Bates ExPI™ Assessment Certification

The accelerating pace of change in the modern workplace has necessitated a proactive approach to envisioning the future and what will be required to support organizations as they evolve and adapt.

To advance the conversation, we recently facilitated a future-storming session to reimagine the future of work and talent strategy.

Future-storming is the process of identifying risks and trends that might affect your business or industry vertical, combining them in new ways, and thinking of solutions to mitigate these risks. The ambition? To break the chains of traditional thought, sparking insights into the evolving domain of talent strategy.

Here are five transformative themes that surfaced during the session:

1. Fluidity of talent:

Gone are the days when “talent” described a fixed set of competencies an individual brought to the table. In today’s world, talent is an amalgamation of adaptability, resilience, and the capability to evolve. AI and automation, while replacing routine tasks, can't replace the human capacity to grow, reimagine, and pivot.

The traditional talent pool, defined by rigid skill sets, is making way for a reservoir of potential. It's about harnessing the innate human ability to unlearn, relearn, and traverse uncharted territories. Recognizing this fluid nature of talent can redefine how organizations recruit, retain, and nurture their human capital. The future will prize the ability to learn and relearn, shifting from fixed competencies to a reservoir of ever-evolving potential.

2. Skill evolution, continuous, embedded learning:

The gig economy drives continuous learning, demanding flexibility and growth. The concept of learning in organizations is evolving beyond formal training modules. Today's employees are in a perpetual state of growth, thanks to digital platforms, cross-cultural collaborations, and the changing demands of their roles.

No longer can learning be a one-off event. It must be seen as a journey where every experience, every interaction, and even every failure is an opportunity to grow. This shift to continuous learning also means embracing failures as valuable lessons, promoting a culture of curiosity, and embedding learning in everyday tasks. Organizations that foster curiosity and value each failure as a learning opportunity will lead the way. The pathway to career progression is increasingly carved by demonstrable capabilities.

3. Culture, diversity, and the rich tapestry of learning:

Cultural diversity isn't just a buzzword; it's an untapped treasure for organizational growth. There is a burgeoning global talent landscape with increased cultural exposure which fosters innovation and holistic problem solving. Diverse teams, with their unique experiences and backgrounds, bring varied problem-solving methodologies, fresh perspectives, and richer insights, serving as an invaluable asset for organizational growth.

These multi-cultural interactions and experiences act as opportunities for informal learning, introducing employees to different ways of thinking and innovative solutions. Encouraging such interactions not only fosters a sense of inclusivity but also ensures a holistic organizational growth trajectory.

4. Embracing the tech-human synergy:

The technological renaissance envisages a world where computers and robots assume many of our current roles, from documentation to Q&A. The emerging synthesis of technology and biology, including embedded tech and wearables, offers insights, from employee well-being to real-time emotional feedback.

While technological advancements promise efficiency and scalability, the human element's value remains unmatched. The blend of technology with human intuition, creativity, and empathy is the key to future success. The ideal modern professional is one who not only leverages technology but also understands its boundaries, ensuring that technology serves humanity and not the other way around. While technology offers efficiency, the human touch provides empathy, intuition, and creativity.

With advancements come ethical considerations, especially with AI and machine learning. Balancing technological ability with an ethical foundation ensures that organizations remain not just profitable, but also principled.

5. The subtle art of leadership:

Work will undergo an existential reevaluation. The rise of decentralized leadership, the emphasis on enriching organizational culture, and a holistic approach to talent assessment will redefine organizations. With flattened organizational structures, fostering trust and embracing entrepreneurialism are necessities. Leaders will be more focused on collaboration, understanding, and guidance. In this landscape, leadership also means being tech-savvy, yet understanding the nuances of human emotion is also requisite. It's about removing barriers, and being a facilitator and mentor.

Furthermore, as work boundaries blur, leaders need to be agile, adaptive, and always ready to guide their teams through tumultuous waters. The responsibility is to create environments where employees feel empowered, engaged, and eager to contribute.

Reflections

The future-storming session offered a blueprint for navigating the complex terrains of the talent landscape of tomorrow. The future of talent and learning is unfolding, and through sessions like these, we aim to empower leaders to be the sculptors of that future.

Collins, L., Hartog, S., Werder, C. (2023). Future Storming: Reimagining Talent Strategy for Today. Delivered at the Conference for Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Boston, MA.

In recent years, the coaching market has continued to make major advancements in how to scale coaching for the many. It is commonplace to see small-group coaching, learning circles, peer to peer coaching, bot coaching, self-paced coaching, asynchronized coaching, and even instant coaching, with a live person at your fingertips. It’s easy to believe that innovation in the science of mindset and behavior change knows no borders.

So, what’s the problem here? With such advancement, what could possibly jeopardize the quality and integrity of coaching today? It might be different than what you think. Yes, much comes down to the coach themselves, their experience, and how they are resourced to do their work; but with more qualified and well-equipped coaches out there than ever before, this is less of an issue. The problem lies in the pivot towards selecting your own coach, and the challenge is ensuring you make an unbiased choice.

‍Swipe left to reinforce your bias

‍Today, choosing your coach is as simple as swiping left. Aided by apps modelled after unregulated dating platforms, employees can select their coach by scrolling or swiping through a list of options. These dating apps appeal to some of humanity’s most rudimentary motivators, such as physical attraction and affinity bias (defined below). Instead of matching with the best fit, Coach selection processes are becoming riddled with the same biases towards race, gender, and sexual orientations that most organizations are working hard to eliminate.

There are two main biases emerging in this approach to coach selection:

• Affinity Bias: Affinity bias, also known as similarity bias, is the tendency for people to connect with others who share similar interests, experiences, and backgrounds.
• Confirmation Bias: Confirmation bias is the inclination to draw conclusions about a situation or person based on your personal desires, beliefs, and prejudices, rather than on unbiased merit.

These biases lead to two common coaching traps:

‍Coaching Trap #1: Many scaled coaching organizations today use dating algorithms (think swiping left or right) to assist in coach selection. At first, an employee will only see a coach’s photo and would need to click on their image to see further details. While this is a fun and inventive way of enabling the employee’s speed to coach selection, as exposure to someone’s face only further reinforces basic biases; based on psychology, employees are more likely to choose the person that looks like them.

‍Coaching Trap #2: Across the globe, there is a strong bias towards both a specific set of educational institutions (the Ivy League) and certain levels of academic achievement (graduate degrees, whether in medicine, law, or other fields). Thus, graduates from lesser-known institutions and bachelor’s degree-holders may be considered less valuable. When selecting a coach, this bias frequently plays out with the perception that coaches with rarefied educational backgrounds will deliver better results.

By enabling coach selection in this way, employees are almost encouraged to reinforce their own biases, which include ageism, sexism, racism, name bias, beauty bias, cultural bias, and more. These biases are the ones that companies are working hard to disrupt via policies on rewards, hiring, employee lifecycle, and in society. Despite this, recent studies show alarming trends, even in early careers:

One study of high school students found that females considered to be attractive earned eight percent more than those who were not considered attractive, and men of below-average attractiveness made 13 percent less than other men who were considered attractive.¹

In another study, White-sounding names received 50 percent more call backs for interviews than Black-sounding names. Even with a higher quality resume, there is still a strong bias towards White-sounding names, which elicit 30 percent more call-backs. For Black-sounding names, the increase is much smaller. Applicants living in better neighborhoods also receive more call-backs, but this effect is not impacted by race.²

So, here’s the problem: the coach you think you need could not be the one you actually need. Just because you feel comfortable with a person or “see yourself” in them doesn’t necessarily correspond to effective change. Many people reflect on their coaching experiences and find that the coaches or people in their life that they’ve learned the most from are very different from themselves.

In a time when everyone is working together to eliminate bias and encourage equity, this is one more area where we need to lead change.

What’s the alternative?

‍To ensure quality coach selection, you need to follow a few key principles in your approach:

1. Make sure your coaching approach and initiative are aligned to strategic outcomes, a change agenda, and your organization values. This can be used to simplify and focus your pool of coaches based on experience, industry knowledge, specialties, and organizational or individual need.
2. Ahead of time, ask your employees to reflect on what they believe is important to them in a coach. This will normally result in them naming some of the higher order needs based on past experiences, current needs, and context.
3. Your coaching partner should have a “Coach Talent Director” role or similar. This person should know all there is to know about how to maximize their coaches’ talent and match it to yours. Invest in this relationship, carefully scoping out how this person can you be your guide on the side in getting the fit right for your organization.
4. Allocate a coach to each employee based on their stated needs. Take pulse checks along the way from both parties to check in on how the match is going.
5. If the coaching match isn’t working, or the chemistry isn’t there, make it easy for people to change without judgement or impediment.
6. If choice is a key requirement, introduce the coach selection only after working with the Coach Talent Director to select the information that is critical for employees to know. This information should be designed to help employees make an unbiased choice – qualities such as coaching style, approach, experience, and industry background are appropriate, but photographs and names should be avoided.

So much effort to reduce bias has been implemented into hiring, promotion, succession, and performance management processes that it would be a mistake to ignore biases in coach selection. To continue moving the needle on equity and inclusion – which not only delivers business results, but also makes our society better as a whole – it’s essential to take a critical look at your coach selection process. You just might be accidently helping to reinforce bias by encouraging employees to swipe left on a coach in an app.

‍References

1. Gordon, R. A., & Crosnoe, R. (2013, December 10). In school, good looks help and good looks hurt (but they mostly help). Council on Contemporary Families. https://contemporaryfamilies.org/good-looks-help-report/.
2. Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2003, July 28). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor Market Discrimination. NBER. https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.

lorem ipsum