Leaders point the way, they paint a picture of the future, and at that point you decide whether or not to buy in. That decision is driven by what's in it for me. Today the marketplace is all about meeting individual needs. Leadership is about followship. Can you build a sufficiently attractive proposition that gets your people to commit to your your vision of the future? Short term is the order of the day. 18 months is the maximum you will get. In return for my talent and endeavour, you will enhance my career, improve my prospects in terms of financial remuneration, job satisfaction or job title.

So if you accept this premise, this definition of leadership as a contract, I give you something, you give me something in return, what are the implications for leadership development.

What I hear from most participants from such programmes is what you are trying to teach me is all very well, and I get it, but I don't see it in my masters and leaders in this organisation. Indeed the behaviours that get you to the top of this organisation are not what you are telling me a good leader does. The problem is that those behaviours are not innate to those at the top of our organisations. So why should I adopt your premise of leadership development?

Well the world is changing. We are no longer in a world where one size fits all organisations (by the way I am not certain we ever did, but it was more acceptable to "shoehorn" people into that approach, FIFO..fit in or f**k off). Then along came the knowledge worker with discretionary effort and infinite mobility. We have moved from a situation where supply exceeds demand, to one where recruiting those who bring value to the organisation are in short supply. You may be thinking that Michael can't be describing the labour market of today. However I am. How come in a tsunami of cvs it is still difficult to recruit and retain knowledge workers? I don't believe this equation is going to get easier in the future.

Leadership today is all about recognising that our employees will have a myriad of needs and the role of a leader is to build a proposition that gets the buy in from all those key to delivering the business proposition.

So what does this mean for leadership development? Leaders gather data on these needs. They use engagement data, they use focus groups, they use diaries and blogs, they spend as much time with employees as customers. Indeed they use exactly the same techniques in data collection. Management by walking about is important as ever, but this time you ask for feedback and listen.

Leaders lead by example. It's all about ensuring there is alignment between what I say and do. Being a simple soul, business strategies only come in 3 types, sell more, reduce costs, or a combination of the two. Selling more means focusing on customers needs. This requires leaders to be passionate about customer needs. Taking cost out the business requires leaders to set an example. Failure to live and breath either strategy will mean you simply don't have face validity. Do I really give one hundred percent for those I simply don't believe in?

Lastly leaders paint a picture. They show me the promised land. They inspire. I know that by following this strategy ultimately I will be the winner. It doesn't need to be easy. Indeed stretch and challenge are positives. The spoils of war don't even have to be all about me, some of the spoils do have to benefit me, but you can appeal to the greater good. There is a feel good factor in building something that will benefit the wider community.

So is it possible to teach data collection, leading by example and painting a compelling picture. How do you overcome the skepticism of that's not what I am seeing around here, or even if do it won't do my career any good.

Well as Bob Dylan sang "the times are a changing"

Markets today are all about niches. There is money in identifying and meeting very specific customer needs. Well employees are no different. It's all about using the tools at our disposal to identify those needs, building a proposition in which I practice what I preach and ensuring the vision is sufficiently attractive that it gets the buy in of those I require to deliver my customer proposition.

Well that's the challenge for those of use in leadership development.

Employees are being squeezed as the cost of living increases and a climate of uncertainty pervades. Not surprisingly organisations are seeking to increase productivity whereas employees' morale is falling.

I sense some employers hold the view that given the economic uncertainty there is little to worry about when it comes to what an employer needs to provide by way of ensuring employee retention. I think this a big mistake. True some employees are keeping their heads down, however the brightest and best, and hence the most productive, are always going to be the first to jump ship, as means of increasing their remuneration.

The CIPD recently published a research insight paper into "managing careers for organisational capability". The treatise being the ability to build capability i.e. having the right resources available at the right time, is how you develop organisational sustainability. Or put more simply helping employees manage their careers will help organisations prosper! However the message peddled by most organisations of late has been that it is the employee is who is responsible for their career management.

All the research into what employees want from their employers in order to be engaged tells us that employees need to feel they are developing, growing their expertise and subsequent employability. As the Macleod Engagement Taskforce initiative discovered employees crave mangers who are interested in them, listen to them and develop them. As the CIPD insight paper puts it, "Good career management drives engagement, poor career management breeds dissatisfaction". The Corporate Leadership Council in 2006 went as far as to claim a business case for improving the quality of job experiences, and thus career development for the individual because, they argue, the demand for monetary compensation can be reduced by up to 50% when employees are satisfied in their jobs.

So how do we reconcile the organisational need to develop the resources for the future in order to exploit market opportunities and at the same time meet employee expectations. The CIPD research reveals that this isn't easy. Less than 3% of employees receive their careers advice from their employers, indeed 18% were offered this service but didn't take it up. So here's the thing, how to reconcile the orgisational need to develop future talent to the individual's need to develop. How can we get them to coincide?

So let's take an example within our own profession. Learning and Development delivery used to be all face to face in the classroom then came along e-learning reducing the reliance on classroom delivery. The Learning and Development professional in order to ensure continued work needed to quickly acquire e-learning capability. How to put their content into e-learning. Those without these skills were less in demand as e-learning replaced classroom delivery. Organisations selling learning and development were forced quickly to adopt e-learning as the price of the product rapidly fell. So it can be seen there is a symbiotic relationship between the organisation needing to change the method of delivery in order to remain competitive and the employee needing to learn new skills to remain employed.

Career management is not so much about career paths but the need to build capability in order to exploit the market. Accordingly the employee in order to ensure continued employability needs to acquire the skills and knowledge now demanded by the marketplace. This win-win situation illustrates the strategic contribution of career management. Organisations need to have a clear view as to where they are going, the resources they need to get there, thereby building a workforce with the capabilities to exploit the market opportunity. Career management is that lever of change. Career management is win-win situation. It delivers an engaged workforce. It delivers a profitable, sustainable organisation.

A win-win situation.

I am suffering from engagement overload. Whilst it is pleasing to hear what you have know all along that engaged employees drive business success, it is after all the bleeding obvious. The business case is powerful, Tannith Dodge's session highlighted the differences between variances in engagement scores between shops and the variances between upper and lower quartile business performance. Apparently stores with the highest engagement scores sell more!

The difference between upper and lower quartile stores in their engagement scores is £104 million in sales.

My social media drinks session told me that not all my fellow delegates at the conference shared my view on this one, and yes there might be other factors at play, but any data that persuades the CEO to focus on the people dynamics of the business is a good thing in my book.

However does this renewed CEO interest in what we do, put us under added pressure to find the levers that drive engagement. Whilst listening to two excellent sessions on engagement initiatives in Essex County Council and Coca Cola Enterprises ( Supply Chain Management) I was struck that with average engagement figures ranging between 50-60% which mirrors the Gallup one third,one third, one third model. Most organisations have one third of their employees actively engaged, one third actively disengaged and one third not disengaged, but not actively engaged. So at any one at least one third of your workforce don't give a flying.

Assuming you are in the actively engaged category, and you do give a flying, what's the quickest lever you can pull. The MacLeod report highlighted that employees want an organisation with a clear vision and know their their part in that vision. They demand managers who are actively interested in them, listen to them and develop them in their careers. Finally the want organisations that have integrity and play their part in the wellbeing of the community they serve. Towers Perrin study of 200,000 employees, in 18 countries over 10 years put it more simply. Employees want opportunity and wellbeing (an organisation that cares about them), pride in the company and or brand, trust and involvement.

It is my view that personal development lever is quick and easy to pull, and will increase job satisfaction, enhance productivity and improve the customer experience. Additional by-products include reduced attrition, and reduce absence.

Since I know I am not particularly an innovative thinker, I am certain I am not the only one who has had this idea. Why hasn't HR embraced it, or perhaps more accurately why haven't we successfully sold the concept to the line.

Here's the rub. There is an inherent conflict between employee aspirations and management objectives and capability. Employees find it difficult to trust their bosses. We are stuck in a parent child relationship. It takes a special type of manager who can be trusted with the secret I am thinking of leaving my present role. Typically employees are reluctant to enter into such conversations since I might disadvantage myself in future pay and career conversations. Ironically employees are more likely to share their secrets with external recruiters which given their propensity to be driven by commission payments, impartial advice it is not. Moreover it is not in the manager's interest to move the high performers out. They get rewarded for delivery, helping your key players to move elsewhere in the business is counter intuitive. Assuming that I am altruistic, do I really know opportunities exist elsewhere in the organisation. So there we have it a catch I 22.

So what can we do about?

We need to sell the benefits of engaged employees to the line. Yes I mean that. We need passionate advocacy. We need hard data, making the business case . We need to name and shame low engagement and reward and celebrate high engagement. Praise engaging managers will in itself drive up engagement.

We need to train managers to have career conversations after all we train them to hire and fire perhaps we should address the bit in the middle. In my experience managers do not get training into how to listen. Just taking the time out to listen, showing genuine interest, exploring career possibilities will significantly drive engagement. As a big Malcolm Gladwell fan, to become an expert in anything you need 10,000 hours of practice. So let's not kid ourselves this is a one off training that will overnight turn our line managers to expert career coaches, however I am minded of the Hawthorne experiment. During the second world war psychologists were exploring the optimum level of illumination in munition factories. They were surprised to discover that the pilot group who experienced no change in illumination also experienced increased productivity. Just the additional TLC drove up product.

Perhaps that's the key driver of engagement. Show them you care. That can't be that difficult can it?

Curious is defined as an active interest in the internal/external environment, continuous professional development and improvement of self and others at both the organisational and individual levels. Curiosity is opened minded with a bias to learn and self enquire. I want to focus on ability to self enquire.

Interestingly the CIPD in it's Spring review of the function reported that in a survey of 146 senior practitioners that it was this behaviour we performed least well when compared to the other behaviours. (we are best at collaborating). I think I recall hearing a presentation at last years CIPD annual conference on research undertaken by the consultancy Bridge that showed that our peers in other disciplines such as finance and marketing said as profession we lacked curiosity. As part of my research for this blog (yes I did some research!) I sourced the help of the research team of the CIPD who directed to a blog on this subject, only for me to discover no one had commented! A blog on is HR curious, and no one comments! It must tell you something.

So let me share with you my personal observations. I speak/ attend a lot at corporate and CIPD events on all matters pertinent to HR. I always ask how many attendees have visited a customer/client in the last 12 months. I never get more than more than 5% of the audience. If I ask questions about turnover, and margin, again the vast majority of the audience don't know. Is it a case we don't take the time to find out. Is there a perception that such customer and financial information isn't relevant to our jobs and therefore we don't need to know.

Or is it something much more fundamental . Again some possible and controversial observations. Do we lack self confidence? Is this a factor that the majority of the profession are women? Whilst recognising the danger of sweeping generalisations females are notoriously reluctant to self promote. Incidentally the boys in my audiences also don't appear to be any more forthcoming so I presume they also don't know the answers to my questions. Is it a case we don't ask the question because we are frightened to show our ignorance?

Is it a function that the vast majority of HR professionals started their career in administrative support functions? CIPD research the spring edition of Insight revealed from a population of 2266 HR professionals 39% came from support, 34% from customer service and only 18% sales and 8% marketing. Still I am not convinced either explanation satisfactorily explains the lack of curiosity.

Is it a factor that we are prone to collaborate? Do we avoid competition or conflict? Is it just case of we just don't get out enough? We stay within our silo, reluctant to self market. Is there some deep routed limiting belief around "empty vessels make the most sound? ". It's just not the done thing. Interestingly I have lost count of the number of times I have heard derogatory comments about the propensity of David Fairhurst, HRs most influential for the 4th year running, to self promote.

Is it the fault of the CIPD? The curriculum doesn't encourage questions around the wider issues of running a business outside the orbit of HR. Would we all be better served if we got an MBA?

So what's the answer. I honestly don't know. If pushed I think it's a factor of all things I have listed to a greater or lesser extent. What I do know that we will continue to struggle as a profession, be taken seriously by the rest of the business unless we understand the business. To understand the business you have to ask questions. You need to be curious.

Answers on a postcard. I will measure our curious propensity by the number of comments this blog generates. Go on surprise me!

Let me say at the outset I am a big fan of David. I appreciate he's not everyone's cup of tea, however he has got something to say, he's thought provoking and innovative in his thinking.

However to my main point or David's point. Harley Davidson have the ultimate customer advocacy given that their customers get the logo tattooed somewhere on their person. Whether you see it depends on the location and their desire to show it to you!

That set me thinking. What do we need to do as HR professionals to get employees to show that same level of advocacy? Indeed is it a desirable objective? Having been sold to by Christian Scientists and those involved in the pyramid selling techniques of water purification systems, both of which can't be faulted for their commitment to their cause, but they do come over as a little creepy if not scary.

However having started my career in the NHS, I was very impressed by everyone's belief in the institution. Free health care irrespective of who you are. Implicitly getting engagement has got to be in part believing in what the organisation does.

So my starting point is that the organisation has to be seen to deliver something that the community at large values. Hence the difficulty of getting people to sign up to careers with estates agents, double glazing sales, red top journalism and dare I say working in investment banks currently.

So does that rule out the majority of employers who just can't reach that self actualisation level if I borrow an analogy from Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

MacLeod on analyzing what drives engagement focused on understanding the business strategy and the employee's role in that strategy, having voice and being listened to, having a manager who demonstrably cares about employees and their development and finally working for a business that has integrity.

Michael's model is less sophisticated. People want recognition (financial and non financial), social networks, and personnel development.

However I sense both of these models are the micro drivers of engagement. There is an over arching need to sign up to what the organization stands for. I believe if you hit both levels you are well on the way to the "self actualization of engagement" with the employees queuing up to see the tattooist.

So what can you do about it? You need to understand your customers. Employees are our customers. We need to ask what is important for them about the organisaiton for which they work. How can it be that research shows that a third of organisations still fail to ask the question?

Assuming we ask the questions, are we asking the right questions. Do we need to know how our employees want the organisation to be perceived by it's customers and the community at large. Marketing people spend a lot of time asking customers how they feel about the organisation, I am not sure HR has grasped this nettle.

It also takes us into dangerous territory, having asked the question, are we not then obliged to incorporate the results into the business strategy. How about Nike's employees insisting on fair-trade and a move away from production in low cost third world countries, GSK employees insisting on selling cheap drugs to the third world, or closer at home, a desire of female employees to see at least one third representation on the plc board.

So to my final point, I think we all understand the benefits of increasing engagement, however if we are to move up the engagement hierarchy towards self actualisation, or to which I shall in future refer to as wearing your heart on your sleeve (company logo tattooed on your arm), we need to think of macro as well as micro level engagement and maybe giving the lunatics a greater say in the running of the asylum. Or at the very least have a say who they treat and the treatment regime employed.

Looking forward to your feedback.

But it also reveals half of these employers believe that competition for talent is even greater rising from 41% and 21% in 2010 and 2009 respectively.

How can this be?

Hence a paradox: a tsunami of candidates but a dearth of talent.

Why are more people out there looking for jobs? Is it a purely a function of more people being unemployed. Well yes, but given the economic climate, recession follow by a very slow pick up, pay restraint, increased taxation, declining discretionary spend, all lead to employees starting to poke their heads above the parapet and see if the grass on the other side is greener. Post credit crunch is it a case of employers believing they have to do less to retain key people, that overall engagement is falling. It would certainly appear that levels of engagement are in declined for the public sector.

From an employee perspective there is a clear argument for moving organisations in order to grow your income and employability. Employees who moved within competitors in the same sector, typically earn more and are more employable in that they have a better understanding of the competitive environment.

But how come employers are finding it more difficult to recruit. Is it a question that the highly talented individual is much more discerning about the employer. Alignment of the individual to organisational values will make it very difficult to prise good candidates away from their existing employers. Much has been made about the employer brand. The candidates need to ensure the employer will add to their cv. However in an era of much greater transparency is it case that employers need to "walk their talk". Social media will find you out. To use a footballing anology, it is always going to be difficult for a team in the relegation zone to recruit talent. No one wants to join a team of losers.

MacLeod's tells us that employees' require of an organisation:

1. There is an organisational vision in which they believe and in which they understand their role in that vision.
2. An organisation that communicates and more importantly listens to them.
3. A manager that has the employees interests best interests at heart, and in particular develops them.
4. An organisation must have integrity.

Is it a question that the reason organisations can't recruit is not so much a fact that there aren't enough good quality candidates out there, but they can't attract and land the best ones?

What do you think?

Footnote: How important is positive psychology in that winning mentality.

Post Wimbledon and yet another almost but not quite year for Andy Murray, I listened to a psychologist this morning on radio. In the arena of elite sport, is the different between winning and losing just down to the mental toughness? It would appear that British sportsmen and women have the capability, the skill set, but somehow don't have the self belief to get them over the finishing line as champions. As HR professionals in an organisational setting what do we need to put in place to achieve that champion mentality? Answers on a post card.