On-Boarding Intervention in Bank of America - Case Study Example

? On-boarding Intervention in Bank of America ON-BOARDING INTERVENTION IN BANK OF AMERICA The Bank of America is a financial services and multinational banking corporation, which has its headquarters in North Carolina, in the city of Charlotte. By assets, it is the 2nd biggest US bank holding company, and also the 4th biggest by market capitalization. It was also announced to be the 5th biggest by total revenue in the US, and the 2nd biggest US non-oil company. It was ranked as the world’s 3rd largest company by Forbes in 2010. Its 2008 Merrill Lynch acquisition made it the largest corporation in wealth management in addition to making it a crucial player in investment banking. As of 2009, it held at least 12.2% of all US bank deposits. Its main competitors are wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, and Citigroup. As well as operating in all 50 states, it its retail banking footprint covers at least 80% of the United State’s population and serves up to 57 million consumers. The premise of this paper is to study the Bank of America’s talent management program that has a vital part to play in the bank’s phenomenal success, identify its strengths, how it can be improved, and finally to suggest other effective approaches to meet future challenges. In today’s corporate market, the bank of America probably has the best approach to on-boarding, its main form of executive talent management (Goldsmith& Carter, 2009). This has led to a 12% turnover in hiring of executives, having fired 24 out of 196. Some higher corporations have a 405-turnover rate for hiring. The program is designed to aid just hired executives in learning facility, build, and leverage relationship networks for company initiative implementation and career success. On taking the job, the executive, is faced with three dilemmas: mastering a demanding ad complex role, high expectations, and a high derailment probability. On-boarding interventions are underpinned by fundamental assumptions (Goldsmith& Carter, 2009). The baseline assumption contends that it occurs over time that is, specifically in the executive’s initial 12-18 months. Interventions occur at given intervals in the 12-18 month period, not the first couple of months on the job. The on-boarding also should be supported via multiple resources, that is, stakeholder resources. Finally, these interventions are dependent on the stakeholder- executive interaction. On-boarding consists of four major phases. The first is the selection phase, which consists of the selection process. At the Bank of America, cultural fit and leadership ability are added dimensions to the usual criterion of experience and expertise. The HR function thus gives added attention to its executive search firm’s partnerships to avoid derailment of executives lacking cultural sensitivity, interpersonal skills, and leadership ability. The bank’s leadership development partner assesses the candidate’s leadership approach, team value, and cultural fit. The LD partner then formulates questions for the interviewers that provide insight into the misfit or fit potential of the candidate into the bank’s culture, and their leadership credibility. On hiring, the candidate is given the interview questions and answers, though the feedback source is kept anonymous. The LD partner acquires a calibrated and clear job specification supported and spelled out by the stakeholders about what is required for the job (Goldsmith& Carter, 2009). The next phase is the entry phase. The first few weeks are critical for the new executive. He or she must complete four outcomes: develop specific business acumen for the role, learn the culture of the organization, master leadership demands of the role, and build relationships critical to the organization. In order for these demands to be met, three intervention categories are utilized. These are support and coaching, operational forums, and processes and tools. There are three primary givers of support and coaching; the LD collaborate, HR generalist, and hiring executive. The LD partner positions himself as the new executive’s critical resource by preparing the executive’s on-boarding plan (Goldsmith& Carter, 2009). The next phase is the midpoint phase that lasts from one hundred to one hundred and thirty days (Goldsmith& Carter, 2009). About 100-130 days into the job, the executive will participate in the check-in session with the stakeholders. This involves reception of verbal and written feedback from a list of select key stakeholders. The design of this process is to speed up effective working relationship development between stakeholders and new leaders. This aids the new executive to comprehend the coaching culture and feedback unique to the Bank of America’s environment for rich feedback. It aids in the clarification of the stakeholder’s expectations, and to allow the executives to avoid derailment by adjusting their approaches early. The fourth phase consists of the executive’s review after 12 months (Goldsmith& Carter, 2009). Strengths of on-boarding interventions are quite numerous (Lance, 2006). This is what makes it so successful for corporations like the bank of America. One advantage is that it aids new executives in the prioritization and organization of the executive processes. It also aids the executive to learn the values, culture, history, and business of the Bank of America, as well as also helping the newly appointed executives to better comprehend the frameworks of leadership at the bank of America. Another advantage is that it permits flow of important information and the setting of expectations that are feasible to avoid derailment. These ensure a smooth experience of integration for newly appointed executives (Lance, 2006). Other advantages include aiding seeding up of relationship development between the newly appointed executive and the other members of his team, including the LD manager and his or her own team members. This helps in the new-leader team integration. It also aids in the acceleration of relationship development between the newly appointed executive and the other executive team members, which in turn helps to achieve new peer integration. Moreover, the on-boarding interventions help in the diagnosis of potential pitfalls and problems, reception of developmental feedback, and the creation of solutions. Yet another advantage is that it aids the newly appointed executive to network and connect with the rest of his or her peer executives. Finally, on-boarding helps the newly appointed executive to gauge their own individual performance on metrics of a key that is evaluated by those around them. These minimize executive derailment’s high costs, as well as acceleration of results of executive performance (Vaiman, 2008). However, there are opportunities for improvement of this talent management process (Schiemann, 2009). These include education of the on-boarded employees, in this case the new executives, on the structure of the corporation’s matrix, governance, key factors of success, and highlighting organizations. This is especially important if the employees feel overwhelmed by the size of the firm or corporation and navigation of the large organization matrix. If the pace of the processes of making decisions frustrates the executives, the LD manager could also educate the newly employed executives on their rights on decisions when going forward. The corporation can also leverage approaches to collaboration that are already in the corporation for the facilitation of knowledge sharing. Other approaches to talent management include merging of management data for talent using management software with incorporated capabilities in compensation, performance, and learning. This would include automation of the process of talent management to an online solution and thus reducing costs and time of reviewing of performance. Turning these appraisals of automated performances instantly into plans for training development, aids in the recognition and closure of performance by the executives and other employees (Silzer, 2010). Another strategy would involve the alignment of demand for training with the need for performance and the strategic goals, which would directly reduce money and time spent on training activities that are not strategic to the interests of the company. This eliminates the conflicting criteria for conflict evaluation via the application of a standard solution, which imposes consistent evaluation criteria, feedback, and language. Finally, it would also promote the use of initiatives by fair and reliable pay- for- performance (Vaiman, 2008). In conclusion, successful on-boarding is a vital component of any strategy for talent management. With increasing costs of recruitment, leaders in business must comprehend that integration of new executives into the corporation effectively is a vital step in ensuring the success. It is also vital to understand who owns and controls the on-boarding as a whole and also the various steps along the way. This ensures sustainability. The key is the engagement of vital stakeholders and newly appointed executives in interactive communication that aids them to comprehend each other. On-boarding has much strength that far outweighs the parts that require improvement. Other talent management strategies include alignment of demand for training with the need for performance and the strategic goals, and merging of management data for talent using management software with incorporated capabilities in compensation, performance, and learning. References Goldsmith M, & Carter L. (2009.). Best Practices in Talent Management How the World's Leading Corporations Manage, Develop, and Retain Top Talent, Epub Edition. Hoboken: Pfeiffer & Co. Lance A, & Berger D. B. (2006). TALENT MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK (EBOOK). New York: McGraw-Hill Professional. Schiemann W. (2009). Reinventing talent management : how to maximize performance in the new marketplace. Hoboken: Wiley. Silzer F, & Dowell E. (2010). Strategy driven talent management : a leadership imperative. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Vaiman V. (2008). Smart talent management : building knowledge assets for competitive advantage. Cheltenham: Elgar . Read More