"GBLP" - Shell at its best... and worst

Lots of acronyms in here. It is about Shell's development programmes

Since 1999 or so, Shell has run a set of assessment and development programmes, using our own staff and outside consultants called PDI. They are called ELP (for LC staff), GBLP (for 1's and 2's) and MLLP (3's and 4's).

The programmes are brilliant. If you ever get the opportunity to take one, grab it with both hands, it is probably the most valuable investment (for you) that Shell will ever make in you. If you think you have moderate potential, and have been at least JG4 for a couple of years, pressure your line manager to nominate you.

You may have heard of or seen what are known as the 9 planets. You can find them on the web. One is called "build shared vision" another "maximises business opportunities". Those are sort of competencies - content and behavioural - and it is around these that the assessments take place. You get traffic light assessment scores per planet, and lots more feedback - development themes etc - which are usually very insightful and usually amazingly powerful to help people develop. In each programme there are extra tools, and, critically, a formal discussion trying to set down development and career goals and actions to get there.

I was a "victim" of ELP on one of the first ever programmes in 1999, and since then have been a GBLP "faculty" once per year or so. Faculty observe role plays, support the assessing, lead the feedback at the event, and then support the follow up both in the development meeting and (where invited) later. It is probably my favourite week of the year, as well as being the most tiring. I did it this week from Monday to Weds and am still an exhausted wreck now.

It gives me a lot of reward to help someone else understand themselves better and then help them act on it. It refreshes my belief in the talent we have in Shell. I'm still in touch with many of the people I have been faculty for, and it gives a lot of pleasure to see how they have utilised what we could give them. I also always learn a lot myself during the experience. The coaches from PDI are pretty much all excellent, and generally great fun too. The whole experience is very intense and hugely satisfying - and think, if it is like that for faculty, the intensity for "victims" is even higher!

ELP is basically the same as GBLP. MLLP is a sort of "lite" version. Executed well, MLLP can be almost as powerful, and I've managed to get one of my team onto the scheme each year for the last five. It really helps people clarify their strengths, passions and career goals. As a lighter exercise, MLLP has some limitations, and it certainly relies on both the candidate and the line manager going in with the right mindset, having certain coaching skills, and putting in a lot of effort.

In the GBLP design, I do think one mistake was made, which was to base the traffic light assessments in such a way that leads to many, many more red planets being awarded than green ones (a median profile is one green, two amber and six red). I know it is only psychology, but shifting the scale with a fourth colour could have presented the same message with less risk of denial and more chance of follow up.

By the way, the last point is the only caveat to my advice to get on GBLP if you can. The experience is powerful, but generally not without pain and challenge to egos and dominant logic. If you are not ready to see yourself warts and all, stay away until you are! Wow, this is tough love, and that can be hard to receive.

Why is this Shell at its best? Lots of reasons.

First, such an investment (24 participants in GBLP need 12 faculty and 12 PDI coaches, plus lots of overhead and accommodation cost) demonstrates Shell's authentic and world-leading commitment to developing staff. The fact that HR have no difficulty in recruiting faculty suggests that many of our leaders are dedicated to staff development and generous as well. We are lucky indeed to work for such a company.

Second, the programme itself is beautifully designed and executed, in large part due to Shell's quality leaders. PDI are great, but in the end they are just consultants - a lot of the drive and uniqueness comes from inside. The planets are really smart and useful. Some of the role plays are superb.

Third, apart from some small-scale modernisation, the programme has stayed the same for 9 years. This shows a rare ability to avoid tinkering, and gives great benchmarking and validity to the whole exercise.

Why is this Shell at its worst? Well, we put in all this effort but don't have the courage to secure all the returns.

First, the follow up is very much up to the individual. Fair enough, the whole thing is intense and touches raw nerves, many of them deep and private. There is a reasonable tendency to react to such feedback with denial and avoidance. (I know I did myself). But that is all the more reason to push through the barrier. Here is a proposal - any participant who does not make a sustained and authentic effort to work on their development needs should be asked to pay for the programme and associated costs from their own pocket. A sort of student loan system, if you will. In this one, HR try their best, but are let down by the business, who don't like HR telling them what to do.

Second, and worse, we have probably the most powerful database of assessment potential available to any company in the world...and...wait for it...we won't use it! Revealing your planet scores to anyone except your line manager is purely discretionary, and HR destroy all the records after two years or so. Can you believe this? The logic is that the data would be abused, it is only a snapshot in time, the main value is not the assessment but what is done with it, and people could have moved on and responded since the assessment. All true... but none of it sufficient reason to devalue a massive corporate asset voluntarily to zero. I'm sorry, but if I'm recruiting a JG1 manager partly on the basis of a future upside, then a GBLP assessment, even a 5-year-old one, is a massively valuable data point, yet I am not able to ask for it, or even to know it exists. The only time I'll see the data point is if a candidate refers to it themselves in their application... which of course they are more likely to do if they got lots of green planets... which hardly anyone gets. Cautious, non-commercial Shell at its worst indeed - with HR squarely to blame.

Still, the news is much more good than bad. Shell has wonderful emerging resources, and a powerful tool to develop them. I often reflect that if GBLP had been around when people like Phil Watts were in their thirties, our history might have been different and better.

And more good news. I have an excuse for a great experience once per year... even if it means I have to leave on the Friday afternoon at 3pm to get some sleep. Good night!