Summary:

Manuel Cuevas-Trisan joins Dr. Jim on the HR Impact show to discuss why the idea of doing more with less is a fallacy. Manuel emphasizes the importance of caring, daring, and preparing in order to build high-performance teams. He shares his experience in transitioning from a product and engineering organization to higher education and highlights the need for interdisciplinary thinkers in today's complex organizations. Manuel also stresses the significance of asking "why not?" and avoiding shortcuts when driving change. He concludes by emphasizing the importance of putting in the work and achieving lasting results.

Key Takeaways:

Doing more with less is a fallacy; it's about achieving and expanding contribution with the right people.

Building high-performance teams requires individuals who care, dare, and prepare.

Interdisciplinary thinkers are essential in complex organizations to drive innovation and overcome inertia.

Leaders should avoid shortcuts and focus on the process to achieve lasting change.

Putting in the work is crucial for achieving elite performance and moving the needle.

Chapters:

[0:04:23] Shifting mindset from cost to investment in people

[0:13:48] Discussion on doing more with less being a lie

[0:16:22] Building elite teams requires people who care, dare, and prepare.

[0:20:46] Matrix thinkers are more likely to mobilize change.

[0:24:38] Look for genuine care and commitment in team members.

[0:26:09] Achieving magic in the workplace requires alignment with mission.

Join us at HR Impact

Learn and connect with a community of HR leaders just like you. This is the space where top people leaders share actionable insights and practical playbooks in fostering a high-performing workplace of the future.

Sign up as a member today for community updates on the latest HR resources and exclusive event invites: www.engagerocket.co/hrimpact

Joining us, today is Manuel. Cuevas Tresan, who is the VP of HR at Harvard university. And he's been in that role since 2021 in that capacity, setting the overall strategic vision for the HR organization at the university.

He's been in charge of overseeing a employee community of roughly 20, 000 people in the organization. He's a thought leader and his focus is on how Harvard can thrive in the workplace of the future. So prior to joining Harvard, he's had deep experience in the areas of employment policies, talent development, labor relations, total rewards.

But here's one thing that I'm going to call out. He's actually had some continuing education that's been completed in Barcelona. So if you're wondering where he likely stands on the Ronaldo versus Messi debate. I think the answer is going to be pretty clear. Manuel, welcome to the show.

Manuel Cuevas-Trisan: Thank you very much, Dr. Jim. Absolutely a pleasure to be here.

Dr. Jim: Before we dive into the conversation, why don't you get the listeners up to speed a little bit on some of the things that we might've left out in that bio and that background that you feel is important for the listeners to hear about.

As an employment and labor lawyer. And therefore my primary clients, both in corporate settings and various other types of settings in law firms where the HR directors or HR managers, HR leaders and of course, focus on legal compliance. But as I joined Motorola back in 1998 as a member of the in house legal team.

The one great thing about the company for a lawyer was that the lawyers were very embedded with their clients. So I work very closely and I like to say that I learned HR. through practice and through osmosis by working very closely and rigorously with the HR clients. Until I became, of course integrated in their day to day and eventually became an HR practitioner myself.

Manuel Cuevas-Trisan: What was fascinating about Motorola and I have a debt of gratitude always for what I call Motorola, my second university is that the legal department, as I said, was highly embedded in the client organizations but also was very focused especially when I became here CHRO.

We have been a very product centric organization for many years, for decades, in fact. And we needed to start making a pivot organizationally towards a software and solutions focused and that entailed, for example, think about the people implications of that. That was an incredible school for me.

If you think about a cell phone has a hardware component, but increasingly they have become much more software conduits. Software is iterative by nature. And so you have to become much more accustomed to releasing products that are less than perfect, but they're adequate for the market and then continue to improve over time.

That also necessitated a shift in the mindset of the hiring culture, of the performance management culture, of the compensation culture and of course, related systems in the organization. Then the shift towards higher ed was very similar for me that to that shift within Motorola, because I like to say that both our product.

Our service and our process in a university is fundamentally about people and furthering knowledge, which by nature is iterative and always incremental in nature.

Manuel Cuevas-Trisan: We have accomplished a lot. But the other important pivot that I think it's a segue to the answer is that universities tend to play the long game. Therefore, the process of change. Is I think just as fast in terms of the effort that it takes, but the wheels seem to be larger and therefore every circle of that wheel takes longer because you have decentralized organizations, different coexisting business models within an organization and therefore to achieve lasting change.

And really using the lessons that we learn and even the language that we use around investment. Rather than looking at people as a cost, if you look at a, at any balance sheet almost invariably the largest line item in any balance sheet when it looks at costs and the ledger is people. But if you look at people at costs, not as investment.

It's going to be very hard for you to be lasting as lasting an employer as Harvard has been. And so making that shift in mindset is really more of a cultural shift. I think we're well on our way to do that.

We invest in our people. And then what do you see? Layoff after layoff and all sorts of just ham handed policy that's being pushed out, which really makes you question, do they really mean what they say?

When you're thinking about what's next, what are the moonshots that you have on your radar that you want to get done while you're in this role at Harvard?

And again, this in the most respectful and least commoditizing of ways. I mean it sincerely in terms of identifying the capabilities of your people for that you need information. You can't have an investment portfolio that's successful if you're just guessing. About what your stock is universities in particular are actually lagging behind.

Harvard is no exception are lagging behind in terms of harnessing the power of data about their people. Universities have extraordinary wealth of data, especially on research and on the different fields of education that they pursue. When it comes to their people systems, it's very rare to find universities that have adequate talent portfolios.

And I have no, no indication that I shouldn't be optimistic, is that we also need to capture people's aspiration. That's the one thing that I find that it's not always present in talent management systems. We rely on people. To figure out, what Dr. Jim's aspiration may be, instead of creating a system where Dr.

Dr. Jim: I wanna highlight a few things. I think one of the things that surprised me about what you said is the fact that in higher ed, the ability to collect and synthesize and then act on the vast amount of data. Isn't really something that that has done well there.

Thank you. Senior leaders have a lot of organizations and there's positions that are open or whatever, or they're come in, everything is reflexively pointed into, we have a hiring problem. And what you just said is talking about a development and retention problem that exists and people are focused or leaders are focused on the wrong thing.

Everything is not a hiring problem. In fact, most of the problems that you have from a people perspective are likely. A factor of poor development or poor retention, which are related. So I really like that distinction that you drew out. This one should be easy when you think about your position. What's the most fun aspect about the role that you're in right now?

For example, the campus and its history itself. It's a daily lesson. You walk around campus, plaques with information, historical data that is simply fascinating. Number two, you have museums, you have cafes, you have dining halls, you have vibrant student life and learning environment.

So for someone who loves to learn, it's fantastic. Then more specifically on the job, aside from having a fantastic team of, people who think some people think very big, some people throw, think very deep and narrow, and you always learn from different styles. I like to say that, for example, in the area that a lot of people associate as boring on the job for in roles like mine, I sit in the investment committee of the university.

I sit with, world renowned social and behavioral scientists and economists who help inform the decision as fiduciaries of our plans and just to see the level of care, depth of knowledge and commitment to our participants and to our employees. It's incredibly inspiring and also a lot of fun.

These are people who contrary to what you would believe they're, there's they're high minded, but they're intellectually curious and humble and also eager to learn.

Dr. Jim: Let's dive into the big part of the discussion. The whole idea about doing more with less is big fat lie.

Manuel Cuevas-Trisan: I didn't start. Out as a, as an HR professional. So perspective changes everything when you are working. And as, as I did at earlier stages in my career as an employment lawyer. You are not engaged in the decision making, you are engaged in the advising, you are typically not part of the front end and the design of your, of the decisions at at an at an organization, but you're providing advice to the decision makers.

So you get to almost sit as, coldly and as detached and you can analyze what's going on and I've partaken over the years and, multiple. Reorganizations, multiple calls to doing more with less multiple calls to cut costs using, blunt force instruments layoffs and, plant closings and things like that.

So it's not about doing more with less, it's about achieving and expanding contribution with the right people. People, and of course, other right resources, but it's about right rather than less or more.

Tell us about some of the impacts that you've seen.

Manuel Cuevas-Trisan: When you are trying to become more efficient, you are effectively Talking about doing things differently and that leads to this good old basic context or concept of change. And so when I talk about doing more with the right people is about finding the people who are ideally suited to champion that change and who have the capabilities.

And in the ultimate, commitment to the end goals of the organization daring is to me about having the courage to go against the grain because change by nature requires that you go from a present state to desired state the conditions of which haven't been met and that requires that level of courage, That level of persistence and willingness to move forward.

Dr. Jim: When you look at building an organization with people who have those attributes that you mentioned, care, dare, prepare, how are you bringing that to life at the line level as a manager or leader that is building out their team? What are the things that you should be doing and you should be deliberately focusing on a day, even on a day in, day out basis?

Manuel Cuevas-Trisan: First I think Organizations have become so complex over the, over the history of the industrialized and now the knowledge economy, that you need to have talent around you that has interdisciplinary aptitude and willingness to constantly learn from people around them and constantly share their knowledge of or their expertise.

So you need to bring somebody to lead talent acquisition who is not just an expert in talent acquisition. They need to know their business. They need to know the systems. They need to know what an ATS. Or how to transform and ATS, but ultimately they need to be able to see beyond their lane and connect the dots and at least issue spot to be able to be effective.

Dr. Jim: There's an interesting aspect of what you just described in terms of your talent strategy. When you're looking to bring people on you're putting an emphasis on people who are interdisciplinary. And you also tied that to your point about one of the things that, that great teams have the ability to fight is the organizational inertia.

So that interdisciplinary, the way that I understand what you just described is that those people who are skilled. Across an enterprise and have a lot of collaborative skills across the enterprise, they're the ones that are most likely to be mobilizing those people who tend to be. Tend to prefer to stand still, and that's the connection that that you're bringing forward.

Am I getting that right?

My I brought my, my, my talent acquisition lead at Harvard is not was not in a talent acquisition lead role, a lot of experience in the field, but she was the head HR consultant for the development alumni affairs and development organization. At Johns Hopkins and I was very deliberate in that choice.

I wanted somebody who could speak competently, especially to some of the areas in our university that were more challenged in terms of hiring and retention by having people who had experiences in other fields as well.

The other thing that you just mentioned it right now, and I think it's important to call out as well, is the capacity to ask the question, why not? If you want to innovate, if you want to iterate, if you want to transform, you can't really root yourself. In the status quo, you have to ask those why not questions.

Manuel, really great conversation so far. And I think your point about building an organization that's full of matrix thinkers in pursuit of building that elite team is great. What are the things that leaders need to watch out for when they're trying to make that transition from being a team of linear thinkers to a team of matrix thinkers?

I have seen both ends of the spectrum. Organizations at times. That give themselves way too much time and set goals that are, or objectives that are just too far out that they become so remote that people just look at them as. As abstract and are having a difficulty envisioning how to get there, but the more frequent scenario, particularly in for profit entities that are understandably and legitimately on their pressure to, to meet, shareholders expectations is, budgets that are unrealistic.

Dr. Jim: You just called out something that is an up and coming sort of viral series of videos, which is corporate math. Corporate math expecting elite performance, and then your equipment is duct tape and superglue. We want to go to the moon. Okay, how are we going to get here? Here's some duct tape.

Here's some superglue. Corporate math. Let's close the loop on all of this. So when we think about this conversation and building a high performance team, what are the most important things that you would say leaders need to watch out for given your experience and your trajectory and your story that you've shared today?

I think you need to watch out for. People who are looking just for the outcome and the and the limelight and to check a box because it takes a lot of effort to check that box. I, there's this just amazing quote by Carrie Lawrence, who was the first female F 14 Tomcat pilot who said.

The process is where you figure out who's worth being part of the outcome. And that goes back to my notion of no shortcuts. You have to put in the work. You need to have the discipline. You need to deal with the obstacles and reward people for managing those obstacles. Not for encountering them and give them an incentive to to overcome those obstacles.

Dr. Jim: Great stuff, Manuel. Where can people find you?

Manuel Cuevas-Trisan: I think you can look me up on LinkedIn at Manuel Cuevas -Trisan at LinkedIn.

Dr. Jim: We'll definitely include the links into the show. So really appreciative of you hanging out with us. I think everyone that's listening to this conversation will learn a lot from it. I want to call out one particular thing that came up in the end of the conversation that I think is really important.

There was a lot of things that stand out on the conversation as a whole. That was your comment about you got to put in the work. It actually reminded me of a book called Chop Wood, Carry Water. And this entire conversation that we've been having is about how do you become elite as a leader, as an organization?

Manuel Cuevas-Trisan: I think it is important to also say that sometimes you do get those. immediate outcomes. The question is, do they last? Do they achieve that? That lasting moving of the needle? Organizations need to continue to move. So it's hard to talk about an outcome.

But to me, it's more of a moving the needle. And if you take shortcuts, you may just get an episodical outcome, but it usually, a new flavor of the month comes in and that then the other one disappears.

Dr. Jim: I love how you call that out because if you can't map out how you got there, you got there by accident. And in order to become elite, you need to be intentional. For those of you who have been listening, we appreciate you hanging out with us.