As stated clearly before, the case studies, as provided from H/R managers that I've worked with and known over time, will be an integral part of the book. The time is at hand when I will begin to receive them from those who wish to contribute, and have an important part in the book's development.
A bit over 2 months ago, I sent out the preliminary call, which had gratifying interest & response. Now I am asking for outlines of case studies that the managers believe make, or refute, a certain point. It might be one which resulted in improved accountability for a previously marginal employee, Or, it could be about a manager abusing his/her power using the P/R, and how that wrong was righted. Another may address how culture was bettered through understanding what results achieved, or conduct, was acceptable, and that which was not.
The outlines can be simple; creating more work for the already taxed H/R Manager is not what's desired. Rather the idea is simply to initially communicate 3 things: 1) What was the existing problem or situation? 2) How did proper & intended use of the P/R address it? 3) What was the outcome? Three or four sentences will do.
From these outlines, I will select the ones that serve to prove points made in the book surrounding the appropriate use of P/R's. Since these will be a main source of supporting data, there will hopefully be many of them used. Accordingly, if you send a case study in, it most likely will be used. If you send multiple cases in, I can almost guarantee that at least one/some will be used.
Once your case is intended for use in the book, you will be asked to provide a bit more detail to ensure that it is understandable and relevant to the issue. Anonymity of company and persons will be provided in all steps of the process.
My hope is that this has been kept simple, and will be not only easy, but fun to do. And you'll be doing something in support of your fine profession, that some, like Professor Culbert are maligning.
Friday, August 27, 2010
What is Planning, and How Might We Begin?
When discussing the role of planning with potential clients, I try to explain the "why" before I get them comfortable with the 'how'. To some, planning seems to be a waste of time: action is what they want. Results and improving outcomes are in fact what it's all about, but without planning, actions can be meaningless, if not expensive & counter productive.
So let's begin slowly. Planning can be a casual conversation with your CFO, or a discussion of an equipment purchase with your Executive Committee. Perhaps it's putting together an Operational Plan for improved efficiency, or it might be committing to Strategic Planning.
In any case, it's preparing for your future by understanding who you are, what your customers want, the inside & outside dynamics you face, and then taking appropriate action to secure the outcome you desire.
An extremely important consideration not always understood is: at what point & at what depth should others be involved? It then becomes a process? A process is involving others in a decision in an organized manner, gathering data & opinions, and "discovering" together the correct course of action. Discovering means no agendas; it is what it becomes.
When other people are added to the mix, especially if you're the "Big Boss" & they don't interact with you on a day to day basis, the situation becomes more complicated. Why? It may not be what you think.
Most people are willing to work, and if you've chosen & hired & trained well, competent and informed. I believe their intentions are generally good, and they want to do what's right. So if I'm accurate, what can go wrong?
Well, human nature moves each of us toward positives & away from negatives. In the work environment, this means performing tasks that add value, are recognized, and rewarded. It also means avoiding others that are counter productive, involve criticism, or have negative consequences.
If this process part of of planning is taken into a hierarchical environment, it can mean not getting honest answers and feedback. And without "Fierce Conversations", the process turns into pleasing the boss(es). This, of course, fouls the whole endeavor, because there's not really consensus, understanding, and buy-in, although it may appear that way.
Even if some good decisions are made, efficiency is reduced because everyone's not pulling in the same direction. These are the consequences of an Owner/President who says, "I don't understand why this endeavor failed; we had total agreement" Unfortunately, the total agreement was to keep the boss happy.
Unfortunately, this situation happens all too often, but it can be avoided. How so? With a third party who is impartial, has nothing to gain, and has a knack for putting even the most reticent at ease. It may be a business associate, or a consultant, but should be an experienced person not associated with the company.
He or she will create a very "flat" environment with no one in charge (especially The Big Boss). There are no foolish comments or questions; everybody's contributions are equal.
Only in this way will honest feedback be given and received. The answer basically is in the room, and will only be discovered under these set of circumstances. This is so simple, and yet so complex.
Successful and experienced people (owners) tend to think they can do anything. They (& I'm including myself) have big egos and believe that most everyone will "tell it like it is" & not patronize them. In my 30+ years, I can tell you it just isn't reality. Accordingly, the last thing they may want to do is to ask someone from the outside to come in to get this done. It involves giving up some control which is incredibly difficult for many executives. Yet when they don't, success is at best 10-15%.
Please, if you're on the Planning team, don't let your President make this mistake. And if you are he or she, have the courage to ask someone outside of the organization to facilitate.
So let's begin slowly. Planning can be a casual conversation with your CFO, or a discussion of an equipment purchase with your Executive Committee. Perhaps it's putting together an Operational Plan for improved efficiency, or it might be committing to Strategic Planning.
In any case, it's preparing for your future by understanding who you are, what your customers want, the inside & outside dynamics you face, and then taking appropriate action to secure the outcome you desire.
An extremely important consideration not always understood is: at what point & at what depth should others be involved? It then becomes a process? A process is involving others in a decision in an organized manner, gathering data & opinions, and "discovering" together the correct course of action. Discovering means no agendas; it is what it becomes.
When other people are added to the mix, especially if you're the "Big Boss" & they don't interact with you on a day to day basis, the situation becomes more complicated. Why? It may not be what you think.
Most people are willing to work, and if you've chosen & hired & trained well, competent and informed. I believe their intentions are generally good, and they want to do what's right. So if I'm accurate, what can go wrong?
Well, human nature moves each of us toward positives & away from negatives. In the work environment, this means performing tasks that add value, are recognized, and rewarded. It also means avoiding others that are counter productive, involve criticism, or have negative consequences.
If this process part of of planning is taken into a hierarchical environment, it can mean not getting honest answers and feedback. And without "Fierce Conversations", the process turns into pleasing the boss(es). This, of course, fouls the whole endeavor, because there's not really consensus, understanding, and buy-in, although it may appear that way.
Even if some good decisions are made, efficiency is reduced because everyone's not pulling in the same direction. These are the consequences of an Owner/President who says, "I don't understand why this endeavor failed; we had total agreement" Unfortunately, the total agreement was to keep the boss happy.
Unfortunately, this situation happens all too often, but it can be avoided. How so? With a third party who is impartial, has nothing to gain, and has a knack for putting even the most reticent at ease. It may be a business associate, or a consultant, but should be an experienced person not associated with the company.
He or she will create a very "flat" environment with no one in charge (especially The Big Boss). There are no foolish comments or questions; everybody's contributions are equal.
Only in this way will honest feedback be given and received. The answer basically is in the room, and will only be discovered under these set of circumstances. This is so simple, and yet so complex.
Successful and experienced people (owners) tend to think they can do anything. They (& I'm including myself) have big egos and believe that most everyone will "tell it like it is" & not patronize them. In my 30+ years, I can tell you it just isn't reality. Accordingly, the last thing they may want to do is to ask someone from the outside to come in to get this done. It involves giving up some control which is incredibly difficult for many executives. Yet when they don't, success is at best 10-15%.
Please, if you're on the Planning team, don't let your President make this mistake. And if you are he or she, have the courage to ask someone outside of the organization to facilitate.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Defining the Book's Shape
My wife doubles as my editor, and she has raised a valid question, "Why are you providing all this information on how the writing is going?" She is concerned that this might be too much information. I understand, but it is provided for those who are contributing to the process, primarily the H/R Managers.
My hope is that these articles will give them insight as to how the book is coming along, which in turn will make them, and their case studies, a bigger part of it. If that is not what's going on, feel free to scan through, or simply ignore these.
As I've stated previously, writing a book is an adventure. What is surprising, is that it emerges on it's own, if I'll simply let it. What's not so easy is to organize it, structure it, so that it progresses and flows. My goal is to have it state it's points in a way that makes sense to the readers, while stimulating thought & leaving an impression on them.
Because this is my first book, it would have been much easier if I'd chosen to research the process before I began. This was not done, purposely, as an attempt to create a fresh, honest, and "from the gut" document. I know this will drive my publishing friends crazy, but that's the way I want it. And they will get the last say (hopefully not laugh) in the process when they edit it.
Professor Culbert gets the credit (or blame) for negatively inspiring me. Writing pages & pages of notes, thoughts, values, and retorts has forced me to not only crystallize what I don't believe, but what I do believe. In another few days, I will be at the end of this phase.
Sitting there will be 100 or so pages of material that will foster another 200 or so as I fully develop the thoughts. In between, I am called to create an outline, which many would have developed at the onset. But to make the point very clear, I want it to outline itself without me making arbitrary decisions. Reviewing the 100 pages will do that for me.
Some of the decisions to be made along the way are: 1) How many chapters/pages will be devoted to responding to the good professor? 2) What do I personally see as the pros & cons of the PR? In other words, what do I believe in vs. with what do I disagree? 3) What related tools do I want to evaluate, such as the 360's? 4) How do I want to leave the reader?
The impact of the book, to me, is everything. For example, as much as I take issue with Culbert's book, it certainly made an impression on me. I have to give him credit. I was left with no alternative but to take action. Is that call to action my purpose in writing the book? I don't think so.
In searching my motives, it seems to be more of a thought provoking attempt at improving the way we look at our people, and honestly treating them well. I want them treated professionally, and with dignity. Culbert obviously wants this for the employees, but in attacking authority & management, he ignores meaningful relationships, positive mentoring & guidance, including what is done right, and what needs improvement, These are the very things that help employees elevate performance and develop a sense of satisfaction.
Putting structure into the mix at this point helps define the shape of the book without forcing the issue.
My hope is that these articles will give them insight as to how the book is coming along, which in turn will make them, and their case studies, a bigger part of it. If that is not what's going on, feel free to scan through, or simply ignore these.
As I've stated previously, writing a book is an adventure. What is surprising, is that it emerges on it's own, if I'll simply let it. What's not so easy is to organize it, structure it, so that it progresses and flows. My goal is to have it state it's points in a way that makes sense to the readers, while stimulating thought & leaving an impression on them.
Because this is my first book, it would have been much easier if I'd chosen to research the process before I began. This was not done, purposely, as an attempt to create a fresh, honest, and "from the gut" document. I know this will drive my publishing friends crazy, but that's the way I want it. And they will get the last say (hopefully not laugh) in the process when they edit it.
Professor Culbert gets the credit (or blame) for negatively inspiring me. Writing pages & pages of notes, thoughts, values, and retorts has forced me to not only crystallize what I don't believe, but what I do believe. In another few days, I will be at the end of this phase.
Sitting there will be 100 or so pages of material that will foster another 200 or so as I fully develop the thoughts. In between, I am called to create an outline, which many would have developed at the onset. But to make the point very clear, I want it to outline itself without me making arbitrary decisions. Reviewing the 100 pages will do that for me.
Some of the decisions to be made along the way are: 1) How many chapters/pages will be devoted to responding to the good professor? 2) What do I personally see as the pros & cons of the PR? In other words, what do I believe in vs. with what do I disagree? 3) What related tools do I want to evaluate, such as the 360's? 4) How do I want to leave the reader?
The impact of the book, to me, is everything. For example, as much as I take issue with Culbert's book, it certainly made an impression on me. I have to give him credit. I was left with no alternative but to take action. Is that call to action my purpose in writing the book? I don't think so.
In searching my motives, it seems to be more of a thought provoking attempt at improving the way we look at our people, and honestly treating them well. I want them treated professionally, and with dignity. Culbert obviously wants this for the employees, but in attacking authority & management, he ignores meaningful relationships, positive mentoring & guidance, including what is done right, and what needs improvement, These are the very things that help employees elevate performance and develop a sense of satisfaction.
Putting structure into the mix at this point helps define the shape of the book without forcing the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)