request additional information directly from the associate in question. Request additional feedback from an associates leader. Reconsider inputters ability to provide relevant feedback.
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
Component 4
Results
Gores approach for crowdsourcing associate feedback drives fairness and inclusion of the contribution process.
Associate satisfaction with performance management is reflected in Gores repeated appearance on Fortunes list of the 100 Best Companies to Work For.
EFFECTIVE CROWDSOURCING DRIVES FAIRNESS AND inclusion

Associates Indicate That Gores Contribution Process Is Fair and Inclusive What matters most to our enterprise is an associates total contribution to our successthis is one of the biggest factors that drives collective contribution versus individual execution. By focusing on this, our associates feel that our contribution process is fair and inclusive. While our data collection process may evolve over time, the three fundamentals that make our process successful will stay the same: 1) capturing total contribution to the enterprise, 2) collecting broad input, and 3) committee-based decision making.
Mary Tilley Global Human Resources Leader Gore
Gore and Among Fortunes 100 Best Companies to Work For1

Fortune, 2009 Fortune, 2010 Fortune, 2011 Fortune, 2012
Gore earned the number-38 spot on the 2012 list of Fortunes, 100Best Companies to Work For. Gore is among just five workplaces to appear on every edition of the US 100 Best Companies to Work For rankings since they debuted in 1984. This includes each Fortune list as well as three books by the same name.
To pick the 100 Best Companies to Work For, Fortune partners with the Great Place to Work Institute to conduct an extensive employee survey. Twothirds of a companys score is based on the results of the institutes Trust Index survey, assessing employees attitudes about managements credibility, job satisfaction and camaraderie. The other third is based on responses to the Institutes Culture Audit, assessing pay and benefit programs, hiring practices, internal communication, training, recognition programs, and diversity.
Source: Company Has Appeared in Every Listing of the 100 Best Companies to Work For, Press Release, 19 January 2012.
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
Results
GUIDE TO USING PEER FEEDBACK IN PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

Use this guide to effectively use peer feedback for performance assessments. This guide helps organizations develop evaluation criteria that peers can effectively answer and also provides questions for managers to identify peers who are best-suited to provide feedback on a given employee. Tips for Developing Effective Evaluation Criteria for Peer Feedback Ask for feedback on a few broad criteria, rather than a list of precise, specific criteria that are difficult for most peers to address (e.g., skills, behaviors, competencies, specific strengths and weaknesses). Ensure that questions:

Questions for Managers to Identify Appropriate Peers to Evaluate Performance Managers must identify peers based on knowledge of employees work rather than employees formal relationships. They should do so by considering the following questions: Yes 1. Does the peer have regular work-related interactions with this employee? 2. Did the peer work with this employee on a shared project or toward a common goal? 3. Does the peer have a high degree of sight into this employees work, skills, and knowledge? 4. Does the peer have knowledge of the impact of this employees work? 5. Has the peer worked with this employee for a sufficient length of time? If you answered yes to at least one of the above questions, consider this peer as a possible source of performance feedback. No
Evaluate the overall quality of employees work, and Evaluate the overall value or impact of employees work on peer, project, team, or organizational success.
Questions can evaluate the work of one employee or can ask peers to identify the employee(s) they work with who provide the greatest overall value.
Sample Peer Evaluation Questions To what extent do you agree with the following statements about this peer: Provides value to my work Provides value to the group Contributes value-adding suggestions and/or information Identifies opportunities for improvement Consistently meets quality expectations Delivers on his or her commitments Of all the people you work with Which person leaving would have the most negative impact on your own performance? Who provides greatest value to you personally? Who provides greatest value to the organization (or function, department, or business unit)?
EVALUATE ENTERPRISE CONTRIBUTORS WITH THE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

1. The typical performance management system substantially over-weights evaluation of individual task performance compared to network performance (83% and 17%, respectively). 2. Only 22% of enterprise contributors are correctly identified when performance criteria assesses only past accomplishments, but 67% are correctly identified when organizations include future-focused criteria. 3. Seventy percent of managers collect feedback from at least two other sources, but it does not improve identification of enterprise contributors.
Implications for HR
1. Evaluate an employees future capabilities and alignment to the organization along with past accomplishments. 2. Source peer evaluators based on their knowledge of one anothers work rather than just the organization chart.
Chapter III: Build Enterprise Contribution Through Role Design
86

1 2 3 4





o
Knowledge Advocates
Chapter III: Build Enterprise Contribution Through Role Design87
Employees roles are more interdependent and change more frequently than in the past.
Work requires more collaboration and coordination with others compared to three years ago for 67% and 60% of employees, respectively. Sixty-three percent of employees report an increase in the frequency of organizational objectives. In addition, 67% of employees agree that their roles are more complex than ever before.
Employees Roles are More Complex Than Ever

Greater Amount of Collaboration Required
Change in Work That Requires Collaboration with Others in the Past Three Years by Percentage of Employees
3% Decreased
Greater Amount of Coordination Required

Change in Number of Individuals Involved in Daily Work in the Past Three Years by Percentage of Employees
8% Decreased
30% Remained the Same
67% Increased
32% Stayed the Same
60% Increased
Frequent Changes in Organizational Objectives

Frequency of Changes in Organizational Objectives in the Past Three Years by Percentage of Employees
3% Decreased
Increased Complexity of Roles

Percentage of Employees Who Agree That Their Job Is More Complex Than It Used to Be
Work used to be simple; cause and effect was obvious. Now, youre lucky if someone can describe their job to youits hard to understand how the work actually gets done.
Chief Human Resources Officer Government
34% Stayed the Same
63% Increased
33% Disagree
67% Agree
n = 23,339.
Source: CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council High Performance Survey 2012.
The common response to increasing complexity among organizations is to try to simplify employees work.
Most employees agree that their managers and organizations try to simplify their work. Managers efforts to simplify roles are well meaning, but over simplification can narrow the potential impact employees have on the organizations and others performance.
Organizations Try to Simplify roles to Drive Performance

My Manager Tries to Simplify My Work
My Organization Tries to Simplify My Work

80% Agree
82% Agree
n = 23,339.
Although simplifying work provides small performance benefits, helping employees navigate more complex roles has substantially more impact on enterprise contribution.
Simplification strategies narrow employees potential for impact by removing responsibilities, relationships, and resources that support enterprise contribution. Helping employees understand and navigate their complex roles improves enterprise contribution without removing opportunities for impact.
Navigation Support is More Effective Than Simplification

Maximum Impact on Enterprise Contribution by Type of Strategy
Average Impact of Simplification Strategies: 2% Average Impact of Navigation Strategies: 9%
11% 11%
7%
7%
4%
4%
<0% 1%
0%
Organizations Help Employees Simplify Their Roles Managers Help Employees Navigate Complex Roles Organizations Help Employees Navigate Complex Roles
The bottom line is that we need to spend more time helping people understand and deal with complexity and less time concocting dumbing-down mechanisms.
Dan Ariely Professor of Behavioral Economics Duke University
Managers Help Employees Simplify Their Roles
Why Simplification Strategies Have Less Impact They narrow the scope of employees roles. They remove potentially valuable relationships. They limit the information employees access and use in their work.
Source: Harvard Business Review, What Was the Question? September 2011, http://hbr.org/2011/09/what-was-the-question/ar/1; CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council High Performance Survey 2012.
ENABLING EMPLOYEES TO NAVIGATE COMPLEX ROLES

Key Characteristics of Enterprise Contributor Role Design
Supporting Navigation of Complex Roles
Key Role Design Questions
What activities should I focus on?
What do I need from my manager?
How should I work with others?
Insight
Collaboration MBOs are not sufficient to drive enterprise contribution.
Filtering information and activities to simplify work can actually harm enterprise contribution.
Employees roles must reflect how they work with others, not just their tasks.
HR Imperatives
1. Update role expectations to direct network performance, not just individual tasks.
2. Boost manager effectiveness at facilitating and advising.
3. Design roles based on key relationships, not just tasks.
Impact on Enterprise Contribution
Improves enterprise contribution by up to 10%
CNAs Knowledge Advocates
Manager Resource Portal https://clc.executiveboard. com/Members/Portals/ ManagerResourcePortal.aspx
Legos Relationship-Based Role Charters
Organizations have communicated to employees the importance of broader impact but believe this impact needs to occur organically.
Nearly 80% of employees have a collaboration MBO; however, collaboration MBOs have little impact on enterprise contribution. Many organizations minimize directives for network performance because they believe it must occur informally to provide benefits.
ORGANIZATIONS COMMUNICATE the IMPORTANCE OF BROADER IMPACT BUT DONT CLARIFY Opportunities
Percentage of Employees with a Collaboration MBO Organizations Hesitate to Direct Network Performance Collaboration needs to happen organically; you cant get in employees way or you will stifle their innovation.
77% Yes
23% No
HR Director Technology Organization
What we need is a culture that supports broader contribution. Maximum Impact on Enterprise Contribution of Collaboration MBOs
Vice President, HR Consumer Products Organization
1%
Collaboration and innovation have definitely been incorporated into our key values and behaviors.
Vice President, HR Professional Services Organization
My Performance Objectives Include Collaboration
Ensuring employees understand how their work fits in with the broader organization is an important aspect of role clarity that facilitates enterprise contribution.
Organizations should provide specificity and awareness on opportunities for network performance, just as they do for individual task performance, to drive enterprise contribution. In addition to traditional role specificity, organizations need to focus on building role awareness. Building role awareness includes helping employees see who they need to work with, how to prioritize their work, and how their work impacts others in the organization.
Clarify Opportunities for Broader Impact, Not Just Individual Contribution

Maximum Impact on Enterprise Contribution of Role Clarity
Employees need awareness and clarity on opportunities for impact, not just individual tasks and responsibilities, to achieve enterprise contribution.
Role Awareness
Role Specificity
10%
10% 7%
6%
5%
4%
It Is Clear to Me Who Should Be Involved in My Work
I Can Easily Identify Which Tasks and Responsibilities Are Most Important
I Understand How My Work Impacts Other Parts of the Organization
My Role and Responsibilities Are Reviewed Regularly
My Role and Responsibilities Are Specific
My Role and Responsibilities Are WellDefined
Percentage of Employees with Role Awareness 30%
Percentage of Employees with Role Specificity 11%
Knowledge Advocates
Overview As the knowledge needed to perform becomes increasingly complex and dispersed, CNA requires new mechanisms to share expertise across the organization so that it reaches the point of sale. Solution highlights CNA identifies Advocates among its underwriter population and adjusts their roles to include explicit responsibility for using their expertise across the organization at the point of sale. CNAs approach is characterized by four key components: Use Advocates to Maximize the Application of Critical KnowledgeCNA limits the use of Advocates to gaps in business-critical knowledge where application of deep expertise is needed.
Select Advocates Based on Ability to Influence, Not Just ExpertiseCNA selects individuals with a threshold level of expertise and the ability to influence to serve as Advocates, ensuring the best people are scaling their impact. Enable Knowledge Application, Not Just Knowledge SharingAdvocates are responsible for putting their expertise into action; CNA provides guidance to consumers of support, not just Advocates, to ensure they identify and take advantage of valuable opportunities for support. Sustain Participation Through Formal Expectations and Career BenefitsThe Advocate role provides greater exposure and impact than is commonly available in branch offices and is incorporated into an employees formal responsibilities.
Company Snapshot CNA Financial Corporation Industry: Insurance 2011 Revenue: US$8.95 Billion 2011 Employees: 7,600 Headquarters: Chicago Key Regions of North America Operation: and Europe CNA Financial is the seventh largest US commercial insurer and the 13th largest US property and casualty insurer. The company provides insurance protection to more than one million businesses and professionals in the US and internationally.
As the knowledge needed to perform becomes increasingly complex and dispersed, CNA requires new mechanisms to share expertise across the organization so that it reaches the point of sale.
To succeed in their jobs, general underwriters must serve customers across numerous segments, use a wide variety of products, and deliver expertise at the point of sale. A limited number of employees with deep product and segment specialization are distributedin the branches and centralized in the homeoffice. Because of the breadth of expertise required, training is not a viable solution to fill knowledge gaps; one individual cannot be expected to possess all the expertise required to serve abroad and diverse group ofcustomers.
CNA Requires a Way to Bring Varied, Deep Expertisetothe Point of Sale

Home OfficeChicago
Financial Services Product Group Health Care Product Group
Technology Product Group Manufacturing Product Group
Richmond, VA Branch Office Sarah Evans General Underwriter All Segments Claire Dunn General Underwriter All Segments
Houston, TX Branch Office Phillip Burns General Underwriter All Segments Tom Smith General Underwriter All Segments
Atlanta, GA Branch Office Thomas Wells General Underwriter All Segments Jane King Dedicated Underwriter (Expert) Technology
Background
Challenge
Has basic knowledge of multiple segments Needs deeper manufacturing expertise for a call this week Needs deeper health care expertise for a call next week
Manufacturing and health care expertise is centralized in home office No manageable avenue exists to connect underwriters to home office experts
Challenge
Solution Overview
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Component 4
CNAs Advocate role scales dispersed experts impact by creating targeted opportunities for influence, rather than relying on broad, informal networking strategies.
A more targeted approach reduces the noise associated with broader knowledge strategies and provides greater returns on time investments by focusing on individuals who are best equipped to scale critical expertise. In addition to providing a more structured approach for knowledge sharing, the Advocate group allows CNA to more efficiently communicate and implement changes to product and sales strategies.
Solution: Use a Targeted Group of Advocates to Share Critical Expertise

CNAs Knowledge Advocates CNA identifies 100 Advocates among its underwriter population and adjusts their roles to include explicit responsibility for using their expertise across the organization at the point of sale.
CNAs Advocate Approach Differs from Other Knowledge Sharing Strategies in Four Key Ways 1 Scope
Typical Knowledge Sharing Strategy Broad Encompasses a wide variety of topics
2 Participation
OpenSeeks participants largely based on interest
3 Activity
Knowledge SharingDrives knowledge sharing only
4 Incentives
Informal Sustains participation through informal mechanisms
CNAs Knowledge Advocate Approach
Focused Prioritizes topics based on criticality of knowledge and customer needs
Selective Seeks participants based on ability to influence, not just expertise and interest
Knowledge Application Drives the application of knowledge, not just knowledge sharing
Formal Sustains participation through formal accountability and career opportunity
Challenge
Solution Overview
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Component 4
CNA limits the use of Advocates to only address in businesscritical knowledge where application of deep expertise is needed.
CNA compares the level of knowledge needed and the way in which it will be applied by different employee groups to identify where Advocates areneeded. CNA identifies critical expertise based on the organizations strategy and objectives; it could take numerous formssuch as geography, product, or skill expertisedepending on the needs of the organization and its customers. Advocates are not used in situations where knowledge needs can be met through other mechanisms (e.g., training, resource portals, e-mail updates).
Use Advocates to Maximize the ApplicationofCritical Knowledge

Identification of Critical Knowledge and Levels of Expertise Required by Different Employee Groups
Key Questions to Identify Critical Knowledge 1. What knowledge most impacts our ability to serve our customers? 2. What knowledge differentiates us from our competitors? 3. What knowledge supports the organizations growth strategy?
Critical Area of Knowledge Manufacturing Technology Health Care ... General Population Level of Support Required
Central Communications
Access to Resources
Checklist to Identify Employee Needs
1. How does this group use this knowledge in their role? 2. How often do they use the information? 3. What do they do with the information (e.g., make decisions, inform projects, interact with customers)? 4. In what format do they use the information (e.g., brainstorming, written communication, verbal communication)? 5. How many other types of knowledge does this person need to perform their role (i.e., can we fill the gap with training?)? 6. What format/delivery mechanism best meets this groups needs?
1
General underwriters serve customers across segments and need an Advocate to expand and update their expertise. Dedicatedunderwriters are already experts in the one segment they serve and therefore do not require Advocate support.
Challenge
Solution Overview
Component 1
Component 2
Deep Expertise
Dedicated Underwriters
Deep Expertise
Component 3
Deep Expertise
Training
General Underwriters
CNA only uses Advocates to fill gaps in critical knowledge where application of deep expertise is needed.1
Component 4
CNA selects individuals with a threshold level of expertise and the ability to influence to serve as Advocates, ensuring the best people are scaling their impact.
HR and field office managers partner to identify potential Advocates among underwriters in the field. Advocates must possess expertise associated with an identified knowledge gap, be willing to take on Advocate responsibilities as part of their formal role, and be able to influence without authority.
Select Advocates Based on Ability to Influence, Not Just Expertise

CNAs Advocate Identification Filters
Field Employees (540)
Key Identifiers of Threshold Expertise 1. Does this person have the expertise andexperience we need to fill aparticular gap? or 2. Does this person have enough experience and expertise that we can upskill him/her fairly quickly? 3. Has this person demonstrated an ability to apply that expertise to a variety of problems and customer interactions? 4. Has this person proactively maintained and expanded theirknowledge over time? Advocates (100)
Key Identifiers of Ability ToInfluence
Threshold Expertise
Filter 1:
1. Collaboration: Have they achieved results in an environment of differing personalities and conflicting goals? 2. Credibility: Are they someone colleagues go to for support? 3. Impact: Have they demonstrated the ability to have an impact without authority? False Identifiers of Ability toInfluence Seniority These may contribute Visibility to the criteria above but alone are not sufficient Tenure to determine influence.
Interest
Filter 2:
Influence
Filter 3:
Challenge
Solution Overview
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Component 4
Advocates create a new channel of communication and support between their branch or territory and the home office, enabling application of critical knowledge across the organization.
While communication and knowledge sharing is part of the Advocates role, the Advocate is also responsible for putting his or her expertise into action to support business outcomes.
Enable Knowledge Application, Not Just Knowledge Sharing

Four Key Areas for Action Excerpt from CNAs Advocate Role Description
1 Strategy Advising
Example: Jane provides feedback on the home offices proposed changes to the manufacturing product strategy.
Advocate Role The Advocate plays a key role toward sustaining, developing, and driving the growth of an assigned customer segment. Time Commitment: 1525% Key Areas of Responsibility 1. Communications and Advisory Liaise between the field and the segment office. Stay up-to-date on industry trends. Promote internal awareness of segment and product knowledge. 2. Internal Support Assist in recognizing and addressing training needs. Facilitate branch sessions to share ideas. Collaborate with line of business owners to maximize segment profitability. 3. Effective Point of Sale Execution Participate in customer marketing efforts. Assist in resolving segment execution issues in thebranch. Establish connections within underwriting that promote segment growth.
2 Training and Education

Example: Jane conducts training sessions in her territory to embed recentchanges to manufacturing productofferings.
3 Colleague Support
Example: Jane works with underwriters who have requested her assistance in preparing for an upcoming meeting with acustomer in the manufacturing segment.
4 Customer Interaction Support

Example: Jane joins an underwriter in the Atlanta office on a call with a customer in the manufacturing segment.
Challenge
Solution Overview
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Component 4
CNA provides guidance to consumers of support, not just Advocates, to ensure they identify and take advantage of the most valuable opportunities for support.
Based on the organizations needs, Advocates may be responsible for support within their branch office, or across their entire territory; all Advocates provide support and feedback to the home office on behalf of their branch.
Enable Knowledge Application, Not Just Knowledge Sharing (Continued)

Guide Use, Not Just Delivery, of Advocate Support
CNA Helps Three Groups Identify Opportunities for Support 1. Home Office Home Office seeks out Advocate feedbackor support to implement strategic changes. Scope of Advocate Impact
Home Office Manufacturing Product Development Group Chicago
2. Underwriters Underwriters seek out Advocates forsupport:
Internal communications and an intranet portal inform underwriters of who their Advocates are. More detailed guidelines for using Advocates are currently in development.
Jane King Manufacturing Knowledge Advocate Atlanta, GA Branch Atlanta Branch Office Southeast Territory
Virtual or Face-to-Face Support? When providing support outside their branch, Advocates typically provide virtual support. On some occasions they might travel with the Underwriter.
3. Advocates Advocates proactively identify opportunities for training and support:
Workshops provide Advocates with tips for building expertise and supporting segment strategy in their territories.
Challenge
Solution Overview
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Component 4
The Advocate role provides greater exposure and impact than is commonly available in branch offices and is incorporated into an employees formal responsibilities.
While the Advocate role does not change an employees title or hierarchical authority, it does provide a unique opportunity for impact and exposure not commonly available to underwriters in branch offices. The Advocates role is incorporated into an employees formal job responsibilities and is evaluated as part of his or her annual performancereview. The Advocate role also provides an additional career path into product roles in the home office.
Sustain Participation Through Formal Expectations and Career Benefits

Excerpt from CNAs Advocate Role Description
Advocate Role The Advocate plays a key role toward sustaining, developing, and driving the growth of an assigned customer segment. Time Commitment: 1525% Key Areas of Responsibility: 1. Communications and Advisory Liaise between the field and the segment office. Stay up-to-date on industry trends. Promote internal awareness of segment and product knowledge. 2. Internal Support Assist in recognizing and addressing training needs. Facilitate branch sessions to share ideas. Collaborate with line of business owners to maximize segment profitability. 3. Effective Point of Sale Execution Participate in customer marketing efforts. Assist in resolving segment execution issues in the branch. Establish connections within underwriting that promote segment growth. Impact The Advocate is responsible for supporting larger business objectives associated with his or her expertise, not informal communication or networking.
Exposure Advocates interact with and influence a variety of stakeholders, from peer underwriters to branch and home officeleaders.
Accountability Advocates are rated against the three key areas of responsibility in their formal performance reviews.1
CNA is currently investigating whether sales targets associated with the Advocate role should be included in addition to the existing sales targets Advocates have as underwriters.
Challenge
Solution Overview
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Component 4

Insight
HR Imperatives
Managers drive enterprise contribution by providing guidance and facilitating connections, not filtering information and activities.
Managers often try to simplify work for employees by narrowing their focus, removing stakeholders, and filtering information. However, facilitating relationships and advising helps employees better navigate the complexity in their roles and drives enterprise contribution. Managers should facilitate the right relationships and provide helpful context and advice that helps employees understand their role and effectively prioritize their work.
Managers Should Advise and Facilitate, Not Filter

Maximum Impact on Enterprise Contribution of Manager Activities
Facilitation and Advising Help Employees Navigate Complexity
Facilitate Relationships Provide Context and Advice
Filtering Activities and Information Simplifies Work

Filter Activities Filter Information
8%
7% 6%
7% 6%
Prefers That I Go to Him or Her for Information Provides Information on a Need-to-Know Basis
<0% 1%
Explains Why Organizational Decisions Are Made Explains How Organizational Decisions Affect Me Connects Me with Coworkers Helps Me Manage Stakeholders Helps Me Understand My Role Assigns a New Task After My Existing Tasks Are Complete
<0% 1%
Requires Me to Work in a Particular Way
(2%) (4%)
n = 23,339. Note: The maximum impact on enterprise contribution is calculated by comparing two statistical estimates: the predicted impact when an employee scores relatively high on a driver and the predicted value when an employee scores relatively low on a driver. The effects of all drivers aremodeled using a variety of multivariate regressions with controls.
Provide this guide to managers to help them provide balanced support that enables the right level of autonomy among their direct reports.
Manager Guide: Help Direct Reports Navigate Complex roles

Provide Balanced Support Advise eek Employee Input: Seek employees input into how S best to prioritize and complete work; provide guidance if you think they are off track. Seeking employees input shifts ownership to the employee but still enables you to provide direction if needed. rovide Context or Decisions, Not Just Results: Help P employees understand why and how decisions are made at the organization; help them consider how those decisions might affect their work. Providing context on decisions helps employees make better decisions regarding their work, including projects and tasks into which you have limited visibility. Avoid Extremes: Controlling and Abdication icromanaging: Dont over-focus on execution and distract from the desired end result. M Micromanaging hinders an employees ability to recognize opportunities for broader impact, slows stakeholder management, and puts an unnecessary burden on managers time. atekeeping: Dont expect employees to get all their information through you. G Gatekeeping slows the speed with which an employee can access information and resources and may even prevent them from obtaining the most relevant and accurate inputs into their work. iltering: Dont only provide information to employees on a need-to-know basis. F Hoarding lowers an employees ability to identify sources of support or opportunities for broader impact based on organizational context and knowledge of coworkers needs. isengaging: Dont overly detach from employees work and expect total independence. D While employees need more independence to perform in the current work environment, they still require guidance and direction to succeed. Too much autonomy can be just as damaging to performance as not enough autonomy. Facilitate elp Navigate Stakeholder Relationships: Help H employees understand the priorities and motivations of individual stakeholders, as well as the dynamics of relationships among stakeholders. As more stakeholders become involved in employees work, it is critical that they be able to manage those relationships without constant manager intervention. onnect Employees to Critical Colleagues: Encourage C employees to independently seek input from colleagues and peers; direct employees to key individuals who they can support or benefit from. Employees work is more interdependent than ever, making access to key relationships a critical driver of success.
CEB Corporate Leadership Council manager portal provides templates, e-learning, guides, and tools to support managers in all stages of the employee life cycle.
CEB Corporate Leadership Council Manager Portal

Insight
HR Imperatives
Increased reliance on others to achieve results means that employees roles need to be designed to maximize relationships, not just processes or tasks.
Relationship-Based Roles: Connect employees to critical coworkers. Build for tasks and timelines of critical coworkers. Shift based on who employees need to workwith. Shift based on changes to others work. Shift based on coworkers strengths andweaknesses.
Design Roles to Support Key Relationships, Not Just Tasks

Maximum Impact of Role Focus on Enterprise Contribution
Relationship-Based Roles Task-Based Roles
13%
11% 9% 8% 6% 6% 4%
0% < 1%
I Can Determine How I Work with Others to Achieve Objectives I Work with Colleagues to Prioritize Tasks and Responsibilities I Can Adjust My Role as Relationships and Stakeholders Change I Can Negotiate My Role and Responsibilities with Colleagues Unimportant Tasks AreRegularly Removed from My Work My Job Should Be Done the Way It Has Been Done in the Past I Can Define My Job on Key Relationships My Role Is Structured on Standard Work Procedures
0% < 1%
My Role Is Best Done the Way It Has Always Been Done
0% < 1%
I Am Only Assigned a New Task After an Existing Task Has Been Completed
Task-Based Roles: Rigidly define the resources, inputs, outputs, and time spend of employee activities. Provide clear direction. Shift based on changes to manager, leader, or organizational goals.
Percentage of Employees with Relationship-Based Roles 20%
Percentage of Employees with Task-Based Roles 80%
To achieve strong growth, The LEGO Groups leaders reorient their job roles based on their relationships with key co-producers,1 rather than just their tasks and accountabilities.
To help leaders rethink their roles based on relationships, The LEGO Group: Frees leaders to selfassess their value Drives for mutually beneficial relationships Emphasizes behaviors
LEADERS AT THE LEGO GROUP REDESIGN ROLES BASED ON RELATIONSHIPS WITH CO-PRODUCERS
Role Charters Provide the Foundation for Reorienting Leaders Job Roles
The LEGO Groups Role Charter Template
Name:
1
Free leaders to self-assess their unique value to the organization.
Position: Purpose: 1. Accountabilities: What will I uniquely do? (This is not a list of responsibilities.) Continued Accountabilities (What I will continue to focus on/develop)
New Accountabilities (What is a new focus for me?)
2
Drive for winwin relationships by negotiating accountabilities and decision rights.
What will I uniquely contribute that nobody else will? What will I continue to focus on/develop? What will I no longer focus on/develop?
The role charter template2 is key toThe LEGO Groups leaders effectively reconsidering their job roles to better support growth.
What accountabilities would I take on if Iwas just hired? What will I uniquely contribute that isnew? What have I not focused on before that Iwill focus on in this new role?
2. Shared Accountabilities and Collaboration Areas Key Player 1
Key Player 2
Key Player 3
3
Emphasize behaviors to drive relationship quality.
For which accountabilities must Icollaborate? Who do I need to collaborate with? What role does each person play?
3. My Leadership Behavior

How will I act as a leader? What am I going to change? What do I need to focus on?
4. What are the 35 most important parameters on which I will be measured?
1 2
Co-producers refers to peers with whom a leader shares accountabilities for objectives or initiatives. Role charters were originally developed by Boston Consulting Group.
Enable Employees to Navigate Complex Roles

1. Helping employees navigate complex roles impacts enterprise contribution by as much as 9%, while simplifying work can only increase enterprise contribution up to 4%. 2. Clear roles and responsibilities are just as important for network performance as for individual task performance. 3. Manager activities used to simplify work can actually have a negative impact on enterprise contribution. 4. Only 20% of employees have roles that maximize their ability to work with others to achieve objectives.
Implications for HR
1. Invest in strategies that help employees navigate complex roles, rather than trying to remove complexity from employees work. 2. Provide clear guidelines for network responsibilities, not just individual responsibilities. 3. Boost manager effectiveness at facilitating and advising, not filtering. 4. Design roles to facilitate critical relationships, not just tasks.
Chapter IV: Drive Enterprise Contribution Through the Extended Performance Ecosystem
110

1 2 3 4





o
Knowledge Advocates
Chapter IV: Drive Enterprise Contribution Through the Extended Performance Ecosystem111
External partners and peers from outside of the immediate team can impact an employees enterprise contribution by as much as 24% and 17%, respectively.
Individuals Outside of Immediate Teams greatly impact Enterprise contribution

Maximum Impact on Enterprise Contribution of Groups Across the Performance Ecosystem
34%
29% 24%
17%
5%
Team
Manager
Coworkers Coworkers in Inside of My Business Business Unit Unit
Coworkers Coworkers Outside Outside of My Business Business Unit Unit
External External
Closer

Distance from Employee
Farther
For example

Vendors Partners Professional associations Alumni networks
Note: The maximum impact on enterprise contribution is calculated by comparing two statistical estimates: the predicted impact when an employee scores relatively high on a driver and the predicted value when an employee scores relatively low on a driver. The effects of all drivers are modeled using a variety of multivariate regressions with controls.
A majority of CEOs and employees are placing more emphasis on external partners for breakthrough performance.
In 2012, 69% of CEOs expect to work extensively with external partners compared to 55% in 2008. Further, 65% of employees indicate that they must manage external stakeholders to perform their work and 51% are increasingly working with external organizations to achieve a shared goal.
Organizations and employees increasingly look externally for collaboration

Percentage of CEOs Expecting to Work Extensively with External Partners1
69%
Percentage of CEOs
55%
2008
n = 1,626.
2012

Percentage of Employees Who Manage External Stakeholders to Get a Job Done2
Change in Employees Working with External Organizations to Achieve a Shared Goal Since 20092
6% Decreased
51% Increased 43% Stayed the Same

n = 23,339.
35% Neutral or Disagree That They Must Manage External Stakeholders

n = 23,339.
65% Agree That They Must Manage External Stakeholders
Source: IBM, Leading Through Connections: Insights from the Global IBM CEO Study, 2012, http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/en/c-suite/ ceostudy2012/. Source: CEB. CEB Corporate Leadership Council High Performance Survey, 2012.
TWO KEY CHALLENGES TO DRIVING EXTERNAL PERFORMANCE

Organizations underleverage external connections.
Key Findings
Organizations lack mechanisms to inflect performance of external partners

Impact on Average Enterprise Contributions by External Partner Collaboration Effectiveness
Organizations lack clear rules for engaging external connections.
Percentage of Employees with Effective Support for External Collaboration

28% 19%
Maximum Impact on Average Enterprise Contribution
CEB Findings
Organizations Ineffective at Collaborating with Partners
12%
(12%)
Organizations Highly Effective at Collaborating with Partners
Clear Rules for Collaborating with People Outside the Organization
Tools to Help Work with People Outside the Organizations
HR Imperatives
Ensure High Performance Across the Value Chain Through Codevelopment of Internal and External Critical Talent
Drive Quality of External Talent Using a Collaborative Approach
Embed Responsibility for Fostering External Connections into Employees Roles
Value Chain Talent Development
External Partner Talent Support
Connection-Making Exemplars
Value chain talent development
Overview Caterpillar helps critical talent build external networks that will enable their success in future leadership roles by inviting critical talent from strategic external partners to join their critical talent development program. Solution Highlights Caterpillar strengthens critical talent working relationships across the value chain by taking the following actions:
Identify Strategic External Partners to Participate in Critical Talent DevelopmentInvite critical talent from key external partners to the critical talent development program to strengthen working relationships across the value chain. Contextualize Management and Market Knowledge from External ExpertsHelp critical talent contextualize organizational theory and global economic trends by alternating discussions with external experts and senior leaders. Build Inter-Organizational Networks Through Peer Learning TeamsBuild networks across the value chain through study groups and action learning teams of external partners and internal critical talent.
Company Snapshot Caterpillar, Inc. Industry: Manufacturing 2011 Sales: Employees: Headquarters: US$60.14 Billion 127,238 United States Caterpillar is a manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, diesel and natural gas engines, industrial gas turbines and dieselelectric locomotives. The company operates in two segments: machinery and power systems, and financial products.1
OneSource Information Services, Inc., 2012.
Caterpillar invites critical talent from key external partners to their critical talent development program to strengthen working relationships across the value chain.
INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL PEER LEARNING BUILDS LASTING talent NETWORKS ACROSS VALUE CHAIN
Common Approach: Siloed Talent Development Within Own Organizations
Organization Senior Leadership Weak Working Relationship External Partner Senior Leadership
Caterpillars Approach: Inter-Organizational Talent Development

Organization Senior Leadership Strong Working Relationship External Partner Senior Leadership
Development Program Critical Talent
Development Program Critical Talent Critical Talent

InterOrganizational Development Program
Critical Talent
Entry Level
Entry Level
Entry Level
Entry Level
Unfamiliar Working Relationships: Senior leaders must quickly learn how to best work with external peers in the value chain. Inaccessible Information: Senior leaders struggle to find information about the external market and value chain needed for success in their roles. Isolated Problem Solving: Senior leaders often fail to consider implications for parts of the value chain outside of their own organizations.
Practice Overview Component 1 Component 2
Well-Established Working Relationships: Senior leaders establish working relationships with external peers early in their careers. Known Sources of Information: Senior leaders know who in their networks inside and outside of the organization can provide market information. Systems Thinking: Senior leaders consider how decisions impact all parts of the value chain instead of just their own organization.
Component 3
Results
Caterpillar invites strategically important external partners to send critical talent to participate in their critical talent development program.
IDENTIFY STRATEGIC EXTERNAL PARTNERS TO PARTICIPATE IN critical talent DEVELOPMENT

Criteria for Identifying Strategic External Partners Details of Caterpillars Digging Deep Advanced Executive Leadership Program Communicated to External Partners
Existing Confidentiality Agreements
VP, Global Purchasing
VPs, Dealer Services
1. Does the partners business performance substantially impact our business performance? 2. Does the partner conduct a substantial amount of business withus? 3. Has this partner provided consistently high-quality work forus? 4. Is this partner interested in sending their critical talent to our critical talent development program?
These partners often already have legal agreements in place to protect confidential information shared within these relationships.
External Partners Suppliers Dealers Customers
Participants From Caterpillar: Department heads Managers Critical talent considered capable of rising to the officer level From External Partners: Current senior leaders Critical talent currently in the partners succession plan Costs of Participation to External Partners Tuition costs of $60,000 perparticipant Travel costs Visa costs Benefits of Participation for External Partners Critical talent development without program cost of administering own program Improved working relationship withCaterpillar
Practice Overview
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Results
Caterpillar helps critical talent contextualize organizational theory and global economic trends by alternating discussions with external experts and senior leaders.
Caterpillar partners with faculty from Stanford University to teach the most current concepts and trends in organizational theory and the global economy. Caterpillar helps critical talent apply external knowledge and skills developed to the Caterpillar value chain through executive-led discussions. Distance learning sessions are conducted between each module on various topics; the sessions last one hour and are led via webcam by a Stanford professor; participants complete prereading to prepare for the sessions.
CONTEXTUALIZE MANAGEMENT AND MARKET KNOWLEDGE FROM EXTERNAL EXPERTS

Development Program Contextualization of External Markets and Organizational Theory
One Year
Module 1: Core Leadership Capabilities Location: Caterpillar Headquarters Length: 5 days
Module 2: Thinking About Markets Location: Xuzhou, China Length: 5 days
Module 3: Organizing for Global Markets Location: Sao Paolo, Brazil Length: 5 days
Module 4: Core Looking Forward Location: Stanford University Length: 5 days Presenters Caterpillar Officers Stanford University Faculty
Program Overview
Topics Covered Critical Analytical Thinking Innovative Design Thinking Personal Leadership
Topics Covered Strategic Leadership: Economics Strategic Leadership: Organization Design Supply Chain Macroeconomics1 International Trade1
Topics Covered Topics Covered Organizational Culture Regional and Country Organizing for Analysis Global Leadership Innovation Strategic Crisis andMarkets Managing a Global Management Change and Leadership1 Organization Marketing Globally Locations Tied to Growth Strategy Sustainability The location of module 3 may Ethics1 change based on Caterpillars
growth market focus.
Provide Most Current Information on Disciplines Most Relevant to Caterpillars and Partners Organizational Strategies Caterpillar provides critical talent with information about the external market and organizational leadership that are most critical for successfully meeting strategic challenges.
Note: The Digging Deep program is one of many programs that exist within Caterpillars leadership development framework. To view that framework, please see Appendix O.
1
Distance learning completed before next module.
PRACTICE OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
Results
Program Finale
Presenters Caterpillar Officers Stanford University Faculty
Caterpillar builds networks across the value chain through teams of external partners and internal critical talent.
By working closely together for a full year, participants build working relationships across organizations that enable future on-the-job collaboration and holistic problem solving across the value chain, not just within their own organizations.
BUILD INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS THROUGH PEER LEARNING TEAMS

Caterpillar and External Partner Collaboration Activities Throughout Development Program
Program Overview Program Finale
Module 1
Module 2
Module 3
Module 4
1. PEER REFLECTION
2. Action Learning Project
Questions for Team Discussion of Module Content

Illustrative 1. What about this module surprised us? Why are or arent these reactions different depending on which organization we work for? 2. What differences did we discover about each of our organizations based on this module? What similarities did we discover? 3. What will we do differently to better partner across the value chain as a result of what we learned in this module?
Sample Business Challenge:

Develop a process for creating a supplier park near one of Caterpillars facilities to be used in the expansion of Caterpillars facilities globally.
Virtual and In-Person Team Collaboration

Caterpillar Critical Talent External Partner Critical Talent
Having a team comprised of Caterpillar critical talent, suppliers, and dealers enabled the development of a recommendation that was radically different.
Chris Kreuser Global People and Organizational Development Manager, Human Services Division Caterpillar, Inc.
Key Principles of Action Learning

Caterpillar Critical Talent External Partner Critical Talent
Identifies root causes of challenge across value chain Considers implications of solution for all parts of value chain Identifies actions across value chain
PRACTICE OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
Results
Inviting critical talent from external partners improves the working relationships of Caterpillars critical talent, resulting in improved strategy execution.
In addition to improving working relationships and strategy execution, feedback and recommendations collected at the end of the program ensure Caterpillar continues to evolve to meet changing needs and priorities. Based on the success of inviting dealers and suppliers to participate in Digging Deep, Caterpillar is now also identifying customers for participation in the program to ensure these benefits are influencing performance at all stages of the value chain.
IMPROVED EXTERNAL WORKING RELATIONSHIPS LEAD TO BETTER EXECUTION OF STRATEGY

Impact of External Partners in Critical Talent Development Program
Inviting critical talent from our external partners to attend Digging Deep has
helped our critical talent better understand the challenges our entire value chain faces. As a result of learning and working together in study groups and action learning projects, critical talent from our organization and our external partner organizations have built lasting working relationships that we believe will (and have already started to) improve our ability to execute on our long-term organizational strategy.
Christine Kreuser Global People and Organizational Development Manager, Human Services Division Caterpillar, Inc.
PRACTICE OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
Results

Key Findings


28% 19%
CEB Findings
12%
(12%)
HR Imperatives
EXTERNAL PARTNER TALENT NETWORK
Overview Cisco sought to accelerate adoption of robust talent practices in its partner organizations to ensure its long-term market competitiveness. Solution highlights Cisco uses a collaborative approach to drive the quality of its external partners talent using the following approaches: Develop Talent Support Based on Partner Needs Rather Than Organizational NeedsEncourage, rather than mandate, use of talent resources by developing resources based on partners most pressing talent needs.
Scale Talent Offerings to Partners with Guided SupportOffer guided talent support through one-on-one relationships with partners rather than relying on communications strategies to drive their use.
Company Snapshot Cisco Networks, Inc. Industry: High Technology 2011 Revenue: US$46 Billion 2011 Employees: 66,600 Headquarters: United States Key Regions of Employees in Operation: Over165 Countries Founded in 1984 and headquartered in San Jose, California, Cisco is a worldwide leader in networking. Cisco designs, manufactures, and sells networking equipment through a vast network of partnersincluding distributors, resellers, services, and technology partners.
Cisco seeks to accelerate adoption of robust talent practices in its partner organizations to ensure its long-term market competitiveness.
Cisco traditionally prioritized technical and operational expertise for its partners but recognized that, given competition for technical talent, it should support its partners talent needs, as well. The success of its partners is critical for Ciscos own success; approximately fourfifths of Ciscos revenues are generated through partners.
CISCO Accelerates PARTNERS TALENT TO DRIVE BUSINESS RESULTS

Cisco Recognizes That the Quality of Its External Partners Talent Is Critical for Its Own Success
Opportunity to Support Partners Talent Needs
Significant Percentage of Ciscos Revenues Generated via Partners

21% Revenue Generated Directly by Cisco
Cisco uses a network of partnersincluding distributors, resellers, services, and technology partnersto sell its products and services. Cisco traditionally prioritized partners technical and operational expertise; however, with increasing competition for technical talent, Cisco saw an opportunity to support partners talent priorities.
79% Revenue Generated Through Cisco Partners
Evolution of Ciscos Partner Enablement Resources

Illustrative Technical Support

Cisco derives about four-fifths of its revenues through partners.
Operations Support

Talent Support

Certifications Specializations
Marketing Financing Promotions Delivery
Workforce Planning Attraction and Hiring Onboarding Learning and Development Coaching and Mentoring Succession Planning
CHALLENGE
OVERVIEW
Component 1
Component 2
Cisco uses a collaborative approach with external partners, prioritizing talent enablement offerings based on partners needs and providing guided support.
Recognizing that the talent needs of its partners vary widely, Cisco uses a collaborative approach to encourage partners to leverage its talent enablement offerings, rather than mandate a certain level of talent management expertise or use of its talent resources. Specifically, Cisco encourages partners to use its talent enablement resources by:
CISCO USES COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO DRIVE QUALITY OF EXTERNALTALENT
Common Approach: Vendor/Supplier Management
Ciscos Approach: Partnership
Dictate Talent Requirements Manage interactions with external organizations as a transactional relationship, dictating talent requirements.
1. Offer Talent Support Requested by Partners Develop partnerships with external organizations, providing talent services and support based on partners needs. 2. Scale Resources with Guided Support Build capability of Ciscos workforce to guide partner organizations to relevant support tools and resources.
1. Offering resources identified by partners and 2. Scaling resources with guided, one-on-one support.
Partners are key to our success. While their technical capabilities are critical, its the quality of their people that improves our business.
Global Lead, Partner Talent Office Cisco Systems, Inc.
CHALLENGE
OVERVIEW
Component 1
Component 2
To ensure its partners employ the highestquality talent, Cisco provides a range of talent resources across the employee life cycle.
Cisco uses three main platforms to develop and house its talent offerings for partners:
CISCO SUPPORTS PARTNERS TALENT PRIORITIES ACROSS THE EMPLOYEE LIFE CYCLE
Ciscos Model of the Employee Life Cycle Key Elements of Ciscos Talent Offerings for Partners
Partner Talent Survey Annual, global survey of talent partners to gather intelligence on their talent priorities.
1. Partner talent survey 2. Fit4Talent website 3. Cisco partner talent network recruitment portal
2 Fit4Talent Website
Business and Workforce Planning Business Planning Attraction and Hiring The Talent Attraction Process Onboarding Onboarding New Hires Learning and Development Planning and Prioritizing People Development Determining the Development Need Skills-Based Training
One-stop shop portal with all the talent tools, templates, and guides available to partners.
Coaching andMentoring Coaching for Performance Succession Planning Succession Planning Process Reward and Recognition Aligning Your R&R Strategy to Business Strategy Compensation
Workforce Planning
Branding: Employee Value Proposition Sourcing Talent
Before the New Hire Arrives The First Day
Performance Reviews
Determining Future Needs Assessing the Current State
Aligning WFP with Business Planning Cycle Employee Engagement
Executive Coaching
Benefits
Candidate Selection
The First 90 Days
Leadership and Management Development Learning Management Systems
Mentoring Programs
Set Succession Strategy and Action Plan Exit Interviews
Non-Monetary Rewards
Making the Offer
First Performance Review
3 Cisco Partner Talent Network (CPTN)

Recruiting portal provides targeted candidate matching, interactive talent maps, and personal branding capabilities for candidates and partners globally.
See the appendix for the full list of available resources by topic.
CHALLENGE
OVERVIEW
Component 1
Component 2
To encourage partners to use its resources, Cisco develops talent support based on partner needs rather than Ciscos needs and preferences.
Cisco administers annual partner talent surveys and hosts regular executive exchanges to tap into partner organizations most pressing talent needs, informing future enablement tools.
PRIORITIZE TALENT SUPPORT BASED ON PARTNER NEEDS, NOT JUST CISCOS NEEDS
Cisco Develops Partner Talent Resources by Prioritizing Partners Talent Needs Rather Than Ciscos Needs
1. Annual Partner Talent Survey 2. Cisco Partner Executive Exchanges
Cisco executives meet with partners regularly to communicate Ciscos key priorities and to identify partner needs, including talent needs. Excerpt Agenda Cisco Executive Exchange 2012 9:30 a.m.10.00 a.m. Opening Cisco Keynote Presentation
Cisco conducts an annual survey of partners talent needs to inform future offerings.
2012 Partner Talent Survey Illustrative
When considering your talent priorities, please indicate the level of difficulty for the following areas: 1. Hiring 2. Retention 3. Development 4. Reward and Recognition 5. _____________________ Low Low Low Low Medium Medium Medium Medium High High High High
10:00 a.m.10:30 a.m. Thought Leadership Secure Collaboration in the Enterprise 10:30 a.m.10:45 a.m. Roundtable How can the enterprise facilitate content sharing and collaboration while ensuring compliance? Networking Break Roundtable Talent Requirements in Advanced Technology Networking Cisco Think Tank How can we work with local universities to create a global list of network technology graduates?
Please indicate your top two talent priorities for the coming year. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________
10:50 a.m.11:20 a.m. 11:30 a.m.12:30 p.m.
Implementation Tips Ask your external partners what talent support they could benefit from, and consider sharing select internal talent management resources and processes with your external partners.
In what talent areas would you like Cisco to provide additional support? ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
What is your top people barrier to serving customers? ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
12:30 p.m.1:00 p.m.
CHALLENGE
OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
Cisco recognizes that communication strategies alone wont drive effective use of talent offerings, instead it scales those resources with guided support for partners.
Cisco leverages the one-onone relationships its partner account managers maintain with each partner and their high-touch consulting services to help partners identify and embed the most relevant talent resources.
SCALE TALENT OFFERINGS TO PARTNERS WITH GUIDED SUPPORT

Cisco Leverages Its Partner Account Managers and Consulting Services to Ensure Partners Access and Implement Talent Enablement Resources
1. Partner Account Managers
2. High-Touch Consulting Support Ciscos high-touch consulting group provides partners with a dedicated team of experts for deeper assessment and capability enhancement in the technical and talent spaces. High-Touch Consulting Key Responsibilities Excerpt
Partner Account Managers (PAMs) manage relationships with selected partners, maximizing their use of revenue opportunities and talent enablement resources. PAM Key Responsibilities Excerpt
Manage relationships with partner organizations. Develop and report on the value of each partner. Build detailed understanding of partner business model and strategy.
Collaborate with designated PAMs to identify opportunities for consulting engagements. Diagnose technical, operational, or talent issues and recommend relevant support resources. Design and implement custom, in-depth solutions for partners on key business or talent challenges. Communicate industry best practices to partners.
Implementation Tips Ciscos business model allows for partner account managers and consulting services to provide custom guidance to partners on their talent needs. To provide similar support, evolve the role of your procurement, supply chain, and/or vendor management staff from primarily contract management and cost containment to talent enablement.
Sell, support, deploy, and/or influence Cisco products and solutions in technology and talent space.
Support secondary partner efforts including field marketing, product launches, and product promotions.
CHALLENGE
OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
Ciscos Fit4Talent Website
Business and Workforce Planning
Attraction and Hiring
Onboarding
Learning and Development
Coaching andMentoring
Succession Planning
Reward and Recognition
Business Planning
The Talent Attraction Process Branding: Employee Value Proposition Sourcing Talent
Onboarding New Hires Before the New Hire Arrives The First Day
Planning and Prioritizing People Development Determining the Development Need Skills-Based Training Leadership and Management Development Learning Management Systems
Coaching for Performance Performance Reviews Executive Coaching Mentoring Programs
Succession Planning Process Determining Future Needs Assessing the Current State Set Succession Strategy and Action Plan Exit Interviews
Aligning Your R&R Strategy to Business Strategy Compensation
Workforce Planning Aligning WFP with Business Planning Cycle Employee Engagement
Benefits
Candidate Selection Making the Offer
The First 90 Days
Non-Monetary Rewards
First Performance Review

Key Findings


28% 19%
CEB Findings
12%
(12%)
HR Imperatives
Overview An abundance of mature technologies requires ExxonMobil to look for innovative technology solutions outside its core business. To accomplish this effectively, ExxonMobil embeds connection-making skills and opportunities into the job designs of technical employees with the goal of facilitating external collaboration. Solution highlights ExxonMobil facilitates effective external connections in the following ways: Embed Connection-Making Competencies into Jobs of Technical StaffEmbed skills and behaviors related to connection making into all employees jobs. Identify Connection-Making Exemplars to Lead Cross-Industry TeamsIdentify employees best exhibiting relevant connection making competencies to lead cross-industry teams on big bet projects. Train Cross-Industry Connection Teams on Challenges Unique to External PartnershipsTrain cross-industry connection teams on issues unique to external relationships, such as external innovation sensing and IP management.
Company Snapshot ExxonMobil Industry: 2011 Revenue: 2011 Employees: Headquarters: Key Regions of Operation: Oil and Gas US $486 Billion 82,100 United States Operates on sixcontinents ExxonMobil is a leading publicly traded international oil and gas company, and is the largest refiner and marketer of petroleum products; their chemical company also ranks among the worlds largest. The company has been a leader in the energy industry since its beginnings more than 100 years ago. Worldwide, ExxonMobil markets fuels and lubricants under three brands: Esso, Exxon and Mobil.
Maturing technology drives ExxonMobil to seek new technology solutions from outside its core business.
MATURE TECHNOLOGIES REQUIRE INNOVATIONS OUTSIDE EXXONMOBILS CORE BUSINESS

ExxonMobil Requires Novel Technology Solutions from External Sources
Broadening Our Reach
Within our refining business, the technical objectives are fairly straightforward we work to improve feedstock flexibility, reduce energy consumption, increase production of high-margin products, improve manufacturing reliability, and reduce emissions. To identify novel ideas, we cant just continue to go to the same resourceswe must look more broadly for new ideas and approaches.
F. Emil Jacobs Vice President, Research and Development ExxonMobil Research and Engineering
ExxonMobil Embeds Connection-Making Skills and Opportunities into Technical Employees Job Designs
1. Embed Connection-Making Competencies into Jobs of Technical Staff 2. Identify Connection-Making Exemplars to Lead Cross-Industry Teams 3. Train Cross-Industry Connection Teams on Challenges Unique to External Partnerships
Source: CEB, CEB Research & Technology Executive Council, 2007.
Solution overview
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Results
Recognizing the importance of connection making as a core competency for technical employees, ExxonMobil embeds related skills and behaviors into employees jobs.
ExxonMobil also holds managers accountable for providing their teams with opportunities to generate external connections. In this way, ExxonMobil makes responsibility for external connection making explicit, recognizing that facilitation of external relationships would be unlikely to happen otherwise.
EMBED CONNECTION-MAKING RESPONSIBILITIESINTOTHE JOB

Incorporate Connection-Making Competencies and Opportunities into All Employees Jobs
Competency Area Technical Level 1 Accesses external science and technology and applies to internal problems Level 2 Level 3 Provides innovative solutions and ideas that go beyond current knowledge and applies to advance own work and assist others Level 4 Discovers, develops, and/or rapidly deploys technology to create a track record of high value for ExxonMobil
Business
Creates effective technical and business partner networks Proactively shares technical and organizational knowledge
Facilitating and accessing external technical networks is required for success at all employee levels. Demonstrates considerable influence internally and, where appropriate, on the external technical community
Leadership
Jane Smith Manager Review ExxonMobil holds managers accountable for providing their teams with opportunities to generate external connections. Managers are evaluated based on their teams contributions beyond their core jobs. Teams Contributions Beyond Core Role
Score (15) 4.5
Solution overview
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Results
Managers at ExxonMobil select employees who best exhibit relevant connection-making competencies to lead special projects.
Connection-making exemplars are selected to lead special project teams based on characteristics such as flexible thinking, calculated risk taking, and intellectual curiosity. Exemplars lead a small group of technical staff to explore potential external technologies during the early stages of big bet projects. Exemplars are not necessarily high potentials or high performers but employees with the unique ability to facilitate external connections.
IDENTIFY CONNECTION-MAKING EXEMPLARS TO LEADCROSS-INDUSTRY CONNECTION TEAMS

Managers Consider Key Competencies, the Team Lead Role, and Available Projects to Identify Appropriate Connection-Making Exemplars
Characteristics of Connection-Making Exemplars Flexible Thinking Pattern Recognition Calculated Risk Taking Intellectual Curiosity Team Motivator
Overview of Cross-Industry Connection Teams Lead By: ConnectionMaking Exemplar Purpose: Explore external possibilities during initial states of big bet projects Size: Five to six technical staff Duration: Three to six months
Projects Requiring External Connections

New project Big bet project with maximum impact on company profitability Project requiring new technologies Project requiring crossindustry expertise
Managers do not select exemplars based on high potential or high performer status, recognizing these employees are not necessarily those who are best able to create external connections.
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
RESULTS
ExxonMobil trains crossindustry connection teams on issues unique to external relationships, such as external innovation sensing and intellectual property management.
Exemplars and their teams must identify relevant external scientific fields, identify experts in those fields, develop partnerships, and propose relevant solutions. To ensure connectionmaking teams can effectively execute these roles, they are trained in areas unique to external partnerships such as external innovation sensing, open/external innovation, and intellectual property management.
TRAIN CROSS-INDUSTRY CONNECTION TEAMS ONISSUES UNIQUE TO EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS

The Cross-Industry Connection Process Requires Exemplars and Their Teams to Identify Relevant External Technologies and Experts
Overview of the Cross-Industry Connection Process 1. Define Problem
Break down challenge into fundamental technical elements.
2. Propose Connections
Identify external scientific fields with relevance to technical problem elements.
3. Identify Experts
Map external experts in each relevant field; solicit input to understand technical possibility.
4. Select Partner Candidates

Identify potential partners in each field (universities, entrepreneurs, companies, etc.).
5. Prioritize Solution Approaches

Develop research proposals, highlighting probability of success based on degree of technical expertise required.
ExxonMobil Conducts Team Leadership Workshops to Help Cross-Industry Teams Effectively Source and Prioritize New Technologies
Cross-Industry Connection Team Leadership Workshop
Day 1 Lead Generation Systems & High Performance Teams 1. History, Current State, Future Challenges 2. Set stage for needed improvements/upgrades to meet future challenges in the business, technology, and R&D Team Leader Assessment Profile 1. Linkage to key success factors, pitfalls, and future challenges 2. Link to Lead Enterprise Team Assessment Data Team Development: Predictable Stages 1. S kills & Techniques: Stages and key issues of start-up and transitions of leadership/membership 2. In Practice: Team start-up and team transitions of membership and leaders 3. Plenary Discussion: Shared experiences/questions Leadership Style & Approach 1. S kills & Techniques: Leadership Style Assessment My Individual Style 2. In Practice: Managing key resources; holding on and letting go of focus areas/limiting fragmentation 3. Plenary Discussion: Shared experiences/questions Day 2 Communities of Practice 1. Getting a community started, driving community effectiveness 2. In Practice: COPS at work 3. Plenary Discussion: Shared experiences/questions Productive Team Interactions 1. Skills & Techniques: Advocacy & Inquiry 2. Skill Practice: Small Group Exercises/Practice Sessions 3. Plenary Discussion: Shared experiences/questions Structured Innovation 1. Venture Team Design 2. Opportunity Identification 3. Idea Generation/Building Workshop 4. Internal Sensing, Cross EM Organization, External Sensing 5. In Practice: Planning, Conducting, Directed Follow-up 6. Plenary Discussion: Shared experiences/questions Open Innovation, External Leverage 1. Overview/Framing the Discussion 2. In Practice: Learnings and Best Practices 3. Plenary Discussion: Shared experiences/questions Day 3 CTI & Intellectual Property Management 1. In Practice: IP Management and IP Portfolio Analyses 2. In Practice: External Leveraging Agreement Model 3. In Practice: The Foundations of IP Strategy: Development for a Lead Generation Team 4. Plenary Discussion: Shared experiences/questions Technology Advancement System 1. Update of System and Cross-Functional Teams 2. In Practice: Using TAS including modifications 3. Plenary Discussion: Shared experience/questions Giving & Getting Feedback 1. Skills & Techniques: How to give and learn from feedback 2. In Practice: Real time feedback Forward Planning/Continual Learning 1. Skills & Techniques: Follow Through 2. Workshop Feedback
Structured Innovation 1. Venture Team Design 2. Opportunity Identification 3. Idea Generation/Building Workshop 4. Internal Sensing, Cross-ExxonMobil Organization, External Sensing Open Innovation, External Leverage 1. Overview/Framing the Discussion CTI and Intellectual Property Management 1. IP Management and IP Portfolio Analyses 2. External Leveraging Agreement Model 3. The Foundations of IP Strategy: Development for a Lead Generation Team
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
RESULTS
ExxonMobils job redesign and use of connection-making exemplars drive external collaboration.
Since redesigning jobs and implementing connectionmaking exemplars, the volume of technologies sourced externally increased to 40%. Of those externally sourced technologies, 75% derive from outside ExxonMobils core industry, supporting the companys push for innovation.
INCREASE IN EXTERNALLY SOURCED TECHNOLOGIES

Percentage of Technologies Sourced Externally
40%
Of externally sourced technologies, approximately 75% come from outside ExxonMobils core industry.
10% There are few geniuses in the world who can make brilliant breakthroughs alone but there are many talented people who as a team can put together the creative thinking necessary to achieve high-impact breakthroughs.
F. Emil Jacobs Vice President, Research and Development ExxonMobil Research and Engineering
Before Use of Connection-Making Exemplars
After Implementation of Connection-Making Exemplars
SOLUTION OVERVIEW
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
RESULTS
GUIDE FOR DEFINING RELATIONSHIPS WITH EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS

Instructions: Relationships with external stakeholders are critical to business success but can be particularly difficult to manage when they do not fall under the domain of a typical vendor or supplier relationship. Organizations must set explicit guidelines to manage expectations about these relationships. Consider and communicate the below when engaging in any relationship not typically managed by your supply chain or procurement function. Note: Refer to your legal department and/or management team when establishing relationships with external parties.
1. Be clear about the goal. Is there a specific end-goal, such as a new service, product, or industry advancement? Or is the goal more flexible in nature, such as sharing of information and best practices? 2. Define success measures. What are the specific measures you will use to determine the success of the partnership? Depending on the goal(s) you set, they may include cost savings, number of units sold, revenue generated, viability of a new idea, development of a new product or service, etc. 3. Define the ideal partner. What type of support are you seeking from this partner? Do you require specific competencies, skills, expertise, experience, or networks from this person(s)? 4. Identify internal stakeholders. Determine who in your organization will be involved in this partnership. Who manages the relationship with the external stakeholder? Who participates and may interact with the partner directly? Who is involved in the project but should not interact directly with this partner? 5. Specify limits to sharing internal information. What information can internal stakeholders share with external partners, and who is authorized to share it? What information do external stakeholders need to know to ensure the success of the relationship? What internal information is off limits to your external partners? 6. Define the parameters of the relationship. Do you anticipate an informal or formal relationship? Will it be short in duration or long-term? Do you expect to interact frequently or only occasionally? 7. Specify the benefits for the external partner. For example, will they receive any type of compensation, public recognition, or will you be an ongoing source of information and mentoring? 8. Define intellectual property ownership. Who will own the outputs of this relationship? How will ownership be shared?
Managing the Extended Performance Ecosystem

Key Takeaways and Implications for HR
Key Takeaways 1. Individuals outside of the organization can have nearly as much impact on an employees enterprise contribution as his or her manager (24% versus 29%). 2. Fewer than one in five employees (15%) are encouraged to use external networks to improve performance. 3. Organizations that effectively collaborate with their partners see 24% higher enterprise contribution from their employees than those that are not effective.
Implications for HR 1. Extend talent management support to employees across the entire value chain, not just those within your own organization. 2. Embed responsibility for fostering high-value connections directly into employees job expectations. 3. Ensure high performance of your key partners through codevelopment of internal and external critical talent.

A
High Performance as Job Mastery Identify Competencies to Maximize Enterprise Contribution
Evaluate Enterprise Contributors with the Performance Management System

Ensure high performance across the value chain through codevelopment of internal and external critical talent
B
High Performance as Enterprise Contribution
High individual task and network performance Employees prioritize best enterprise contribution. Goal is to improve all employees. Employees evaluated on past performance and future ability 360 evaluations based on peers knowledge of work Complex jobs that are easy to navigate Relationshipbased jobs Manage drivers of performance within and outside of the organization
High individual task performance Employees provide effort outside of expectations. Goal is to improve some employees. Employees evaluated and rewarded on past performance only 360 evaluations based on organization chart Simplified jobs Task-based jobs Manage drivers of performance within the organization.
Define competencies to balance individual and network performance
Merge evaluation of past performance with consideration of future capabilities and talent needs
Define the types of contributions that are most valuable, not just the quantity of contributions
Enterprise Contributor Competencies Align performance profile to customer needs, not just organizational needs to ensure long-term relevance
Reimagined Performance Management Source 360 feedback based on peers knowledge of one anothers workflows, not the organization chart
o
Knowledge Advocates
Value Chain Talent Development Drive quality of external talent using a collaborative approach
Boost manager effectiveness at advising and facilitating
Design employee roles based on key relationships, not just tasks
Embed responsibility for fostering external connections into employees roles
Relationship-Based Role Charters
Getting the Most Value from Your CEB Corporate Leadership Council Membership
139
Working with You to Turn Insight into Action

Implementation Support to Enable Breakthrough Performance in the New Work Environment
Establish Performance Strategy
Set Standards and Goals
Improve the Process
Evaluate Success
Design and communicate strategy to drive enterprise contribution across your workforce. CEB Corporate Leadership Council helps you:
Reorient performance expectations to support enterprise contribution not just individual contribution. CEB Corporate Leadership Council helps you:
Support managers in improving the quality and accuracy of performance evaluation against new capabilities. CEB Corporate Leadership Council helps you:
Measure and increase the impact of your performance management strategy based on employee feedback. CEB Corporate Leadership Council helps you:
Craft the vision for your performance strategy in the new work environment with actionable best practices presented at our member meetings. Build support for your new performance strategy using our Communication Tools for Key Stakeholders.
Show employees what enterprise contribution looks like and how to execute against it with our guides and tools for employees. Build the knowledge and ability of your HR team to foster enterprise contribution with targeted support from your Executive Advisor.
Identify and enable high performance with e-learning, tools, and templates we help you customize to your organization. Improve managers delivery with timely direct-to-Line manager insights, tools, and templates.
Incorporate employee feedback on the new performance review process with our Performance Review Diagnostic Tool.
Implement a performance management action plan based on employee survey results with the help of your dedicated Executive Advisor.
Features
Proven Best Practices Research and Insights Peer Benchmarks Decision and Diagnostic Tools Executive Networking Advisory Support Live and Online Learning Events
Getting the Most Value from Your CEB Corporate Leadership Council Membership140
COMMUNICATION TOOLS FOR KEY STAKEHOLDERS

Presentations to Lead Internal Discussions on Redesigning Your Performance Management Strategy
For the CEO

CEBHuman Corporate Leadership Council CLC Resources
For the Line

CEB Corporate Leadership Council CLC Human Resources
For the HR Team

CEB Leadership Council CLC Corporate Human Resources

CEO Presentation CHRO Presentation

Line Manager Presentation

HRBP Presentation Performance Management
Upgrade Playbook
Key Questions What does high performance look like now? hat are the primary implications of this W change for our current talent strategies? hat is the value to the business of adapting W performance management to the new work environment?
Key Questions ow do I help employees achieve high H performance? ow do I assess the value of employee H contributions and identify high performers?
Key Questions ow can we increase the accuracy of our H performance review process? ow do we adapt talent strategies to support H the new high performer?
MANAGER AND EMPLOYEE GUIDES for Improving Performance

Tools to Ensure Your Managers and Employees Contribute to EnterpriseNot Just IndividualPerformance (Available Q4 2012)
Concept
Employee resource portal
Manager resource portal
CEB Corporate Leadership Council provides you with new tools that managers can use to encourage enterprise contribution among their employees. CEB Corporate Leadership Council provides you with new tools that employees can use to better navigate the new work environment and make enterprise-level contributions.
Key Resources Manager Guides to Drive Enterprise Contribution Available through CEB Corporate Leadership Councils Manager Resource Portal, these tools help managers lead employees to high levels of individual task and network performance. Guides include:

Using peer feedback in performance evaluations; Helping employees navigate complex roles; and Managing employees relationships with external networks.
Employee Guides to Increase Network Performance Available through CEB Corporate Leadership Councils Employee Resource Portal, these tools will teach employees how to navigate the complexity of their own organization. Guides include:

How to provide high-quality peer feedback; How to identify your external network; and How to negotiate project responsibilities with peers.
Managing for High Performance and Retention in the New Work Environment
A Guidebook to Improve Managers Ability to Drive Enterprise Contribution (Available in Q4 2012)
Concept
PERFORMANCE REVIEW DIAGNOSTIC TOOL
This new guidebook examines the changing nature of the manager role in the new work environment and imperatives for managers to be successful in driving employee performance now. The guidebook supports HR in facilitating discussion with managers on the importance of enterprise contribution and can be incorporated into manager training.
CEB Corporate Leadership Council CLC Human Resources
Key Resources CEB Corporate Leadership Councils new guidebook for managers provides the following actionable guidance:
Managing for High Performance and Retention in the New Work Environment
10 Imperatives for managers to drive enterprise contribution Application exercises to improve understanding of the changing nature of work Templates for applying teachings in managers day-today work to improve employee performance
DIRECT-TO-LINE MANAGER SERVICES

Ongoing Support Enabling Managers to Improve Workforce Performance (Available 2013)
Concept
How the SERVICE Will Work
CEB Corporate Leadership Council sends your managers relevant performance management insights and strategies for improving their own effectiveness through a regular e-mail digest. Insights are accompanied by self-assessment tools and corresponding implementation resources.
Review CEBs Library of 1 Tips and Tools to Select the Ones to Deploy to Your Managers
Key Features Continuous Line Manager Support This direct-to-manager service provides an ongoing stream of timely and noteworthy insights with minimal time and resource investment from your HR team. Implementation Guidance Insights are paired with proven best practices and application tools from CEB Corporate Leadership Councils extensive Manager Resource Portal. Investment in Manager Success Partnering with CEB Corporate Leadership Council to provide support to your line managers demonstrates an investment in their continued development and success within your organization.
Managers Receive Tips and 4 Tools to Improve Execution of the Performance Review Process
2 CEB Corporate Leadership

Council Aligns Resource Communication Cadence to Your Review Cycle
Managers Receive Tips 3 and Tools to Improve Performance Management Activities
To become a pilot participant and help shape the design and output of these new tools, please contact your account manager.

An Assessment of Your Review Process to Support Breakthrough Performance (Available in 2013)
Concept
New diagnostic helps you survey your employees on their experience with the performance review process after each review cycle. Web-based reporting aggregates anonymous feedback from employees to help you prioritize opportunities to improve performance management. CEB Corporate Leadership Council partners with you to create an action plan based on your results.
Alpha Companys Performance Review Diagnostic Report
Key Features Performance Management ROI Tracking Participation over time allows for trends reporting to ensure your investments in the performance review process are yielding the desired results. Objective Viewpoint As a third-party partner, we provide employees with an unbiased avenue for candid opinions about your performance review process. Everything Is Confidential The survey is administered online. All survey responses are submitted using a secure server, and all employee information is kept strictly confidential.
To become a pilot participant and help shape the design and output of these new tools, please contact your account manager.
Helping you drive breakthrough performance

Please indicate below the areas where we can provide immediate support to your organization. Resources are included within your CEB Corporate Leadership Council, Learning and Development, and Compensation membership(s).

Design and Implement Performance Strategy

Build High Performance Capabilities
CLC Compensation
Incentivize and Reward High Performance
Register me for Executive Meeting: Learn new ways to drive breakthrough performance Schedule time with my Executive Advisor:
Schedule time with my Executive Adviser: Assess my organizations current learning approach and identify opportunities for incorporating network learning. Notify me of new resources: Access new tools to improve training programs by incorporating network learning approaches. Deploy new e-learning modules that teach how to identify and structure network learning opportunities.
Register me for an Executive Meeting on sales compensation plan design in new selling environments. Schedule time with my Executive Advisor: Discuss how to include behavior into pay plan design. Help build a training curriculum for line managers to differentiate and compensate across performance levels. Help build the business case for incorporating behaviors into pay plan design.
Discuss insights and best practices tailored for my organization. Select and deploy resources to employees to improve their enterprise contribution.
Notify me of new resources: Access resources to support line managers in enabling enterprise contribution. Schedule time with my Account Manager: Review approaches to help the HR team foster enterprise contribution.
Schedule time with my Account Manager: Discuss resources to improve the impact of my organizations training programs.
Notify me of new resources: Access tools to help tailor incentive design to targeted behaviors, segments, and compensation vehicles.
Appendix
Methodology Overview

Appendix A: Evaluating the New High Performance Profile Appendix B: Expanded Enterprise Contribution Model Appendix C: Definitions of CEB Corporate Leadership Council Competencies Appendix D: Survey Demographics
p. 148 p. 150 p. 151 p. 153
Additional Quantitative Findings

Appendix E: Discretionary Effort Rebounds Approaching Pre-Recession Levels Appendix F: Organizations Do Not Accurately Identify the Right Employee Competencies Appendix G: Competency Importance by Region and Industry Appendix H: Employee Performance Breakdown by Region, Function, and Industry Appendix I: Percentage of Enterprise Contributors Misidentified by Region, Function, and Industry Appendix J: Percentage of Unsustained Enterprise Contributors by Region, Function, and Industry Appendix K: Role Challenges by Region, Function, and Industry Appendix L: Additional Findings from the 2012 CEB Senior Executive Survey
p. 154 p. 155 p. 156 p. 158 p. 160 p. 161 p. 162 p. 165
Additional Case Profile Resources

Appendix M: Additional Resources for Gores Crowdsourced Associate Evaluations Appendix N: Additional Resources for Caterpillars Value Chain Talent Development Appendix O: Fidelitys Call Center Rep Owned Spaces Platform
p. 168 p. 169 p. 171
Appendix147
Appendix148
CEB Corporate Leadership Council used multivariate linear regression to determine the impact of a variety of drivers on employee performance.
APPENDIX A: Evaluating the new high performance profile

CEB Corporate Leadership Council Survey and Analysis Process
Step 1: Collect information on individual and business unit performance. Step 2: Survey employees on their attitudes, work environment, roles, tools, systems, and processes. Step 3: Survey employees managers and peers on their performance against goals and competencies. Examples

Examples

Examples

Individual performance ratings Business unit performance against revenue goals Business unit performance against profit goals Business unit performance against talent goals
Engagement Organizational culture Time spend Role design Process flexibility Work environment Performance management characteristics IT effectiveness
Individual task performance Network performance Sustainable performance
Step 3: Use a series of two-stage least squares regressions to determine the relationship between business unit profit change and percentage of employees achieving individual task and network outcomes.
Step 4: Use multivariate linear regression to determine the impact of drivers X1Xn on employee performance.
W1 = + 1Z1 + 2Z2 + 3C + Y1 = + 11 + 22 + 3C +
Y = Employee Performance X = Prevalence/Effectiveness of Driver X C = Control Variables
Y = + 1X + 2C +
Y = Employee Performance X = Prevalence/Effectiveness of Driver X C = Control Variables
1 = Impact on Employee Performance of Driver X
APPENDIX A: Potential Performance Drivers

Sample Drivers
Role Design Clarity of role description Clarity of objectives Flexibility of role Employee input into design Task/skill variety Multitasking
Employee Competencies
Performance Management Performance management systemstructure Performance criteria Goal alignment Sources/quality of feedback Performance management effectiveness Time spent on performance management Manager Quality of professional network Risk aversion Risk mitigation tactics Prioritization of own interests over organizations Support of autonomy Context of the work Coworkers Risk aversion Support of risk mitigation Coordination of work Adaptability External workforce Frequency of coordination Quality of coordination Support for coordination Quality of professional network Communication Employee input into work Clarity of topdown communication Internal sources of information External sources of information Interruption Incentives Perceived benefit of reward Perceived penalty Quality of life/worklife balance Training and Development Training vehicle Peer support Manager support Soft versus technical skills

Workspace Remote work Team dispersion Privacy Control over workspace Flexibility of workspace Co-location Quality of workplace neighbors Technology External technology access Internal technology access IT support Mobile solutions Latest technology Technology training Information management support Usability Processes Flexibility of processes Employee input into process design Decision-making complexity Decision-making clarity Decision-making authority Process direction (horizontal)
Analytical ability Business acumen Change receptivity Communication Continuous learning Creativity Critical thinking Cross cultural agility Customer orientation Decision-making/judgment Influence Information management Integrity Learning agility Managing others Network building Organizational awareness Prioritization Proactivity Problem solving Process design Professionalism Project management Relationship management Resource allocation Risk management Self-awareness Social intelligence Systems thinking Teamwork Technical/functional expertise Technology fluency
Appendix149
Appendix150
While managers assessed all components of performance, peers provided feedback on an employees network performance.
Managers were asked to rate their direct reports effectiveness at achieving individual and network outcomes. Sustainable performance was assessed by a managers confidence in his or her direct reports ability to maintain current performance levels. Peers provided feedback regarding how effective their coworkers are at contributing to the performance of others and the organizations effectiveness at achieving objectives.
APPENDIX B: Expanded Enterprise Contribution Model

Individual Task Performance An employees effectiveness at achieving his or her individual tasks and assignments Execute

Network Performance An employees effectiveness at improving colleagues and the organizations performance
Contribute
Use
Uses resources efficiently Produces high output per hourworked Completes tasks on time Produces error free work Produces highest-quality output
Manager Evaluated Sustainable Performance Maintains performance even whenhis or her role,tasks,orresources change Is your direct report performing at a lower level, the same level, or higher than last year? Manager Evaluated
Introduces improved working methods Introduces improved processes Implements new product or service ideas Transfers great ideas from other parts of the organization High quality input into others work Critical resource for coworkers Useful advice for coworkers Transfers skills and knowledge
Adopts improved working methods Adopts improved processes Welcomes new product or service ideas Welcomes great ideas from other parts of the organization Accepts high quality input from others Uses resources produced by others Obtains advice from coworkers Obtains skills and knowledge from others
Manager Evaluated Peer Evaluated
Manager Evaluated Peer Evaluated
CEB Corporate Leadership Council selected a set of competencies identified as critical to future organizational success through:
Interviews with members, A survey of senior executives, Past CEB quantitative and qualitative research, External expert studies (e.g., NGOs, government agencies), and Academic literature.
APPENDIX C: Definitions of CEB Corporate Leadership Council Competencies

Competencies Analytical Ability Business Acumen Change Receptivity Communication Continuous Learning Creativity Critical Thinking Cross-Cultural Agility Customer Orientation Decision-Making/ Judgment Influence Information Management Integrity Learning Agility Managing Others Network Building Organizational Awareness Prioritization Description Applies management science, statistics, and computer technology to solve problems Applies general knowledge of business principles to decisions Openness and willingness to change behavior in response to new situations Effectively transfers information and expresses ideas to individuals or groups in oral and written form Seeks opportunities to learn new and necessary skills and knowledge to perform work effectively Applies original or innovative thinking to improve processes, methods, systems, products, or services Uses logic and reasoning to identify the strengths and weaknesses of alternative solutions, conclusions, or approaches to problems Ability to successfully work with people of different cultures and backgrounds Considers and meets internal and external clients or customers needs and expectations during product or service development, manufacturing, marketing, delivery, and/or support Considers the relative costs and benefits of potential actions to choose the most appropriate one Asserts owns ideas and persuades others to gain support and commitment Finding, filtering, and organizing information, knowledge, and data for current or future use Actions reflect values and principles that distinguish right from wrong Rapidly learns new knowledge or acquires new skills Motivates, develops and directs others Builds, maintains, and uses network of external and internal relationships Understands mission, values, operations, structure, and goals of the organization Self-directs ones own activities and work through goal setting, time management, planning, etc.
Appendix151
Appendix152
CEB Corporate Leadership Council selected a set of competencies identified as critical to future organizational success through:
Interviews with members, A survey of senior executives, Past CEB quantitative and qualitative research, External expert studies (e.g., NGOs, government agencies), and Academic literature.
APPENDIX C: Definitions of CEB Corporate Leadership Council Competencies (Continued)

Competencies Proactivity Problem Solving Process Design Professionalism Project Management Relationship Management Resource Allocation Risk Management Self-Awareness Social Intelligence Systems Thinking Teamwork Technical/Functional Expertise Technology Fluency Description Anticipates and prevents future problems, takes charge to bring about change, and takes initiative within role Identifies problems, develops and evaluates options, and implements solutions Designs practices, processes, procedures, and systems to manage work, simplify, and use resources efficiently Considers the effect of ones words, actions, appearance, and behavior on others and the organization Plans, organizes, and manages resources for the successful completion of a project Maintains positive and productive working relationships with external and internal clients or customers Ensures effective, efficient, and sustainable use of the organizations financial resources, inventory, human capital, material, and information technology Identifies, reports, and mitigates risks to oneself, others, the environment, and the organization Recognizes ones attitudes, preferences, emotions, strengths, and weaknesses Recognizes the attitudes, preferences, emotions, strengths, and weaknesses of others Determines how a system should work, how systems interact with one another, and how changes in conditions, operations, and the environment will affect outcomes Promotes and facilitates coordination and cooperation among peers Applies and improves extensive or in-depth specialized knowledge, skills, and judgment Understands, responsibly selects, and uses appropriate technology to achieve work and business objectives
CEB Corporate Leadership Council surveyed over 35,000 employees and managers.
APPENDIX d: Survey Demographics

Survey Participants by Region Survey Participants by Level
1% CEOs or Functional Heads 2% Senior Leaders 14% Middle Managers
28% Asia 48% North America
5% Middle East and Africa
2% Australia and New Zealand 4% Latin America 13% Europe
40% Individual Contributors
43% Junior Manager
Survey Participants by Function

12% Other 4% Technician 2% Supply Chain/ Logistics 3% Administrative Support 2% Corporate 1% Communications 9% Customer Service/Call Center 4% Engineering and Design 6% Finance/ Accounting 4% Human Resources/ Education/Training 13% Information Technology/Systems 3% Marketing/Market Research
Participating Organizations by Industry

7% Telecommunications Services 7% Retail 2% Restaurant 9% Non-Profit/ Government 7% Leisure 2% Industrial Manufacturing 7% Health Care 2% Financial Services 9% Energy and Utilities 5% Automotive and Transport 2% Banking 9% Business Services 2% Chemicals 7% Computer Hardware 14% Computer Services 2% Construction
13% Sales 1% Retail 3% Research and Development 1% Procurement 2% Quality Control/ Assurance 16% Operations 1% Manufacturing
7% Consumer Products Manufactures
Appendix153
Appendix154
Discretionary effort has steadily increased since 2009.

Todays discretionary effort levels are reaching prerecession levels seen in 2007. Employees are working harder and putting in more effort to their work
Appendix E: DISCRETIONARY EFFORT REBOUNDS APPROACHING PRE-RECESSION LEVELS

Percentage of Employees Globally with High Levels of Discretionary Effort
25.0%
24.3%
20.0% 19.0% 17.8% 17.3% 14.8% 14.2% 13.1% 12.8% 12.0% 12.1% 10.0% 2007 2008 2009 13.4% 12.8% 13.1% 18.3% 17.9%
19.9%
19.1%
15.0%
2010
2011
2012
Source: Quarterly Global Workforce Insight Report, CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council, Q3 2012.
Executives prioritize only one of the top five competencies that drive enterprise contribution.
APPENDIX F: ORGANIZATIONS DO NOT ACCURATELY IDENTIFY THE RIGHT Employee COMPETENCIES

Rank Order of Competencies by Importance According to Executives Versus Impact on Enterprise Contribution
Most Important
Customer Orientation Change Receptivity Critical Thinking Relationship Management Communication Teamwork Decision Making/Judgment Problem Solving Proactivity Influence Learning Agility Project Management Technical/Functional Expertise Organizational Awareness
Business Acumen
Analytical Ability Risk Management
Creativity
Continuous Learning Systems Thinking Cross-Cultural Agility Technology Fluency
Resource Allocation Information Management Managing Others Process Design
Network Building Integrity Least Important Least Important
Social Intelligence Professionalism
Prioritization Self-Awareness Most Important
Implication: Most executives prioritize the wrong competencies for the new work environment.
Source: 2012 CEB Senior Executive Survey, CEB, CEB Corporate Leadership Council High Performance Survey, 2012.
Appendix155
Appendix156
APPENDIX G: Top Eight Competencies by Region

Asia 1 Problem Solving 2 Teamwork 3 Influence 4
Australia and NewZealand
Central and SouthAmerica
Europe
Middle East and Africa
North America
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Prioritization
Prioritization
Prioritization
Teamwork
Teamwork
Decision Making/ Judgment
Teamwork
Relationship Management
Prioritization
Communication
Self-Awareness
Analytical Ability
Proactivity
Proactivity
Creativity
5 Proactivity 6 Process Design 7 Learning Agility 8 Project Management Systems Thinking Prioritization Integrity Communication
Problem Solving
Problem Solving
Technical/Functional Expertise
Analytical Ability
Continuous Learning
Social Intelligence
Proactivity
Resource Allocation
Influence
Managing Others
Problem Solving
Proactivity
Influence
APPENDIX G: Top Eight Competencies by industry

Financial 1
Health Care
Insurance
Manufacturing
Oil and Gas/ Mining Organizational Awareness Network Building
Professional Services
Technology
Utilities
Prioritization
Prioritization
Prioritization
Teamwork
Teamwork
2 Analytical Ability 3 Influence 4 Technical/ Functional Expertise Continuous Learning Integrity Teamwork
Teamwork
Proactivity
Prioritization
Self-Awareness
Problem Solving
Integrity
Problem Solving
Influence
Prioritization
Problem Solving
Self-Awareness
Problem Solving
Self-Awareness
Organizational Awareness Risk Management
Decision Making/ Judgment Organizational Awareness
Influence
Continuous Learning Project Management Decision Making/ Judgment
Influence
Learning Agility
Problem Solving
6 Proactivity 7
Network Building Decision Making/ Judgment Systems Thinking
Self-Awareness Technical/ Functional Expertise Systems Thinking
Proactivity Technical/ Functional Expertise Prioritization
Self-Awareness
Proactivity
Proactivity Technical/ Functional Expertise Decision Making/ Judgment
Social Intelligence Information Management
Problem Solving
8 Prioritization Communication
Customer Orientation
Appendix157
Appendix158
APPENDIX H: Employee performance breakdown by region andfunction

Region Asia Australia and New Zealand Latin America Europe Middle East and Africa North America Function Administrative Support Corporate Customer Service Call Center Communications Engineering and Design Finance/Accounting Human Resources/Education/Training Information Technology/Systems Marketing/Market Research Manufacturing Operations Procurement Quality Control/Assurance Research and Development Retail Sales Supply Chain/Logistics Technician
Note: Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.
Average and Low Performance 50% 52% 46% 42% 46% 40% Average and Low Performance 42% 42% 46% 30% 41% 46% 38% 41% 30% 37% 43% 42% 51% 53% 68% 43% 48% 42%
High Individual Task Performance Alone 31% 29% 49% 47% 33% 40% High Individual Task Performance Alone 33% 33% 41% 61% 39% 39% 42% 49% 38% 37% 41% 42% 37% 36% 26% 32% 36% 37%
High Network Performance Alone 5% 2% 0% 1% 3% 2% High Network Performance Alone 2% 3% 2% 0% 2% 1% 4% 0% 13% 3% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 6% 1% 1%
Enterprise Contributors 15% 17% 6% 11% 19% 18% Enterprise Contributors 23% 22% 11% 9% 17% 14% 17% 10% 19% 23% 15% 16% 11% 10% 5% 19% 14% 20%
APPENDIX H: Employee performance breakdown by industry

Industry Aerospace Construction Consumer Goods Financial Government/Non-Profit Health Care Insurance Leisure Manufacturing Oil and Gas/Mining Pharmaceuticals Professional Services Real Estate Retail Technology Travel/Transportation Utilities Average and Low Performance 48% 53% 54% 38% 39% 40% 38% 54% 43% 37% 61% 42% 29% 49% 42% 30% 43% High Individual Task Performance Alone 40% 17% 34% 35% 30% 47% 50% 42% 23% 39% 19% 51% 29% 33% 52% 24% 35% High Network Performance Alone 5% 3% 0% 3% 4% 0% 0% 0% 9% 2% 3% 1% 6% 6% 1% 15% 2% Enterprise Contributors 8% 28% 12% 25% 27% 13% 11% 4% 26% 23% 17% 7% 35% 11% 6% 30% 20%
Note: Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.

Appendix159
Appendix160
APPENDIX I: Percentage of High Performers1 who are Not Enterprise Contributors by Region, Function, and industry
Region Asia Australia and New Zealand Latin America Europe Middle East and Africa North America Function Administrative Support Corporate2 Customer Service/Call Center Communications2 Engineering and Design Finance/Accounting Human Resources/Education/Training Information Technology/Systems Marketing/Market Research2 Manufacturing2 Operations Procurement
2 2
Industry 61% N/A 93% 65% 71% 72% Aerospace2 Construction Consumer Goods2 Financial Government/Non-Profit Health Care Insurance 53% N/A 71% N/A 57% 68% 85% 82% N/A N/A 80% N/A N/A 75% N/A 69%
2
N/A 60% N/A 45% 92% 69% 79% 73% 50% 58% N/A 91% N/A N/A 86%
2 2
Leisure Manufacturing Oil and Gas/Mining Pharmaceuticals Real Estate2 Retail

2
Professional Services
Technology Travel/Transportation Utilities
N/A 72%
Quality Control/Assurance2 Research and Development Retail2 Sales Supply Chain/Logistics Technician
1 2
N/A 66%
High performers are employees who have received their organizations highest performance rating (18% of total employees). Too few responses to show data.
APPENDIX J: Percentage of UNSUSTAINED Enterprise Contributors by Region, Function, and industry

Region Asia Australia and New Zealand Latin America Europe Middle East and Africa North America Function Administrative Support Corporate Customer Service/Call Center Communications1 Engineering and Design Finance/Accounting Human Resources/Education/Training Information Technology/Systems Marketing/Market Research Manufacturing Operations Procurement
1 1
Industry 35% N/A 6% 21% 43% 25% Aerospace Construction Consumer Goods Financial Government/Non-Profit Health Care Insurance 35% 26% 24% N/A 22% 18% 30% 23% 38% 23% 24% N/A 24% 25% 15% 33% 17% 66% Leisure Manufacturing Oil and Gas/Mining Pharmaceuticals1 Professional Services Real Estate Retail Technology Travel/Transportation Utilities 25% 33% 25% 28% 37% 20% 26% 14% 31% 15% N/A 30% N/A 22% 26% 43% 19%
Quality Control/Assurance Research and Development Retail Sales Supply Chain/Logistics Technician
1
Too few responses to show data.
Appendix161
Appendix162
APPENDIX K: Role Challenges by Region

Region Asia Australia and New Zealand Latin America Middle East and Africa Europe North America Network Performance Activities 56% 77% 69% 53% 70% 65% Individual Tasks 44% 23% 31% 47% 30% 36%

Region Asia Australia and New Zealand Latin America Middle East and Africa Europe North America Neutral or Disagree 59% 58% 55% 70% 63% 66% Agree 41% 42% 45% 30% 37% 34%
APPENDIX K: Role Challenges by Function

Network Performance Activities 58% 69% 54% 56% 64% 62% 69% 70% 71% 57% 65% 63% 63% 64% 76% 59% 72% 58% 62% Individual Tasks 42% 31% 46% 44% 36% 38% 31% 30% 29% 43% 35% 37% 37% 36% 24% 41% 28% 42% 38%
Function Administrative Support Corporate Customer Service/Call Center Communications Engineering and Design Finance/Accounting Human Resources/Education/ Training Information Technology/ Systems Marketing/Market Research Manufacturing Operations Procurement Quality Control/Assurance Research and Development Retail Sales Supply Chain/Logistics Technician Utilities
Function Administrative Support Corporate Customer Service/Call Center Communications Engineering and Design Finance/Accounting Human Resources/Education/ Training Information Technology/ Systems Marketing/Market Research Manufacturing Operations Procurement Quality Control/Assurance Research and Development Retail Sales Supply Chain/Logistics Technician Utilities
Neutral or Disagree 61% 63% 66% 65% 68% 67% 62% 67% 68% 55% 62% 59% 64% 58% 64% 67% 66% 63% 62%
Agree 39% 37% 34% 35% 32% 33% 38% 33% 32% 45% 38% 41% 36% 42% 36% 33% 34% 37% 38%
Appendix163
Appendix164
APPENDIX K: Role Challenges by Industry

Network Performance Activities 70% 44% 70% 73% 57% 62% 66% 63% 73% 58% 53% 59% 77% 62% 80% 68% 69% 52% 62% Individual Tasks 30% 56% 30% 27% 43% 38% 34% 37% 27% 42% 47% 41% 23% 38% 20% 32% 31% 48% 38%
Industry Aerospace Construction Consumer Goods Education Financial Government/Non-Profit Health Care Insurance Leisure Manufacturing Media Oil and Gas/Mining Pharmaceuticals Professional Services Real Estate Retail Technology Travel/Transportation Utilities
Industry Aerospace Construction Consumer Goods Education Financial Government/Non-Profit Health Care Insurance Leisure Manufacturing Media Oil and Gas/Mining Pharmaceuticals Professional Services Real Estate Retail Technology Travel/Transportation Utilities
Neutral or Disagree 68% 64% 67% 67% 63% 60% 61% 67% 61% 65% 58% 64% 75% 66% 66% 68% 63% 74% 69%
Agree 32% 36% 33% 33% 37% 40% 39% 33% 39% 35% 42% 36% 25% 34% 34% 32% 37% 26% 31%
Executives believe that customer orientation and adaptability and agility are the most important behaviors for future performance.
Less important are behaviors affecting day-to-day tasks, such as resource management and knowledge application according to executives.
APPENDIX L: Executives Prioritize Customer Orientation and Change Receptivity

Employee Behaviors Most Important to Employee1 Performance Over the Next Three Years
Percentage of Respondents Selecting as Top Five
32% 30% 28% 27% 26%26% 24% 24%24% 25% 18% 18%
17%
16%
15%15%
14%
13%13% 13%
11%
10%10%10%10%
9% 9% 9% 7% 7% 7% 5% 4%
Analytical Ability
Project Management
Risk Management
Technical/Functional Expertise
Cross-Cultural Agility
Relationship Management
Decision-Making/Judgment
Change Receptivity
Critical Thinking
Business Acumen
Problem Solving
Learning Agility
Systems Thinking
Technology Fluency
Managing Others
Network Building
Social Intelligence
Customer Orientation
Communication
Continuous Learning
Resource Allocation
Behaviors That Are Most Important to Future Performance, According to Executives Communication Relationship Customer Orientation Change Receptivity Critical Thinking Management
Teamwork
n = 1,613.
1
HR executives answered for the entire workforce, while other executives answered for their function or department.
Source: CEB, Senior Executive Survey, 2012.
Appendix165
Professionalism
Self-Awareness
Influence
Proactivity
Teamwork
Creativity
Process Design
Integrity
Prioritization
Appendix166
Appendix L: EMPLOYEE BEHAVIORS MOST IMPORTANT TO FUTURE PERFORMANCE ACCORDING TO EXECUTIVESGLOBAL REPRESENTATION
Employee Behaviors Most Important to Employee1 Performance Over the Next Three Years
North America Critical Thinking Problem Solving
Europe Teamwork Relationship Management
Asia Teamwork Decision Making/Judgment Business Acumen
GLOBAL Change Receptivity Communication Customer Orientation
Latin America Decision Making/Judgment Teamwork Cross-Cultural Agility Problem Solving
Middle East and Africa Problem Solving Relationship Management
Australia and New Zealand Business Acumen Relationship Management
HR executives answered for the entire workforce, while other executives answered for their function or department.
Source: CEB, Senior Executive Survey, 2012.
Appendix L: 2012 CEB SENIOR EXECUTIVE SURVEY

Organization Demographics Global Representation
Percentage of Respondents by Region
1% Latin America 10% Australia and New Zealand 4% Middle East and Africa 67% North America 3% Asia 15% Europe
IndustryandFunction
Percentage of Respondents
Industry Financial Services Manufacturing Technology Insurance Oil and Gas/Mining Consumer Goods Percentage 22% 11% 10% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% 10% Function Human Resources/ Education/Training Information Technology/ Systems Finance/Accounting Corporate Marketing/Market Research Operations Sales Customer Service/ CallCenter Procurement Research and Development Manufacturing/ Operations Quality Control/ Assurance Communications Retail Supply Chain/Logistics Administrative Support Engineering and Design Other Percentage 23% 18% 14% 11% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% < 1% 8%
Workforce demographics Workforce Size

6% More Than 100,000 7% 50,001 100,000 15% 20,001 50,000 26% 5,00120,000 20% 01,000
Utilities Government/Non-Profit
Respondent Tenure
2% More Than 21 Years 2% 1620 Years 8% 1115 Years 25% 610 Years 0% 0 Years
Health Care Pharmaceuticals Retail Media Education Travel/Transportation Professional Services Real Estate Restaurant 63% 15 Years Aerospace Construction Leisure Other
26% 1,0015,000
Appendix167
Appendix168
Inputters consider the impact, effectiveness, and behavioral alignment of their peers contributions when ranking their peers contributions.
Appendix M: CONSIDERATIONS FOR EVALUATING ASSOCIATECONTRIBUTIONS

Impact of Contribution
Effectiveness of Contribution Considerations for Assessing Effectiveness of Contributions
Behavior Alignment with Enterprise Values Considerations for Assessing Behavior Alignment
Considerations for Identifying High-Impact Contributions
Did the contribution open avenues for potential business growth or revenue? Did the contribution have a team, function, business unit, or enterprise-level impact? Did the contribution result in significant cost savings? Did the contribution pioneer revolutionary products, services, or practices? Was the contribution indispensable to the success of an idea, project, or deliverable?
Did the contribution achieve its intended goal? Did the contribution make efficient use of resources and time? Did the contribution streamline work across teams, functions, or business units? Did the contribution result in improvement of peers work? Does the contribution align with the enterprises long-term objectives?
Did the associate model one or more of Gores Fundamental Beliefs? Did the associate model one or more of Gores Guiding Principles?
APPENDIX N: CATERPILLARS DIGGING DEEP ADVANCED EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP PROGRAM

Program Overview
One Year
Module 1: Core Leadership Capabilities Location: Caterpillar Headquarters Length: Five days
Program Overview
Module 2: Thinking About Markets Location: Wuxi, China Length: Five days
Module 3: Organizing for Global Markets Location: Sao Paolo, Brazil2 Length: Five days
Module 4: Core Looking Forward Location: Stanford University Length: Five days
Program Finale: Making ItReal Location: Caterpillar Headquarters Length: Two days Topics Covered Discuss Impact of Key Learnings on Caterpillars Future Share Results of Action Learning Projects Action Learning Project Recommendations to CEO, Group Presidents, and Key VPs Develop Case Studies for Future Programs
Topics Covered Critical Analytical Thinking Innovative Design Thinking Personal Leadership
Topics Covered Strategic Leadership: Economics Strategic Leadership: Organization Design Supply Chain Macroeconomics1 International Trade1
Topics Covered Regional and Country Analysis Global Leadership and Markets Managing a Global Organization Marketing Globally Sustainability Ethics1
Topics Covered Organizational Culture Organizing for Innovation Strategic Crisis Management Change and Leadership1
Distance Learning Topics: Various Length: 1 hour Presenters: Stanford University professors via webcam Participant Requirements: Pre-reading
1 2
Distance learning completed before next module. Location of module 3 may change based on organizations growth market focus.
Appendix169
Appendix170
Caterpillars Digging Deep program sits within a larger leadership development framework.
Appendix n: Caterpillars Leadership Development Framework
Employees in Fidelitys call center participate in an online platform Spaces that allows reps to share ideas with each other without constant management oversight.
Responsibility for the forums operation is divided among frontline reps, allowing them to own discrete areas of the forum. Spaces supports network performance1 in the call center, which leads directly to improved customer experience and call center savings.
APPENDIX O: REP-OWNED NETWORKS IN CALL CENTER ALLOW FOR PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT

Components of Rep-Owned Spaces Platform 2

Rep moderator steers discussions as necessary. Moderator identifies actionable opportunities to bring to leadership on a weekly basis.
Leadership assesses new ideas weekly, and pursues accepted ideas as projects All decisions are communicated back to reps via spaces.
Rep Moderator
Reps, in conjunction with rep champions submit ideas. Peers provide feedback to one another and discuss individual improvement ideas.
Leadership
Rep-Owned Spaces Platform

Rep Team A Rep Team C
Rep Team B
Results of the Program in the First Year
Denotes Team Champion
Participants and Roles Frontline Rep Moderator Tenured, successful frontline rep on a six-month rotation as Moderator Site- and Team-Level Champions Local program experts and points of Contact Contact Center Leadership: One dedicated program manager and one project manager receive developed ideas and work to implement them. 3,000 Comments 357 Actionable Ideas Moved Forward 100 Improvement Implemented
Improvements Implemented in the First Year

Number of Items Implemented 35 Projects not only impact metrics but also directly improve the customer experience 42 8 5 2 8 Total: 100
Source: CEB, CEB Customer Contact Council, 2011.
Metric Impacted Average Handle Time Call Volume Call Accuracy Utilization Mailing Costs Ops Efficiency
Est. Annual Savings ($ M) $1.980 $2.000 $0.046 $0.023 $0.029 $0.025 Total: $4.100 M
Appendix171
CLC4284612SYN
www.clc.executiveboard.com

CLC Driving Breakthrough Performance in The New Work Environment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLC Driving Breakthrough Performance in The New Work Environment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CEB Corporate Leadership Council

Driving Breakthrough Performance in the NewWork Environment

Critical Insight for HR Executives

CEB Corporate Leadership Council

Content Publishing Solutions

CHAPTER III: BUILD ENTERPRISE CONTRIBUTION THROUGH ROLE DESIGN86

Advisors to Our Work

Introduction: Driving Breakthrough Performance in the NewWork Environment

2012 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.CLC4284612SYN

Between 2010 and 2012, global GDP growth shrunk by 1.2%.

Economic outlook cloudier than ever

European Union 15 United States

(6%) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Introduction: Driving Breakthrough Performance in the NewWork Environment2

REVENUE PRESSURE REMAINS DESPITE ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY AND RESOURCE PRESSURE

Increase Stay the Same

Revenue Revenue Expectations Expectations

Cost Pressures Cost Pressures

Head Head Count Count

Source: CEB, Business Barometer Quarterly Report, Q3 2012.

Introduction: Driving Breakthrough Performance in the NewWork Environment3

Widespread agreement that organizations need breakthrough employee performance

40% 40% 50%

How to Read This Chart

1st Quartile = 25% of respondents answered below this value.

3rd Quartile =75% of respondents answered below this value.

2012 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.CLC4284612SYN

Introduction: Driving Breakthrough Performance in the NewWork Environment4

Employees striving to meet high expectations but reaching the limit

Common Employee Reactions

I just have too much to do and not enough time to do it in.

Average Percent Increase in Time Spent Multitasking, by Year

Introduction: Driving Breakthrough Performance in the NewWork Environment5

MANY FACTORS DRIVE PERFORMANCE

CLC HUMAN RESOURCES

CEB Corporate Leadership Council

Building Engagement Capital

Rewards and Recognition

Redening Pay for Performance: Incenting Behaviors to Achieve Organizational Results

Learning and Development

CLC LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Building High Performance Capability in the New Work Environment

CLC Learning and Development

CEB Corporate Leadership Council

Driving Breakthrough Performance in the New Work Environment

2012 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.CLC4284612SYN

Introduction: Driving Breakthrough Performance in the NewWork Environment6

HR PRACTICE FOCUS ON PERFORMANCE IN THE NEW WORK ENVIRONMENT

CEB Corporate Leadership Council

CLC Learning and Development

Driving Breakthrough Performance in the New Work Environment

Building High Performance Capability in the New Work Environment

Redening Pay for Performance: Incenting Behaviors to Achieve Organizational Results

2012 The Corporate Executive Board Company. All Rights Reserved.CLC4284612SYN

Introduction: Driving Breakthrough Performance in the NewWork Environment7

Performance management investments have paid off

Comparison of Performance Management Effectiveness Between 2002 and 2012

Performance Management Technology

Pay for Performance

Individual Development Plan

My Organization Effectively Pays for Performance

My Manager Is Effective at Performance Management Activities

The Performance Management System Is Fair