CASE STUDY

what's
my future!
By Dr. Sandeep K. Krishnan

A classic case of how an assessment of three days at Alright

Corporation's development centre confused Thomas Issac as the
company had called him a consistent performer, but, assessment
scores showed that he was after all not the best of best, despite
being given promotions and increments, which further demoralized
him and lead him to question about his future at Alright!

T
homas Isaac has just come out of a
development center programme at Alright
Corporation. Aimed at building future
leaders in the organization, "Aegis" has been
conceptualized as a comprehensive process
for leadership development. An integral part
of Aegis is a development center process that does an
assessment of an individual's competence vis-à-vis
relevant job/position competencies followed by a series
of development initiatives to prepare the person for
next level of job.
It all happened for Thomas three months back. He
was very happy after the meeting with President HR
of Alright Corporation. He has been invited specially
along with 10 other employees who had completed 5
years in the organization. Thomas had little clue about
what the President had to say. He was all praise for
Thomas and mentioned that he is a consistent High
Performer in the organization and will take special
efforts for his growth. President also mentioned that
he will be invited to join the Aegis programme soon.
Thomas joined Alright Corporation five years back
as a management trainee from a premier institute of
management. He had consistent academic performance
and was in the top 15 percentile at the highly
competitive management school. Thomas continued
with his excellence at Alright in the past five years was
always in the top 10 percentile of performers. Getting
a consistent 5 (highest rating) for the past five years.
He also had an impeccable career growth with Alright
as well. On confirmation after the management trainee
programme he was made an Assistant Manager. In the
next year itself he got promoted as a Manager. This
was a rare event as the minimum growth period from
Assistant Manager to Manager was 2 years. Thomas
also increased his salary by almost 60 % in the two
years. Although for a talent like him, market was ready
to pay much more, he choose not to move from

40 ■ August 2010 www.humancapitalonline.com ■

 CASE STUDY

Alright as he was liking the job he was doing and the
organization was taking care of him as well.
In the job market there are a lot of opportunities
for a sales manager with impeccable background and
performance. However, certain aspects of support from
Alright were great for Thomas's career. When he joined,
he was assigned to a senior mentor, Simon who headed
Sales for Europe. Simon was available for him to bounce
off ideas and even hand hold him in tough situations.
There were also rumors that it was this mentor who
helped him get a quick promotion. Rumors apart, the
mentor carried considerable respect in the organization
and even Thomas's immediate managers respected him
a lot. To his luck the managers whom Thomas reported
were also non nonsense individuals who valued his
dedication to work and performance. He was also
recommended by them to some of the best training
programmes that Alright could offer. He was awarded
the best management trainee and also on becoming a
Manager was given a team of three new assistant
managers to manage his territory. The new managers
under Thomas were also from similar background also

DR. SANDEEP K. KRISHNAN

VICE PRESIDENT - HR ■ CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT, ACROPETAL TECHNOLOGIES
Dr. Sandeep K. Krishnan is the vice president, HR and corporate development, Acropetal
Technologies, India where he heads the function. He is a mechanical engineer and a fellow of the
Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, where he completed his doctorate. His areas of
expertise include designing human resource processes, leadership development, organization
structuring, and employer branding. He has been instrumental in organization development and
bringing change by instilling effective HR processes, and systems as an in-house professional and
as a consultant. He has worked with organizations such as IBM, RPG, and Ernst and Young in the
area of human resource consulting, Talent Management, and as an HR Generalist. He teaches as a
visiting faculty in institutes like IIMs, and IMT Nagpur. He has published papers in highly regarded
academic journals and publications of general interest. His areas of research include employee
attrition and strategic human resource management.

■ www.humancapitalonline.com August 2010 ■ 41

CASE STUDY

Factor / Process Objective How and When

Performance Entry to the Aegis programme : consistent 4 NA

+ rating over past three years

Recommendation for To recommend eligible candidate based
programme on evaluation by business and need like
evaluation for promotion / leadership
pipeline.
Done by Immediate manager / SBU head /
Vice President HR every year based on
evaluation of fast track candidates.
Recommendation forwarded to President
HR and finalized

Development Center 1st step in assessment of competencies 3 day process including development
discussion and meeting with key
management people

Meeting with SBU head To share ownership and results of Within 10 days of development center
and BU HR development center. To firm up the draft process
development action plan post assessment
center

Development process To develop on identified competencies Continuous with a reasonable time period
to complete action like training, mentoring,
360 degree feedback, reading etc.

valued him. Although Thomas was temperamental with
them, there were also occasions where they complained
to managers of Thomas about very high expectations
he set for them and his micromanaging work style.
However, many of it was ignored and things all worked
fine with the results showing his territory was one of
the best and his team got the best of performance
bonus. He repeated the same success next year as well
though two of his team members moved to another
territory stating personal reasons. He did not feel the
pinch as there were many in the new batch of assistant
managers who were keen to work with Thomas.
With the fifth year coming, Thomas already had
another territory manager working under him.
Considering Thomas's performance, the organization
was already considering to promote him as a senior
manager. The placement of a new territory manager
under him was part of a planned move to transition his
responsibilities and moves him up the ladder as a
regional manager. This was a great move as Thomas
already started smelling his promotion as a senior
manager.
At Alright, it was mandatory that people who are
getting fast tracked will be part of Aegis leadership
development programme. The objective was to support
develop competencies for managing leadership positions
and also develop a strong team that can take up future
leadership roles. The leadership model consisted of the
following processes.
Thomas was not much aware of what a development
center process is when he got an email invitation from
the Group Headquarters. From some sources he got
to know that it has something to do with group
discussion and case study assessments which he had
done very well in his management institute. He also
saw it as a nice opportunity to travel to Singapore as
the event was scheduled to happen there. He also tried
to talk to Simon; however he was on a business tour
and was not available.
When the development center happened, Thomas
was surprised to see that many of the people who were
along with him in a batch of 8 people where from very
different background. Four were from operations, Two
from Finance, One from consulting, and only another
one person from Sales. The people who were from
operations and finance were almost 10 years older to
him as well. The development center was well
structured with individual presentations, group
discussions, and an in-try exercise. He felt he was the
most confident of all and almost dominated in most of
the discussions. Some case studies he even felt were
trivial and not up to his knowledge level. There were
a group of senior executives from the company who
were assessors in the development centers. They
observed him carefully and even were asking questions
in individual exercises. The group was informed that
the competency model had nine competencies and an
individual who is supposed to be a high potential
according to the model should exhibit benchmark level
in atleast 5 out of 9 competencies.
After all the assessment, Thomas was called for
discussing the development center results and action
planning for improvement. He was surprised to know
that out of 9 competencies he was at benchmark level
on four and in five of them he is just below benchmark.
This also makes him not a hi-flier as per the framework.
He falls under the category of high performer but
medium potential. The assessor who was giving him
feedback gave lengthy reasons on why he has got

42 ■ August 2010 www.humancapitalonline.com ■


particular scores. Thomas did well in communication,
analytical skills, persuasion, and decision making.
However, many softer aspects like coordination, leading
and motivating, supportiveness, innovation, and
organizing he was on the border line. The assessor
mentioned about how he did not support other in the
group discussions, was fixed in his thinking, and even
did not have patience to come to logical conclusion in
certain negotiations because of poor leadership. The
evidence shown was also pointing to same as well. He
tried to explain his point on why he was doing things
in certain way because his way was the right way
compared to others in the team, the cases which were
given were simple and he thought it was not worth too
much of assessment, and sometimes felt that unless he
took enough time during discussions, the point he was
trying to reach might not be concluded etc. However,
there were no room to change the results and he has
to take it as it was arrived through a "scientific" process.
After the discussions although no announced he
could see that two among the eight were given an
opportunity to meet the CEO and also he heard rumors
that they were informed that they will get a chance for
a one level job promotion and also training in one of
the elite leadership programme of Harvard Business
■ www.humancapitalonline.com
CASE STUDY
School. Dejection started growing in Thomas's mind.
He never felt average in Alright till now. However, he
could not fathom the thought that from this point he
is not the best of the best. He might not get the
opportunities he always cared for his career growth.
This report will also go to his SBU head and HR. How
will he be able to face them? All the five years of
consistent record is getting questioned here. Will he be
just another employee in Alright? No longer the star
performer whom everybody looked upto? Development
center report will be discussed and even his team
might get to know about this. How will he face them?
Thomas was advised to take a 360 degree feedback
on certain competencies and also have a coach who is
exceptional in team management. He was also advised
to talk to his HR for getting nominated for a programme
in building team skills. He also wanted to prove his
competence to assessors given another chance.
However, they said it might happen after a few years
for him when he might be assessed for General
Managerial competencies.
Thomas was thinking - "I always dictated terms
here. This is going to be really bad. May be I do not
have a future here now. How can three days decide my
career? Am I not the best in sales?"
August 2010 ■ 43
CASE STUDY

LALIT KAR
VICE PRESIDENT (HR) ■ RELIANCE RETAIL LTD
Lalit Kar is a Vice President (HR) with Reliance Retail Ltd. He heads HR for its South India operations.
He has been with Reliance for the past 5 years. Prior to joining Reliance, he had worked for about 13
years in the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB). During his career spanning over 21 years,
he has been involved in three start-ups and one closure and possesses experience in the entire
spectrum of HR starting from industrial relations to organizational capability building. Lalit is an MA
in Personnel Management and Industrial Relations from the Utkal University. He was the University
gold-medalist of his batch. Lalit is an avid reader of HR literature. He has also penned more than 100
poems in English.

T
homas Isaac's impressive academic records
are a testimony to his hard work and high
IQ. At work also, he exhibits a very high
sense of result-orientation. He stretches
himself and his team for business
performance. He is committed to Alright -
the company he works for, and has not been lured by
greener pastures. The organization has recognized his
contribution and has put him on fast track and given
higher increments and better training opportunities.
In Alright, there is a formal process of Mentoring
in place. The organization has also an Annual
Performance Management system with linkage between
performance and rewards. Thomas has been mentored
by Simon, one of the most high profile executives in
Alright. Thomas has been rewarded based on his ratings
in PMS. Then there is a Development Centre, 'Aegis',
which is supposedly a comprehensive process for
Leadership Development and is mandatory for all
employees who are fast tracked.
What is impressive in Alright is these programmes
and initiatives give a semblance of a good Talent
Management system at work. But the appreciation ends
here!
At Alright Thomas's delivery on business
performance is the singular reason of high ratings on
a consistent basis. His poor team behavior, however,
has been overlooked - those reporting to him have left
his team for other assignments under one pretext or
the other but his supervisors have chosen to turn a
blind eye to his dysfunctional leadership style. He has
never been counselled on his temperamental behaviour
or his tendency of micro-managing. High ratings year
on year have rather reinforced in him that he is infallible.
Little have his supervisors realized that they have
actually done a disservice to a young talent.
As the last straw, Thomas has been catapulted by
President (HR) to participate in a group level
Development Centre (DC). At least six out of eight
participants in the DC are almost ten years older to
him. It is evident that from his business, Thomas has
been selected ahead of many senior employees. This
over-rated employee is clearly under-prepared in terms
of his experience and maturity for a group level DC of
Alright.
A cursory glance of the case reveals that
performance management system in Alright is not a
mature process. Thomas has many improvement areas
on behavioural dimensions. However, halo effect built
around Thomas's sales ability has clouded the judgment
of the supervisors and none of them has given a
feedback or counselled him anytime on these areas
during the first five years of his service. The leadership
and behavioural dimensions in performance appraisal
system of Alright seem to have been undermined by
every supervisor even though all of them are no-
nonsense bosses. In Alright, HR runs Performance
Appraisal as a ritual. HR has abdicated its responsibility
in making PA a responsible and effective
communication process encompassing an in-depth
feedback on both performance and behavioural/
leadership dimensions. Had Thomas been given genuine
feedbacks by his supervisors from time to time, he
would have probably improved on his team
management and leadership skills. More importantly,
his morale would not have been maimed post the DC.
It also appears that a generic competency
framework or a set of leadership practices has neither
been articulated nor communicated in Alright. Had it
been articulated, communicated and practised and most
importantly, had all people processes for measurement,
reward and recognition been aligned to it, employees'
behaviour would have mirrored the shared cultural
values of the organization. In organizations where
leadership and competency framework is based on its
espoused values, the measurement criteria in
Development Centre (DC) also stay largely embedded
in it. Even the DCs designed for certain roles seek to
assess employees on specific measurement criteria
which are not far removed from the defined generic
competencies or leadership practices. In Alright DC
does assessment of an individual's competencies vis-à-
vis his relevant job/position followed by a series of
development initiatives. Had a competency framework
been in place in Alright, Thomas would have had a
clear understanding of the qualities and behaviour that
was expected of him by the organization. Over the
years, Thomas would have probably invested in himself
on building the right attitude and possibly would have
performed better in DC on aspects like coordination,
leading and motivating, supportiveness etc. It may be
noted that Thomas's scores were marginally below the
benchmark scores. Today Thomas has been left
completely disillusioned - even after the DC, he asks
himself, "…How can three days decide my career? Am
I not the best in sales?" He still remains fixated with the
only attribute of giving a high top line. He identifies his
leadership capabilities with this attribute alone. He is

44 ■ August 2010 www.humancapitalonline.com ■

 CASE STUDY

yet to realize that in his tireless push for sales, he has
pushed down the morale of his team to the ebb. DC
in Alright, therefore, appears to be an isolated process
and has failed to convince him of his need to build
leadership and team management competencies.
DC in Alright appears to be a bit elitist. It has been six other more senior employees could not qualify. The
held in Singapore - cost of travel and stay could become
prohibitive if it is not central to the geography in which
Alright operates. Normally higher the cost, lesser is the
coverage. Probably there is a scope for broad-basing
the programme by democratizing the process. After
all, an organization needs to build leaders at each level
to become and remain rock-solid!
The objective of the DC is to support develop
competencies for managing leadership positions …...
But what is surprising is that Thomas will not get
another chance for assessment to be able to move into
a leadership role. He might only be assessed for General
Managerial competencies sometime in the future. The
underlying assumption of this DC, therefore, appears to
In order that Thomas chooses the second option
and stays back with Alright, he needs to be convinced
that there is no element of shame involved : the fact
remains, Thomas was one of the youngest participants
who missed it marginally and as the rumour goes, even
President (HR) can also assure that subject to Thomas
taking up the feedback seriously and working towards
improving on the specific competencies, he will ensure
that he gets a second chance, as an exception. Simon
can be advised to engage with Thomas more
meaningfully by taking a stock of his progress at a
periodic interval. To upkeep Thomas's morale, Alright
should continue the status quo with one territory
manager working under him for some time and
gradually figure out the role to be assigned to each of
them.
Certain pitfalls in administration of HR processes
could erode their credibility to the extent of these
being perceived as detrimental to the employee morale.

“
be binary: either people have It is a fact of life that one cannot
potential to become leaders or wish away assessment and
they do not possess it at all; more HR should also measurements in an
organization. But there should
importantly, leadership skills
cannot be developed over time.
re-engineer its processes be a substantial build-up of
This underlying assumption of the (so) each process delivers awareness on the objectives,
administration and
DC in Alright is contrary to its
stated objective: "to support
what it is purported to do consequences of these
development of competencies for while staying integrated “ processes. For example, in this
case also Thomas had hardly
managing leadership positions….."
Though Thomas has been advised
(for) talent management any idea of the structure and
for undergoing a series of and development. consequences of the DC he was
going to face. The experience
developmental interventions like
therefore has been extremely
360 degree feedback, coaching on
unsettling for him. Had Thomas been an informed
team management etc. the door to a leadership role
participant, his morale would not have suffered as
has been slammed on him by the DC by denying him
much as it did.
another opportunity.
Lastly, we should address the issue of alignment of
If, Alright chooses to still stay with the current
HR processes like DC with the ultimate purpose of
format of DC, the process should rather be called an
talent management. In Alright, the three people
Assessment Centre for the right positioning and it should
processes we discussed viz. mentoring, Performance
be clarified to everyone that the process allows only Appraisal and Development Centre are not aligned to
one chance to the participants. each other in both their design and implementation.
Now what should Thomas do? A three day program As we have covered already, an articulated behavioural
has apparently sealed his fate. He feels like a fallen /leadership competency framework should be central
hero - who once dictated the terms in Alright but to building and reinforcing the desired behaviour in
today faces the ignominy of rejection. the organization. All the three processes discussed in
the context of Alright, can be aligned to a competency
Possible options for Thomas model to create a common theme. HR should also re-
1) He can out-rightly reject the feedback received in engineer its processes in a manner which ensures that
'Aegis' and start looking for jobs outside and leave each process delivers what it is purported to do
Alright at the first opportunity; or individually while staying integrated to the other
2) He can talk to his supervisor, mentor and President, processes to achieve the common goal of talent
HR. He can take the feedbacks positively and start management and development. On the implementation
working towards building and improving on the team side, communication, training and reward and
and leadership competencies. recognition play a key role : a common understanding
If Thomas chooses the first over the second, he on all the processes and the required skills should be
could get an offer with a higher pay package and built through communication and training interventions
probably a better job title. But he will never understand and Alright should reward people who walk its talk.
his developmental needs and may stagnate at some And finally, giving and receiving feedback should evolve
point in his career. as a regular practice in Alright.

■ www.humancapitalonline.com August 2010 ■ 45

CASE STUDY

DR. RITU ANAND

VP & DEPUTY HEAD - GLOBAL HR ■ TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES
Ritu Anand heads the Talent Management function at a global scale, which spans key KR areas
including Compensation, Benefits, Policies, Career and Performance Management. She is responsible
for the localization for these functions for a diverse workforce spread across Europe, Middle East,
Africa, Asia Pacific, USA and Latin America. She holds a Doctorate in Psychology. Dr.Anand's rich
experience of over 2 decades in TCS showcases several milestones such as - guiding TCS through
several successful assessments, conceptualizing & deploying variable compensation through EVA
framework, balancing workforce diversity, designing a competency-based organization & many
more. She has also been a recipient of prestigious awards, to quote a few - "Professional of the Year"
by World HRD Congress and "Outstanding HR Professional in IT industry" by IT People Awards.

F
irstly development centers and similar kind
of approaches are as good as their
implementation. Instead of it being a feedback
checkpoint which happens at an interval of 5
years and becomes the ground for an
individual to get feedback, a more consistent
and frequent approach is preferable.
As an organization, it is important that the leadership
competencies or the expected behaviors are clearly
defined, articulated and then measured. Also, a linking
pin on competencies should thread up between the
different levels in the organization.
Since the case is silent on whether Thomas got
feedback on these issues through his stint in the
organization, one has to assume that the dejection,
which Thomas is feeling is because this mechanism
was not in place.
Having said this, Thomas should now be counseled
to accept the results and help him carve out action
items in the competencies where improvement is
The criteria for nomination to leadership
development programs need to be precisely defined.
In this case the only criterion defined is a consistent 4+
rating over three years. It is important to bear in mind
that performance though may be a pre-requisite for
potential; it alone does not guarantee success at the
next level. Hence, from a process perspective, a
preliminary check on potential along with performance
criterion would strengthen the process.
An important aspect would also be that the feedback
is shared and concrete counseling is done.
Development centers for career growth
The process has to start with the right and current
identification of leadership competencies.
Let us take an example: Suppose there is an
organization which has 5 management levels, with L1
being the most junior and L5 being the senior most.
Leadership competencies are identified for L5. The
organization cannot suddenly at L4 pull out a list of

“
needed. He needs to consistent performers and start
appreciate the world beyond assessing them for leadership
numbers and realize the
dynamics of leadership, and
As an organization, competencies at L5.
There has to be a
an important aspect is the it is important that the competency pyramid which links
people dynamics.
This needs to be done in a
leadership competencies or up competencies from L1 to L5
in a logical manner. If the
sensitive manner
positioned as mechanism
which are being done for him
and
clearly defined, articulated
“
the expected behaviors are organization is a new business
on high growth trajectory feels
"risk taking" is an important
to get into the next level than and then measured. competency at L5, thinking needs
a sense of failure at not having to go into how will this risk taking
"cracked" it in one go. translate into competencies at
L4, L3 and so on. What will be the feedback mechanism
Deterimental development processes for the individuals at these levels and how will we assess
By their very nature, assessment centers are supposed whether they are on the right track.
to be developmental. However, if it is looked at from Once you have this mechanism in place, coupled
the perspective of an employee who got nominated to with frequent checks and feedback in place, an
the program because of his/her consistent high assessment center approach coupled with other tools
performance but the results are not so positive for which provide a view into potential to play a higher
him/her, it can be demoralizing. role can be put in place.
Transparency, communication and preparedness are The outcome of such an assessment should not
important. The candidate should be aware of the risks necessarily be "next promotion", "next role", "next
and the outcome and what will be the implication of increment" but actions which can prepare the individual
the outcome. To a large extent, this can help mitigate for a leadership role by leveraging on his/her strengths
the shock value which may happen when one hasn't and offering improvement avenues on the competencies
met the criterion or come out with flying colors. which need to be strengthened. HC

46 ■ August 2010 www.humancapitalonline.com ■