Tag Archives: HR strategy

Organisational Maturity 2 – HR is toddling around at Stage 2

Posted on by
Share

If you are interested in improving your HR maturity level visit IHRM -  The Institute of HR Maturity

In Part 1 of this 3-Part assessment of organisational maturity we considered to what extent organisations are designed to learn.  This can only ever happen as part of a wider HR strategy that aims to create a competitive advantage from managing human capital as effectively as possible.

Such a lofty ambition can only ever be achieved in an organisation that is grown up enough to take a realistic view of its situation: understanding and making the most of its strengths whilst acknowledging its failings and limited capabilities.  Maturity is not a rose-tinted view of the world but an acceptance of the truth.  The HR Maturity Scale reveals the HR function to be a toddler that has not quite dispensed with its comfort blanket and needs to hang onto something for support while it stumbles around at Stage 2.

HR people at Stage 2 like to call themselves ‘professional’ even though this is only about one third of the way along this continuum.  They use lots of professional support mechanisms (CIPD, job evaluation, psychometrics, competence frameworks) but they have not yet reached a Stage where their advice is really valued (Stage 3) because their systems have not grown sufficient teeth for them to add much value (e.g. competence frameworks that do not remove the incompetent).  Much of this immaturity is down to their deep-seated, lack of confidence in their own methods and capabilities.  However, organisational maturity does not come from any specific function changing, it is about the whole organisation growing up and developing together.

From an Executive perspective it starts with a full and open acknowledgement that they have no clear understanding of what managing human capital actually means (shown on the Scale as the Human Capital Barrier). There is no common language in the boardroom to discuss the value of people and no way of auditing the organisation’s human capital management.  Unless and until these issues are addressed the organisation is incapable of getting the best value out of its people.

Similarly, any employee (Generation Y or any other generation for that matter) who thinks the world owes them a living; or the organisation exists to further their career; or that somehow they are indispensable; needs to realise that however talented or important they might be the value of the organisation, long term, will be dependent on how they work together – systemically- holistically.

Of course, this all assumes that the organisation has an ambition to be as good as it can be and realises that the only forward is a more strategic approach to managing people – all of them.  As we will see in Part 3 though (‘Off the Scale’) to make such an assumption would be very simplistic, not to say immature.

You can find out more about the HR Maturity Scale and where you are along it by watching the explanatory video here, reading a short descriptive extract from HR Strategy or visiting the Consummate Professional Series for online tuition.

If you need help in assessing your organisation’s HR Maturity contact info@paulkearns.co.uk

 

Share

Total Product Recall – HR Strategy – All Models beginning with BS

Posted on by
Share

Update 22nd April 2013 – Fraudster found guilty

One of the saddest, funny stories – or funny-sad stories if you prefer – of recent weeks (although such stories are much more common than you might think) is that of the fake bomb detector – the ADE651.

Sad, of course, because there is a reasonable probability that the gullibility of the purchasers led to deaths that might otherwise have been avoided.  But is it funny?  Well, maybe only to those of us who possess the blackest sense of humour but you have to admit that when something is so obviously a dud it is hilarious to witness some people still pretending that it works and, even funnier, the scientific ‘experts’ who think even the daftest ideas demand the respect of a rigorous analysis when anyone with a bit of sense and a screwdriver could work it out for themselves.

Basically the ADE651 is an old fashioned car aerial with some techy-looking thingumajig and a couple of batteries. Not that dissimilar to the product we have all come to refer to as ‘HR Strategy’. So, in a spirit of gullibility avoidance and with a view to rendering all dangerous HR strategies harmless, I am hereby announcing a total product recall of all HR Strategy Products starting with the letters BS.

There is a high probability that you have been using one of these BS model variants for some time; without realising that they do not contain any active components. But how do you know whether your device is a fake or not?  Well, as HR strategies don’t come with specific model numbers you will have to dismantle the device first.  Don’t worry, this does not require a screwdriver or any technical ability whatsoever – although we do recommend that you keep your eyes open.  Also, in case you are worried, it is not like defusing a bomb, nothing will go off in your face.  As soon as you start to take it apart you will quickly find that none of the wires are connected to anything.

So here is some guidance as to which types of components you might come across and how you can remove them with total confidence.  Please do not return them to us though as we have no use for them and they cannot be recycled – they have already been recycled many times before and are now well past their original shelf-life.

  • The ‘Gladwell Insight 2000’ – this is a nicely packaged component but don’t let that fool you – there is nothing here that will have an impact – or at least if it does you won’t know until after it has already happened.
  • The Mauborg-Kim USP V.2005 is really just an extremely old component with a new cover.  It does have one feature though that distinguishes it from the original and best version of USP – it is blue.
  • You might also find a very complex array of components and instruments often generically (and misleadingly) referred to as ‘psychometrics’.  The wiring diagrams for these can become incredibly complicated and you might want to investigate each one in detail but it is probably just as well to rip them all out and start again.
  • If you come across two components with the word ‘Hay’ stamped on the front – usually followed by the words ‘competency’ or ‘evaluation’ you have a serious problem.  These are usually found very tightly bound together and they impose a very constricting force, a bit like wearing a straitjacket.  Unfortunately they were specifically designed by the makers to be extremely difficult to remove, particularly if you have been using them for some time. There is no off-the-shelf replacement for these two components and our best advice is to re-design your own version, ensuring that it fits together well with everything else, before throwing them out.

As far as I am aware none of the above manufacturers operate a returns policy or a money-back guarantee.

If you find any other components that you are not sure about please do not hesitate to contact us with product details and we will advise you how best to dispose of them safely.  In the meantime always remember our motto:

“There’s one born every minute – just make sure you’re not the one!”

For personal development linked to this topic visit the Consummate Professional Series

Share

Scan gel can teach us a great deal about EBM

Posted on by
Share

As someone who has often taught the ‘Toyota Way’ as a (very rare) case study of exemplary HR Strategy, the recall of thousands of its vehicles in 2010 serves as a stark reminder (not that I needed one) of the severe limitations of case studies as teaching aids.  The world can change so very quickly that it renders case study material irrelevant or just plain wrong. Whether or not these recalls should be seen as evidence of Toyota having got something fundamentally wrong or not, my informed guess is that Toyota will learn how to overcome this latest hurdle and remain at the forefront of the automotive industry, if nothing else simply because it has nurtured evidence-based habits in its people over many, many years.  Nevertheless, it just goes to show that no organisation, however successful today, can afford to become complacent. So what has all of this got to do with a tube of scan gel? (you know that stuff they smear over pregnant bellies to check the baby is OK?)

Some years ago a workshop delegate told me a story about how Toyota was so good at continuous improvement that it had reached a stage where an employee invented a plastic pencil-stub-holder to hold the old-fashioned pencils Toyota still used (they still regard pencils as ‘fit for purpose’).  The stubs were what was left after sharpening the pencil down to its last inch or so (2.5 centimetres).  The cost of the re-usable holder was seen as a worthwhile investment in terms of lower pencil costs.

Now you might not see this as clear evidence of very sophisticated management thinking and practice.  In fact it might appear like the very opposite; management declining into a sad state of obsessive, micro-management.  Can an organisation as big and as successful as Toyota really be that bothered about the cost of a new pencil? Haven’t they got more important matters on their minds?  Have they brainwashed their employees to become obsessed with minutiae? Well, whether you see this as an indictment of the modern world’s drive for perfect efficiency or not, if we ask the same question about healthcare costs perhaps it puts it into perspective?

Anyone who has ever seen a scan being performed will know that the scanning clinician will squirt a sizeable dollop of scan gel on the area to be scanned; to ensure a clear image is achieved. It suddenly occurred to me once that the clinician did not measure out a precise amount of gel and, with 60 million potential patients in the UK alone (and scan gel selling at nearly $30 per US gallon) that might amount to quite a lot of unnecessary gel being wasted.  So is this simple procedure a suitable case for considering the merits of evidence-based HR management or am I just a sad so-and-so who has nothing better to do than annoy hospital clinicians?

The evidence-based manager’s answer to this question is quite simple -we don’t know until we look at the evidence and the EB manager willingly admits their initial ignorance. Until we know how much scan gel is used each year we have no basis for deciding whether this is a priority or not. For all we know the potential saving from a precisely-measured application of  gel could be anything from £10 to £10 million per year in an NHS that spends £120 billion per annum  . So the first step for the E-B manager is to assess the cost but that immediately poses a long list of other questions: -

  • Do we have any precise data on how much gel needs to be applied in different scanning procedures?
  • Does the NHS ensure that all scan gel purchases are coded identically in the accounts?
  • Does the NHS know how and where all the scan gel is used?
  • If it knew all of this, at what level would it be able to track the use of scan gel – by hospital, department, team, shift or individual clinician?

I posed this very specific question to a group of very senior NHS managers (up to Chief Executive level) only last week and was advised that the data should be available down to department level. I suggested that only when we reached down to the individual level would we be able to speak to individuals about their own personal use of scan gel. I got the impression (without implying any criticism) that this was not likely to become a major priority overnight – which is precisely the point – managers and doctors cannot manage everything themselves.  Evidence-based management is as much about self-management as it is about senior management.  My humble guess is that, among the 1.3 million workers in the NHS, the laws of probability suggest that at least one clinician has calculated the precise amount of gel required to produce a clear image at the lowest cost.  Not because they are sad individuals but because they are totally dedicated to providing the absolutely best (fit for purpose) value the NHS can provide and they know that money wasted on scan gel cannot be spent elsewhere.

Now all the evidence-based HR manager has to do is find out where these people are and create an environment where they can teach some of their colleagues how they do it.  Of course, the key to this is actually a long-term HR strategy which genuinely aims to engage every single employee in the pursuit of perfect value for money.  If we do not explicitly and systematically encourage such a positive approach, every day of the week, it is almost impossible to engender the requisite level of commitment just as times get hard. No doubt the list of similar savings opportunities is probably endless but the evidence-based manager also realises what impact structure and culture have on an organisation. Would the clinician be allowed to use his or her own best judgement on the amount of scan gel used or would it become a very long and tortuous process of evaluating various methods; all subject to scrutiny by senior consultants? Who knows, but asking scan technicians to show some interest in the subject by providing comparative data on their own usage might be a start?

Maybe evidence-based management is not really about pencil stubs or tubes of scan gel at all, more the means by which every single employee is enabled, encouraged, allowed and supported in working to the very best of their own ability? It is also about suppliers educating customers how to get the most value out of their products – but that is a subject for another day.

For personal development linked to this topic visit the Consummate Professional Series

Share

EBHR Critique – Cambridgeshire County Council – People Strategy 2006-10

Posted on by
Share

In order to follow this critique you will need to view Cambs CC PeopleStrategy 2006-10

It is also worth mentioning that, as part of the research for this critique, other HR ‘strategies’ were reviewed including the strategies for the county councils of Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire – all of which are not markedly different to Cambridgeshire – and they would all regard their strategies as being based on commonly accepted HR practice.  So Cambridgeshire is being used here as a single representation of what the CIPD would regard as a generally, acceptable approach.

Let us look at each section of this document and ask where does it refer directly to any evidence of impact or value added.

Foreword

Nothing remarkable or unusual here.  A general coverage of HR issues and declarations of very broad intentions so we should not expect to see any specific evidence presented yet. There is one reference to wanting to be ‘Employer of first choice’ and it would be interesting to hear from Cambridgeshire Council Members how they would ever produce evidence that they have managed to achieve this? Maybe they should just concentrate on “ensuring that we can continue to deliver high quality public services, at low cost” which would certainly qualify as meaningful evidence, if they could show a before and after picture based on baseline measures.

Introduction

This is still a statement of intent rather than specifics but already some assumptions, based on questionable evidence, start to creep in. For example in –

“1.6 Employers who are winning the battles in ‘the war for talent’ are investing in their people. Continuous learning and development is a key factor for many people. In local government we have a strong tradition of developing people…;”

What does ‘winning the battles in the war for talent’ actually mean in terms of evidence?

It continues by recognising that they need to produce better evidence by ensuring -

“that learning and development is aligned more effectively to business needs”.

but there is no indication of how they might do that.  In fact they would have to adopt a fully fledged, evidence-based methodology to do so.

Unfortunately the following sections –

‘2. Vision and Values’

and

‘3. Strategic objectives and principles’

- still resort to using very generalised phrases and so cannot be pinned down in terms of evidence.

4. People Strategy

We should expect something more concrete to appear here but the phraseology is still very nebulous and starts to make some very non-evidence-based leaps of logic and faith. For example –

“These five strategic objectives are founded upon the need to achieve equality and celebrate diversity within our workforce.”

This might be a laudable aim but in the absence of what this means in practice, or the logic behind it, how will the Council produce evidence that demonstrates it has succeeded in ‘celebrating diversity’?

5. Resourcing the Council

It’s time now for a specific strategic objective. Maybe simple staff turnover figures in 2006, and what is planned for 2010, would suffice as basic evidence. A more complex measure might be much more useful though.  How about the number of high performers the council wants to retain? Unfortunately the opportunity to include this high level evidence is missed and the language remains non-specific and sections …..

6. Developing the Council

to

9. Reward and recognition

…. continue in the same vein. All statements of good intentions and process but the document is no clearer on outputs or outcomes that will result from this People ‘Strategy’.  So far this is a non-evidence-based document. So we wait with baited breath for…

10. Evaluation and Review of the Strategy

… only to be told that

“Recognition of effective people management and development approaches by external inspectors, such (as) the Audit Commission, Ofsted, the Commission for Social Care Inspection, etc.”

So the HR Director cannot assess his People Strategy and expects an outside body to do it for him.  If HR cannot measure itself what chance do these non-HR qualified bodies have of providing evidence?

This is not a strategy.  It is a statement of ill-defined intent. Motherhood and apple pie rhetoric that has no place in a properly evidence-based strategic approach to managing people.  Any action plans, policies and procedures that stem from this ‘strategy’ are bound to be unfocused and largely ineffective in bringing about the significant and continuous improvements that are required.

4 out of 10

For personal development linked to this topic visit the Consummate Professional Series

Share

Why the CIPD is desperate for evidence.

Posted on by
Share

Credible evidence is a real problem for the very body that exists to maintain the highest professional standards – the CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development).  Jackie Orme, Chief Executive, declared that ‘there have never been enough good people working in HR’ and the CIPD Board, in buying The Bridge Partnership in 2009, tacitly admitted they do not possess the requisite credibility, capacity or capability either .  So in one fell swoop the chartered, ‘professional’ body has written itself off along with the expertise, skills and experience of its entire 130,000+ membership. Meanwhile it is creating something called “Next Generation HR” (for an update on how this is doing see here) with a ‘thought piece’ that is totally devoid of any coherent thought and without a single, new idea to distinguish it from whatever ‘last generation HR’ was.

So what is “Next Generation HR” and what is so exceptional about The Bridge Partnership that led the CIPD to seek it out in an attempt to bolster its own credibility?  How would the objective observer know they are not just another bunch of psycho-babbling charlatans?  A visit to Bridge’s website says it “harnesses strategy, business insight and psychology to breathe leadership and new life into organisations.” – something the CIPD definitely needs.  However, the one thing on which credibility is built – evidence – is conspicuously absent.  So ‘Next Generation HR’ practitioners are unlikely to be any more evidence-based than their conventionally-trained predecessors.

Having a professional body run by evidence-based professionals is the only way out of this impasse: so how are the Board members of the CIPD currently performing against this higher standard?*

  • The current Chair, Dean Royles, is Director of Workforce and Education at the North West Strategic Health Authority of the NHS and controls a budget of £650 million and yet, according to his own ‘Education and Learning Strategy’ he openly admits that “Organisations will need a better understanding and application of educational evaluation methodologies to appreciate the impact of education and learning activities.”  In other words, he accepts the principle of evidence-based practice but does not know how to produce the evidence required.
  • Another Board member is a past president of the PPMA (Public Sector People Managers Association), Stephen Moir, who as Director People, Policy & Law at Cambridgeshire Council has produced an HR strategy with all the latest buzzwords (“employer of first choice”, “celebrate diversity”, “competence framework”) but no sign of an evidence base for these policies.
  • Then there is Gill Rider**, holding potentially the most influential ‘HR’ job in the UK Civil Service as Head of Profession, who has not provided any evidence that she is making any progress after four years at the helm.

The rationale behind this site therefore is a vision of a future in which HR and learning professionals earn their rightful place alongside the medical profession in terms of evidence-based best practice and alongside senior operational managers in terms of management expertise. In fact, as the concept and practice of evidence-based management is currently challenging all management functions, evidence-based HR professionals do not need to make any apologies while they learn how to get up to speed with this new way of thinking.

Let no one be under any illusions though.  If HR and learning practice is not already evidence-based it won’t suddenly become evidence-based overnight. Evidence-based HR is primarily about high impact, strategic solutions to difficult organisational issues and requires cooperation from everyone involved; it cannot and should not be imposed by, or reside exclusively with, the HR team.  So, for example, if Dean Royles wants an evidence-based, quality assured learning system in the NHS, the first thing he will have to do is learn about evaluation, re-visit expensive schemes such as his Leadership Academy and make a conscious decision to build it on a solid foundation of evidence-based practice.

Alternatively, he should call a halt to wasting huge amounts of money on an edifice that cannot produce any evidence that it represents a sound investment.  There is no room any longer for hype or psycho-babble in this new, evidence-based management (EBM) universe.

*The issues outlined above have been raised directly with the CIPD Board members referred to before publication – to date no responses have been received but they have another opportunity here to respond to these challenging questions.

**Update June 2011 – After 5 years at the helm Gill Rider left the Cabinet Office having only “concluded the development phase” but predicting”anticipated savings of £300 million and a best in class staffing ratio of 1:100.” After such impressive results it is no surprise to hear she has become CIPD President.

Share