Platt Perspective on Business and Technology

Intentional management 42: elaborating on the basic model for adding people and their management into the equation 3

Posted in HR and personnel, strategy and planning by Timothy Platt on August 14, 2017

This is my 42nd installment in a series in which I discuss how management activity and responsibilities can be parsed and distributed through a business organization, so as to better meet operational and strategic goals and as a planned intentional process (see Business Strategy and Operations – 3 and its Page 4 continuation, postings 472 and loosely following for Parts 1-41.)

I have been addressing the Who side of intentional management as a systematic business management approach, since Part 38 of this, and a specific to-address list related to that since Part 41, at least for its current form and contents. And I repeat that list here, as a starting point for this posting and for purposes of smoother continuity of narrative:

1. How is a business under analytical examination being managed now? (Note: this is a complex question because it raises issues of what it is doing in principle and as a matter of intended process and practice, and of what is actually being done and on a day-to-day basis and by whom and where in the organization and under what circumstances, and how consistently. The following questions in effect dissect out what would go into this question and what would go into answering it and from both the intended side and the actual in-practice side to that.)
2. Does this business actually follow a seemingly entirely ad hoc approach as if it had no past and as if the experience of here and now, could hold no informative value in its future either?
3. Or does it more systematically pursue at least a close approximation of the default model approach as laid out in Parts 38 and 39?
4. Or does it in some systematic manner differ from that, with non-default features brought in and included, and for at least specific areas of the business?
5. If this business does at least situationally resort to consistent non-default management approaches, where and how and when does it do so?
6. Is this resorted to in order to address specific perhaps recurring problematical situations or events, or in order to capture available value from specific perhaps recurring opportunities that the “standard” approach cannot handle in and of itself? Does this, in other words, reflect an alternative approach that might be resorted to on a needs and opportunities, functional process-defined basis?
7. Or do one or more specific areas of the business (e.g. specific departments or specific organizationally distinct sections of them, or specific satellite offices in a larger geographically dispersed enterprise) simply pursue their own course in how things are routinely done and across all functional areas and processes carried out?
8. This is only a starter list and one of the goals of any business review and analysis here would be to progressively, iteratively refine and elaborate on what is asked here, drilling down into the specifics of the particular business and away from the more generic as has been offered up to here.)

I have focused on the first four of those Points up to here in this overall narrative, but returning to Points 2-4 for the moment, those business model options can in brief be identified respectively as:

• An essentially entirely ad hoc business model and business management approach,
• An essentially entirely planned out and strategically oriented and executed, business model and business management approach that is centered on overall business-wide consistency, and
• A more hybrid business model and business management approach, where at least certain functional areas recurringly face operational contexts that they have come to address with novel, nonstandard approaches that do not actually fit into the overall operational or strategic plans in place – even if they are carried out very consistently as “standardized” ad hoc process flows in and of themselves. In a hybrid context as discussed here, the rest of the business is managed for the most part according to a more centrally planned out, Point 3 design.

I concluded Part 41 by stating that I would “turn to Points 5, 6 and 7 of the above list in my next series installment. And in anticipation of that, note that I will focus there on communications enablers and restrictions, and on how a Point 2, 3 or 4 approach is arrived at and particularly by the best managers who seek most actively to perform as effectively as possible in reaching all of their assigned goals and on time.”

I begin here with an initial focus on that last detail. When less experienced or inefficient managers and their teams of employees follow standardized and formally agreed to processes and procedures and in ways that do not deviate from normative and expected paths, outcomes achieved do not necessarily particularly raise issues as to the validity and effectiveness of those normal operating procedures per se, and even if their outcomes are less than expected – unless of course more effective managers and their employee teams begin facing the same business challenging results from following them too.

This becomes more interesting as a source of possible challenge to the validity and effectiveness of processes and systems in place, when good managers and even the best of them have to find work-arounds to get their jobs done and meet their deadlines and performance goals. And in this, it is not as important at least in the here-and-now instance, whether the more non-standard approaches that they use as work-arounds are one-off and unique to the instance, or whether they have become standardized, even if unofficially so for some specific type of work.

• One-off work-arounds can arise in a variety of contexts. To start, I would argue that they arise in the context of business systems fragility and from lack of operational agility, where tasks that are supposed to be carried out in some planned for, standardized and expected manner cannot be resolved through them, at least consistently and reliably. In practice, this type of event sheds light on the overall levels of communications efficiency or lack thereof in the organization, when a manager has to make it up as they go along in order to resolve a sudden challenge, and without opportunity to obtain either approval or support from their own manager or above on the table of organization, for how they would resolve matters and get their assigned tasks done. (I assume here that more effective communications would lead to change in official and expected processes in place that do not work, with new alternatives that do.)
• For a second context, consider businesses where results achieved are viewed as being more important than how they are achieved. This creates opportunities for hand-off disconnects when work flows have to be passed on to other teams and other managers for further work on their part. That business model approach and the consequences that result from it can come back to haunt a business. To at least briefly cite a relatively simple case in point, friction-point that this approach can create (that I have seen play out) consider the impact of ad hoc unplanned use of bottleneck creating, limited availability, shared resources that many need but that few can use at any one time, as a business growing pains example. But I could just as easily have cited how this management approach throws off task completion and overall work schedules in general, too.
• Systematic but nevertheless unofficial work-arounds, create fundamentally distinct channels for managing and carrying out work flows that are not allowed for or included in officially expected operational systems. They do not arise because of one-time, disruptively unexpected events. They arise from a long-term break-down of officially recognized and offered processes and procedures and systems of them, and with senior and executive management often left unaware of this. So they do not even know that the operational plans and processes that they have arrived at for carrying out their strategy in place, do not and cannot work and for at least some key areas of their business. In a more extreme and ongoing form, this scenario usually leads to change management resolution, or at least a need for that. But in any event, this reflects long-term and much more systematic and deep-set business inefficiency and risk.
• Note that I write in the above bullet point, of unawareness on the part of the most senior management in place, and of their operational and strategic planners. I am explicitly not writing here of businesses that for example, acquire smaller specialty businesses to round out their portfolios of value creating strengths and resources, that maintain them as if largely separate entities, allowing and even encouraging those new parts of their now expanded systems to maintain their own processes and even their own internal corporate cultures, so as to protect the sources of value they paid for when acquiring them. I am writing here of businesses that have essentially by default, split off what amounts to independent fiefdoms within their organization that in effect go their own way.
• How can that arise? I am fairly sure that every large and widely distributed business organization has at least a few empire builders in their management hierarchy who at the very least would like to do things their own way because of that. I have certainly worked with people who fit that mould. But communications breakdowns and the drift from “official” that that can create, are commoner causes of this, even as they in effect can force the development of protective silo walls in the organization, walling off even entire lines on the overall table of organization so those within them can get their jobs done.

I have in fact at least begun addressing Points 5-7 of the above to-address list in this discussion, and with a goal of at least briefly outlining some of the forces and pressures that managers and that non-managerial employees face as they seek to carry out their jobs and succeed there. I will continue that discussion in a next series installment, from a more explicit Who and Why perspective for these business systems participants. And then I will turn to Point 8 of the list and the issue of asking the right questions in the right ways for specific businesses under consideration.

Looking further ahead, I will then turn to consider individual personality, preferences and experience in shaping management style, and the issues and challenges of shaping a consistent management approach while supporting individuality and diversity, and differences in vision and perspective. But turning back to the question of what I will focus in on in my next series installment to this, I will begin by posing a seemingly simply question that I will start that with:

• What makes a good manager?

This is at least easy to ask, and it can be conveyed in just a few words. I will use this question as an organizing point for what follows it.

Meanwhile, you can find this and related postings and series at Business Strategy and Operations – 4, and also at Page 1, Page 2 and Page 3 of that directory. Also see HR and Personnel and HR and Personnel – 2.

Don’t invest in ideas, invest in people with ideas 31 – bringing innovators into a business and keeping them there 14

Posted in HR and personnel, strategy and planning by Timothy Platt on July 9, 2017

This is my 31st installment in a series on cultivating and supporting innovation and its potential in a business, by cultivating and supporting the creative and innovative potential and the innovative drive of your employees and managers, and throughout your organization (see HR and Personnel – 2, postings 215 and loosely following for Parts 1-30.)

I initially offered a four point to-address list of topics related to finding and securing the best, most innovative new hires, in Part 27 of this series and began addressing it there. Then I added two more topics points to that list in Part 30 and began discussing the first of them there. I begin this posting by repeating this now six point list, for purposes of continuity of discussion, and with a goal of addressing the last of the six, concluding my discussion of this list and its issues in this posting, at least for purposes of this series:

1. First, you need to reach out through communications channels that the people you seek to reach actively use,
2. Then you need to craft conversation starting messages that will prompt them to reach back to you, and to at the very least look further into what you have to say, and into what you do and are as a business.
3. Then you have to actually engage, and with a goal of starting a conversation – which would lead to these people thinking of your business as a possible next employer, and with their coming to see one or more positions that you have available as possible good next career steps for themselves.
4. And this crucially means you’re learning more about them, just as they reach out to learn more about you.
5. How can you more effectively bring current employees and managers on-board with change in hiring and in personnel policy and practice, as your and their business pivots towards being more innovative – and even in its basic business processes where that would create greater business flexibility and competitive strength?
6. And how can you best enable a smoother integration of the type of change that I address here, into a perhaps very settled existing system and in ways that can increase buy-in from stakeholders and gate keepers already in place – and at a structural organizational level in your business as well as at a more strictly interpersonal one?

The last two, more recently included topics points to this list are in fact very closely related, and even if Point 5 is considered strictly on an individual employee and individual manager basis, and Point 6 is considered strictly from an overall organizational perspective. After all, you have to effectively enable and promote positive change at both levels at once, if it is to effectively take hold at either. So in practice, while I focused in Part 30 of this series on the above-repeated Point 5, I did in fact at least touch upon Point 6 and its issues there too. And I will have to at least briefly address Point 5 issues here, when focusing on Point 6 too.

I focused in Part 30 on the issues of bringing the right people into hiring process conversations from within your business, and with that including Marketing and Communications expertise related to online social media, in helping to identify and connect to the right new potential hires through those communications channels.

• Yes, by now it should be expected that essentially anyone working at a business has at least basic familiarity with online social media and that expectation is in fact validated in most businesses and for most all of their employees. People follow and post to social media and actively two-way communicate through them, just as they phone each other, and routinely.
• But no, not everyone in a business is going to be expertly familiar with the branding and the basic organizing message that their employer has developed, for officially representing their organization. And when hiring managers and Human Resources personnel reach out to and connect with potential new hires, they are representing their business and need to be in synch with that when doing so – and even when using resources such as instant messaging or Twitter. So general guidance at the very least from Marketing and Communications can be very helpful there, and with people available from that service to turn to, when and as specific questions arise that they could help resolve.

As a hiring manager, and particularly when seeking out non-standard employees with special skills and experience, you need to be able to reach out to your best candidates flexibly and creatively in drawing them in. But at the same time, you need to hire them into the business you work for, and in ways that do not violate basic policy or message in place, and certainly where ad hoc could create problems and both in that particular instance and when moving forward.

I addressed this from more of a What to do perspective in Part 30 and have just reconsidered it from more of a Why perspective here. And the basic reason for this division of this discussion here is simple: I focused on the job candidate search and hiring process from an individual instance perspective in Part 30, and am focusing here on this from an organizational and policy-level perspective. And with this point of distinction in mind, I turn to more formally consider that second side of hiring and of personnel. And I begin that by posing a simple and perhaps obvious question:

• How can you tell when a “creative a hoc” employed to secure the hire of a great employee search candidate was good and effective, and when it might have been problematical and even for the business as a whole, and even if it seemed to work that time?

Look out for special exception offers and agreements that would likely create resentment and consequent friction from those already working there, or that set a bad precedent moving forward and for future hirings or promotions, or both. This means thinking through what you would offer and how, to a highly sought after job candidate. And just as importantly, this is a question of how you would present what you offer there, to the business as a whole. If you find yourself struggling with how best to word that, then an offer made and its terms, would probably be problematical.

Let me step back from this line of discussion for a moment to dispel what was once a truth that has now become a somewhat quaint myth. It used to be true that terms of hiring and of employment could be and were held essentially completely confidential and for salary and other compensation offered and for essentially everything else offered to a new hire or to a current employee. And this held true for essentially every position along the table of organization from the lowest level positions on up, except perhaps for the President or Chief Executive Officer of a publically traded corporation, where public disclosure of salary and overall compensation has long been legally required. Now, a business has to assume that any and all such information can and will become visible, and transparently and very publically so, and for any and all positions and types of position in their organization, and for their competitors too. There are a great many resources such as GlassDoor that have come to serve as publically visible clearing houses for this type of information, and with data contributors from essentially all industries and types of business and from essentially all functional areas and work positions in them, adding to the array of insight available.

Personnel policy of the type that I write of here, has to be drafted and enacted and day-to-day followed and adhered to with this transparency in mind – and particularly now that everyone in a business is so social media connected.

With that in mind, let’s reconsider the above set of six points as a whole:

• You and your business are looking for creative, innovative people who would thrive in a business that actively seeks to be creative and innovative as a whole, now too.
• So look for people with both hands-on innovation and management skills, as a starting nucleus to build your business around, as a place of innovative excellence.
• This is only one possible scenario here, but it is one that makes sense for businesses that seek to become innovators, where they have not been living up to that dream, at least recently and in their current and ongoing practices. But this can also be an effective approach for launching a business that could become a magnet for the innovative too, as it starts out and takes off.
• Be willing to walk the walk as well as talk the talk in this; don’t just market your business as being innovative – be willing to build new teams around the right managers as you find them and bring them in. And really be innovative and supportive of that in your own words and actions.
• And look and listen as well as speak and show there.
• Mine resources such as LinkedIn for profiles of the type of people who you would most want – who are hands on innovators or who are still lower level or middle-level managers and who say the right things in their profiles – and who have recommendations and endorsements to verify that the things they claim to have done, are seen as true by others who have worked with them.
• These people might be so positively supported by current employers, that you could never bring them to move on to new employment opportunities – with you. But see if you can meet with them, and reach out online to contact them and ask them. And look for the truly innovative who are frustrated where they are now for not being allowed to be as creative as they could be too.
• Tell these people about what you seek to do, and how you would offer the right hires opportunity to build creative teams and systems that you would actively support.
• Beyond this, look to see who these known innovators recommend and endorse, and who else their sources of recommendations and endorsers really like too. Throw a wide net and seek out the best possible catches.
• Tap into and mine the conversation, and enter into it to start the conversation thread that you need here.
• And keep the issues of Points 5 and 6, above in mind here so you do not leave others already in your business behind, as you build or rebuild to support more active innovation too.

I am going to turn in my next series installment to reconsider the innovative potential already in place in your own business, and the possibility that you and your personnel and management processes, might be leaving at least some of your potentially most creative employees frustrated, as touched upon in the above set of bullet points. Are you setting up your own business for becoming the one that truly innovative new hires leave as they move on to new opportunity, and even with one of your direct competitors? Are you setting up your own business for becoming the one that at least some of your potentially most creative employees would want to leave, and in that way?

After exploring that set of issues, I am going to turn to consider the issues of automation in a human employment context, focusing there on the shifts that can be expected in the overall pattern of employee profiles that most businesses will routinely hire for and seek to retain. Meanwhile, you can find this and related postings and series at Business Strategy and Operations – 4, and also at Page 1, Page 2 and Page 3 of that directory. Also see HR and Personnel and HR and Personnel – 2.

Intentional management 41: elaborating on the basic model for adding people and their management into the equation 2

Posted in HR and personnel, strategy and planning by Timothy Platt on June 29, 2017

This is my 41st installment in a series in which I discuss how management activity and responsibilities can be parsed and distributed through a business organization, so as to better meet operational and strategic goals and as a planned intentional process (see Business Strategy and Operations – 3 and its Page 4 continuation, postings 472 and loosely following for Parts 1-40.)

I began explicitly discussing intentional management as a systematic approach to business operations and strategy, from a more What and How perspective in this series. And then I switched orientation and began addressing it from a Who, and a more Human Resources and Personnel perspective in Part 38, Part 39 and Part 40. And as a key organizing element to that, I offered and began to systematically build from a to-address topics list, that I repeat here for purposes of narrative continuity:

1. How is a business under analytical examination being managed now? (Note: this is a complex question because it raises issues of what it is doing in principle and as a matter of intended process and practice, and of what is actually being done and on a day-to-day basis and by whom and where in the organization and under what circumstances, and how consistently. The following questions in effect dissect out what would go into this question and what would go into answering it and from both the intended side and the actual in-practice side to that.)
2. Does this business actually follow a seemingly entirely ad hoc approach as if it had no past and as if the experience of here and now, could hold no informative value in its future either?
3. Or does it more systematically pursue at least a close approximation of the default model approach as laid out in Parts 38 and 39 (and in Part 1)?
4. Or does it in some systematic manner differ from that, with non-default features brought in and included, and for at least specific areas of the business?
5. If this business does at least situationally resort to consistent non-default management approaches, where and how and when does it do so?
6. Is this resorted to in order to address specific perhaps recurring problematical situations or events, or in order to capture available value from specific perhaps recurring opportunities that the “standard” approach cannot handle in and of itself? Does this, in other words, reflect an alternative approach that might be resorted to on a needs and opportunities, functional process-defined basis?
7. Or do one or more specific areas of the business (e.g. specific departments or specific organizationally distinct sections of them, or specific satellite offices in a larger geographically dispersed enterprise) simply pursue their own course in how things are routinely done and across all functional areas and processes carried out?
8. This is only a starter list and one of the goals of any business review and analysis here would be to progressively, iteratively refine and elaborate on what is asked here, drilling down into the specifics of the particular business and away from the more generic as has been offered up to here.)

These points, as offered here take a more What and How perspective than they do a Who perspective. But at least since Part 38, I have begun systematically addressing the issues that they raise from the perspective of the people who would carry them out, and certainly at a management level. And in that, my comments as offered up to here address in large part, lower level and middle managers who actually work with the hands-on employees who perform the bulk of the work in any business that goes into actually carrying out goals and priorities-oriented tasks and processes. If the expected and the official of a business’ operational processes and procedures are bypassed and functionally replaced with a more ad hoc, and on a real world day-to-day basis, these are the people who would make the decisions to do that.

As already noted, ad hoc in this can become the actually followed and adhered to standard and certainly when resource restrictions and other challenges mean that official and formally expected cannot work as well in meeting actual performance goals and deadlines. Ad hoc per se does not necessarily mean one-off. This type of systematic necessary ad hoc, as a work-around for keeping the business functioning can be one-off but entire alternative and essentially set systems of actually carried out processes and practices can arise too, and in ways that cut across the table of organization and in ways that the senior executive leadership of the business do not know about.

When this type of systematic disconnect between hands-on and lower and middle management, and executive leadership there, hits a tipping point for prevalence and level of impact, this becomes a change management demanding problem. But I write here of “sub-tipping point” situations for the most part, acknowledging that even the best businesses can have elements of this type of disconnect and its inefficiencies in at least a few of its offices and functional areas in them. So I am not explicitly offering this posting or this portion of this series as a whole, as a change management discussion per se.

With that said, I have already delved at least briefly into the first two of the numbered issues in the above list in the immediately preceding postings to this series. And my goal here is to at least begin to address Points 3 and 4 from that list here, and once again from a Who perspective. And I begin by briefly reconsidering Point 2 in order to put that discussion into perspective:

• Does this business actually follow a seemingly entirely ad hoc approach as if it had no past and as if the experience of here and now, could hold no informative value in its future either?

The answer to that question, as simply stated is yes, that can happen. I have all too frequently seen this in early stage startups, and particularly when their founders have launched their ventures with visions developed from their hands-on work and from frustration of never having an opportunity to pursue them when working for anyone else. Some of them have had at least low level management experience, working with small teams, and I have run into true mavericks with at least some middle management experience who have attempted to start their own businesses with a yes to that question too.

They each start their particular startup “as if it had no past and as if the experience of here and now, could hold no informative value in its future” because they have never really learned the value of systematically building for ongoing consistent operations – or for ongoing and consistent strategy either.

Systematization can create stability, and it can enable agility and resilience and in ways that a strictly ad hoc never can. And this brings me to Point 3 and to a serious, systematically organized effort to create and adhere to a consistent and “official” to the business, operational and strategic approach.

• This type of approach cannot simply flow down from on-high and from the executive suite to all below it on the table of organization.
• Effective, realistic, sustainable operational systems that can be adhered to and without recourse to ad hoc work-arounds require ongoing communication that actively includes and involves the people who have to carry them out and who have to live with their direct consequences: good, bad or indifferent. And all of this communication has to go both ways, and in fact in multiple directions.
• And this means communicating with and really listening to the people in a business who are at the sharp point of the stick for processes and practices and systems of them that are in place, and who would find them supportive of their doing their work effectively or challenging for that or even as preventing it – and with that creating impetus for all of those work-arounds and ad hoc alternatives.

I add here that these notes also address the Point 4 alternative to Point 3 as listed above. Managers who actively seek to do their jobs well and who actively seek to enable the teams that report to them to succeed in this too, arrive at following a Point 2, 3 or 4 approach as a response to the resource based context that they work in and the level of support that they do or do not receive in doing their work and as they seek to find a for-themselves, most productive and reliable path forward.

I am going to turn to Points 5, 6 and 7 of the above list in my next series installment. And in anticipation of that, note that I will focus there on communications enablers and restrictions, and on how a Point 2, 3 or 4 approach is arrived at and particularly by the best managers who seek most actively to perform well in reaching all of their assigned goals and on time.

Meanwhile, you can find this and related postings and series at Business Strategy and Operations – 4, and also at Page 1, Page 2 and Page 3 of that directory. Also see HR and Personnel and HR and Personnel – 2.

Don’t invest in ideas, invest in people with ideas 30 – bringing innovators into a business and keeping them there 13

Posted in HR and personnel, strategy and planning by Timothy Platt on May 22, 2017

This is my 30th installment in a series on cultivating and supporting innovation and its potential in a business, by cultivating and supporting the creative and innovative potential and the innovative drive of your employees and managers, and throughout your organization (see HR and Personnel – 2, postings 215 and loosely following for Parts 1-29.)

I have been writing in recent installments to this series about finding and hiring the best, and particularly for critical needs positions in your business and when you need to find new employees who do not fit into any given, standard cookie cutter-type moulds. And with that in mind as a general overarching area of discussion, I successively addressed four specific issues and their possible resolution in Part 27, Part 28 and Part 29 that I repeat here for continuity of discussion as I proceed on from that starting point:

1. First, you need to reach out through communications channels that the people you seek to reach actively use,
2. Then you need to craft conversation starting messages that will prompt them to reach back to you, and to at the very least look further into what you have to say, and into what you do and are as a business.
3. Then you have to actually engage, and with a goal of starting a conversation – which would lead to these people thinking of your business as a possible next employer, and with their coming to see one or more positions that you have available as possible good next career steps for themselves.
4. And this crucially means you’re learning more about them, just as they reach out to learn more about you.

I have, as just noted, offered at least a foundational answer to the issues and questions raised in those four numbered points in the three immediately preceding installments to this series. And I continue on from there, with a goal of putting that flow of discussion into an organizational context, where I took a more individualized approach to special needs hiring there. And that brings me to two more areas of consideration that I made note of in Part 29 and that I repeat here, as new additions to the above list:

5. How can you more effectively bring current employees and managers on-board with change in hiring and in personnel policy and practice, as your and their business pivots towards being more innovative – and even in its basic business processes where that would create greater business flexibility and competitive strength?
6. And how can you best enable a smoother integration of the type of change that I address here, into a perhaps very settled existing system and in ways that can increase buy-in from stakeholders and gate keepers already in place – and at a structural organizational level in your business as well as at a more strictly interpersonal one?

Simply promulgating policy and passing it down the table of organization here, is not going to in any way guarantee either buy-in or compliance, or even a shared understanding as to what is supposed to be done now or why – which can explain a lack of actual day-to-day realized buy-in and compliance in and of itself.

I have made note in recent installments to this series, and certainly in Part 29, of how both compliance with and even shared understanding of new policy and practice of the type discussed here, can require active support from the corporate culture in place. And I have explicitly stated that making a change to the type of hiring and staff retention approach that I write of here, can require change and even relatively fundamental change in the overall corporate culture in place too. I stated there, that I would delve into this complex of issues in the course of this overall discussion, and will begin to explicitly do so here in this posting, as I at least start considering Point 5 as just listed above. And I begin that by posing a challenge, or rather by acknowledging one that the ongoing momentum of a business can and often does offer.

• Supervisory managers who are looking for new hires, and I add members of Human Resources who are supposed to assist them with this, and help keep processes followed aligned with business norms, all tend to follow processes and practices that they themselves have had to follow in their own careers, and from both sides of the hiring table.
• When these processes have come across as onerous or difficult, even the managers who found them the most objectionable when they were going through them, can come to see them as “paying one’s dues” and as a necessary part of the new employee candidate-filtering and selecting process – and not as problems that they might have prevailed over themselves but that nevertheless create avoidable problems for all concerned, and on both sides of that hiring table.

So as a starting point, Point 5, above is in many respects a matter of bringing decision makers in the hiring process to see this workplace and task performance requirement through fresh eyes. And for finding and bringing in the best possible new hires, and particularly the creative and special skills and experience best, that means looking through and thinking through the hiring process both from their own perspective and from that of the candidates who are under consideration – and particularly for those candidates who could bring the most to the business if hired, and who all of your competitors would want to hire too.

• This is important; re-envision the hiring process as a manager or as a Human Resources professional who works on hiring-process tasks, from the best candidate perspective, and from the perspective of you’re looking to hire those best candidates in a seller’s, candidate favoring market.
• When you are looking at these candidates, the market is always going to be at least somewhat of a seller’s market, and even if it is an essentially entirely buyer’s, hiring business-favoring jobs market for finding and bringing in more routine hires.

Now, how do you actually bring these business-side hiring process gatekeepers on board with all of this, as the business they work at seeks to pivot towards being more effective in finding, hiring and onboarding their next business step forward, new hire enablers?

I at least begin addressing that question by turning back to the above repeated Points 1-4 of the numbered list at the top of this posting. The interactive online experience as an all but ubiquitously expected presence, and online social media have changed the playing field here and for both job seekers and hiring businesses. And at the same time that this has affected how candidates and employers find each other, come to know about each other and interact, this also offers a key element to the answer to that question too.

Effectively bringing a change like this into a business means offering the people involved in it as stakeholders and gatekeepers, the tools that they would need to actually follow the new approaches and processes put in place. And that begins with information gathering and communications.

Marketing and Communications is always involved in the hiring process when a new hire would work in that department or service and in that functional area. But in an interactive online and social media shaped context, it is vitally important to bring relevant skills and experience from these professionals into the hiring process in general, and exactly as more generically skilled Human Resources professionals are brought in, to help organize and manage specialty skills hiring for other functional area services. An involved member of the HR team does not have to be an expert in the skills sets that they would help another department or service to hire for; they do not necessarily have to actually know anything about the details of what a new hire there would do. That is an area that the people involved in this from the hiring department or service would be expert in. Similarly, a social media and related communications expert from Marketing and Communications, need not be an expert in what a new hire in another department or service would do either. But they could offer real expertise in finding and vetting the right online channels to connect with the right potential new hires through. And they could offer assistance in crafting a conversation with these people, that could be built from as best candidates are identified and pursued.

• Even when a new hire would work in the most abstruse technical areas, an initial conversation starter that might lead to their applying for a job with your business, is not going to be technically detailed and abstruse. It is going to be more general and two-way introductory, and more generic in many respects for that. It is going to be more about “this is who we are; what are you looking for as a next best opportunity and how can we work together to reach our respective goals?”

I have started addressing Point 5 of the above, here-expanded to address list by expanding the range of expertise brought into the candidate selection process at the very least, and in building a more effective communications bridge that can be used in the next hiring process steps. I am going to continue addressing Point 5 in the next series installment and will at least begin addressing Point 6 there as well. Meanwhile, you can find this and related postings and series at Business Strategy and Operations – 4, and also at Page 1, Page 2 and Page 3 of that directory. Also see HR and Personnel and HR and Personnel – 2.

Intentional management 40: elaborating on the basic model for adding people and their management into the equation 1

Posted in HR and personnel, strategy and planning by Timothy Platt on May 10, 2017

This is my 40th installment in a series in which I discuss how management activity and responsibilities can be parsed and distributed through a business organization, so as to better meet operational and strategic goals and as a planned intentional process (see Business Strategy and Operations – 3 and its Page 4 continuation, postings 472 and loosely following for Parts 1-39.)

I began focusing on the Who side of intentional management in Part 38 and Part 39 of this series, building from a more What and How approach to it that I have more actively pursued in earlier installments. More specifically, I briefly outlined this more Human Resources and Personnel-related side to intentional management in those installments, in order to further develop this side of intentional management as an organizing system, and to mesh it with the process and organizational structure perspective to this management approach. And I offered a briefly sketched out to-address list there, of at least some of the key points that I will address here and in installments to come as a part of that.

In the course of offering what might be viewed as this second-perspective restart on this series, I briefly re-sketched out a basic default management approach that I initially offered from a business process and systems side, this time from the personnel side (see Part 1 for my original presentation of this default, baseline model.)

I stated at the end of Part 39 that I would begin adding real-world complexities and requirements, and management approaches for best resolving them into this narrative here, and I will start doing so by posing a set of questions of a type that would come up in any significant review of the management systems in place in a business, and certainly if the leadership of that business were bringing in an outside business consultant to help more fully identify and clarify, and correct problems and challenges in place.

I begin this with the absolute fundamentals and at step one to any process of even just understanding where a business is now, independently of whether or not any change might be contemplated too.

1. How is a business under analytical examination being managed now? (Note: this is a complex question because it raises issues of what it is doing in principle and as a matter of intended process and practice, and of what is actually being done and on a day-to-day basis and by whom and where in the organization and under what circumstances, and how consistently. The following questions in effect dissect out what would go into this question and what would go into answering it and from both the intended side and the actual in-practice side to that.)
2. Does this business actually follow a seemingly entirely ad hoc approach as if it had no past and as if the experience of here and now, could hold no informative value in its future either?
3. Or does it more systematically pursue at least a close approximation of the default model approach as laid out in Parts 38 and 39 (and in Part 1)?
4. Or does it in some systematic manner differ from that, with non-default features brought in and included, and for at least specific areas of the business?
5. If this business does at least situationally resort to consistent non-default management approaches, where and how and when does it do so?
6. Is this resorted to in order to address specific perhaps recurring problematical situations or events, or in order to capture available value from specific perhaps recurring opportunities that the “standard” approach cannot handle in and of itself? Does this, in other words, reflect an alternative approach that might be resorted to on a needs and opportunities, functional process-defined basis?
7. Or do one or more specific areas of the business (e.g. specific departments or specific organizationally distinct sections of them, or specific satellite offices in a larger geographically dispersed enterprise) simply pursue their own course in how things are routinely done and across all functional areas and processes carried out?
8. This is only a starter list and one of the goals of any business review and analysis here would be to progressively, iteratively refine and elaborate on what is asked here, drilling down into the specifics of the particular business and away from the more generic as has been offered up to here.)

It is important to note that many businesses at least contextually and circumstantially find themselves in positions where for example, their executive leadership could legitimately answer “yes” to any combination of questions 2, 3 and 4 from the above list – and certainly for how their business is actually day-to-day run and across its entire table of organization. Though I add that a business that actually simultaneously pursues all of those management approaches is in most cases going to be one with an executive leadership that does not fully know that, until that is, that fact is brought to their explicit attention through an ad hoc process and performance review that would be added into their ongoing strategic planning schedule and even as a deviation from it for how it is carried out.

The ad hoc of question 2 in particular, is rarely discussed or even openly acknowledged and certainly if more systematic processes are at least formally in place – and even if ad hoc has become the de facto, actually followed norm for large and significant areas of the business as a whole. And this is where I shift focus in this installment from the What and Where and How of management to the Who of it. And I make this transition by noting that however the above questions are answered, and both for what is formally on paper as to how a business is supposed to be run, and for how it is actually run and day-to-day, its management is all planned out and carried out, and performance reviewed when it is, by specific, real individual people.

So I reframe the approach to management that I just outlined in my above first seven more-generic starter questions, in terms of who decides to do what and how of all of this, and particularly in actual practice and in the face of tight schedules and performance demands and in the face of real-world resource limitations, that might be very different from what is nominally and “officially” expected.

• When on-paper and official processes and official practices give way to alternatives that are actually followed, look for gaps and differences between what “nominally expected and officially followed” expects in the way of resource availability, and what is actually consistently and reliably there. And look for the perhaps even consistently recurring emergence of key resource shortfalls as “exceptions” too, that might in fact be predicable and even very reliably so for their recurrence.
• These gaps and shortfalls in most cases, in effect define the parameters that shape the “what is done” for how it deviates from the “what is formally on paper as being done.”
• When standardized effective processes break down, and for whatever reason in the immediate and often compelling pressure of the immediate here-and-now, ad hoc arises to fill the gap that this creates. This is a first response and the greater the ongoing and recurring uncertainty faced by managers under pressure to perform, the more likely it is to be resorted to and the more likely it is going to become the standard response taken.
• When specific recurring breakdowns become consistent and known for how they will arise and play out, alternative “standard” processes and procedures start to emerge – where they are still deviations from the officially expected.

This progression of points outlines one of the more common paths that would spell out why individual managers, and even particularly the best of them who actively seek to meet all of their performance goals and compete all of their assigned tasks and on time, can find themselves resorting to ad hoc and other non-standard management and business process approaches – and particularly when business systems friction: added in limitations to information availability and to communicated support, force them to decide and act on their own, and with them moving into what for them might be uncharted waters in doing so.

Ad hoc, to focus on that extreme deviation from standard-official here, can arise from sloppiness and ineffectualness, but that is self-limiting and if for no other reason than because poor managers who do it and consistently, tend to stand out poorly in their ongoing performance reviews in general. They make themselves and their job tenures self-limiting so their doing this and their making things up as they go along: their ad hoc tends to go away. But when good and even very good managers do this in order to stay effective in outcomes achieved, and they succeed in that and in meeting their assigned goals, their ad hoc and band aide solutions tend to be overlooked and they tend to go unreported too. That is where hidden but emerging patterns can and do begin to emerge – that come to light only when they are specifically looked for.

I am going to continue this discussion in a next installment where I will more fully consider questions 3 and 4 of the above list, and from a largely Who perspective. Meanwhile, you can find this and related postings and series at Business Strategy and Operations – 4, and also at Page 1, Page 2 and Page 3 of that directory. Also see HR and Personnel and HR and Personnel – 2.

When expertise becomes an enemy of quality service 18 – taking an overarching strategic approach to this

Posted in career development, HR and personnel, job search, job search and career development by Timothy Platt on April 10, 2017

This is my eighteenth installment to a series on expertise, and on what an employee or manager needs to bring along with it, if it is to offer real value and either to themselves or to the business they work for (see my supplemental postings section at the end of Guide to Effective Job Search and Career Development – 3, postings 69 and following, for Parts 1-17.)

I have been at least relatively systematically addressing a range of issues, contexts, circumstances and scenarios in the first seventeen installments to this series, that all hold at least a few underlying points of commonality. One of the most important of them, and certainly from the perspective of this 18th installment to that, is that I have been variously approaching the issues and challenges of:

• Finding, bringing in and retaining people with real skills and who could offer real value to a business, and in ways that let them live up to their full potential,
• While simultaneously maintaining a workplace where all employees and at all levels of the table of organization know that they are being treated fairly, that they have an equal opportunity to succeed and to grow professionally, and where they have an equal chance at advancement and with that only dependent upon their work performance and ability.

There is of necessity a dynamic balance, inherent in this dichotomy. And that becomes particularly relevant and I add apparent when a Human Resources and Personnel department sets and follows its policy and practices:

• For the way that they work with and support more routine-skills and experience employees,
• And in how it works with and accommodates special skills and experience ones:
• Employees who are essential as far as their skills and experience are categorically needed but who are not as individually indispensible or irreplaceable, and employees who are essential and who might in fact be essentially irreplaceable, at least within critically essential timeframes where they are critically necessary.

I admittedly somewhat cryptically stated at the end of Part 17, that I would continue on from its line of discussion (there considering personnel training and related issues, vis-à-vis personnel-related information security and business alignment at that level), to consider:

• “The issues that I have been raising here in this series,” from an overall business strategy and business development perspective, as businesses face both evolutionary and more predictable change, and disruptive and unpredictable change.

I have at least attempted to address the issues and circumstances raised throughout this series in a manner that is compatible with a more explicit inclusion of ongoing change. But I have largely delved into the more specific issues and circumstances addressed in this series and certainly up to here, from a more fixed in time and here-and-now snapshot perspective. My goal for this posting is to very explicitly consider change contexts and particularly where a once effective and even best practice approach can become outdated and even dysfunctionally problematical.

I in effect began addressing that in Part 17 when I cited as an all too familiar type of working example: how senior managers and leaders of Human Resources and Personnel departments fell into a trap in their understanding of what types of compensation and related personnel information actually have to be safely held in-house and as strictly confidential and proprietary, and what types and levels of this can be shared, and even by individual employees through online social media, and through websites such as glassdoor. And I compared the more draconian, hold all such information as if top secret approach as taken by older-style businesses, and even just regarding the willing sharing of an employee’s own compensation, or of entirely general demographic level information on this, to Roman Emperor Caligula’s attempt to frighten Poseidon into backing off the tide when he wanted to hold a picnic on the beach! Draconian there as a label of impact, proved itself as a matter of basic policy to be more appropriate a term for the effect of older policy and practice on those businesses themselves and on their own underlying interests, than it did to wayward employees – and certainly where the goal was to bring in and keep the best.

New dividing lines had to be arrived at in distinguishing between what types and levels of personnel information have to be kept confidential and what in practice actually does not. And this new understanding and new policy and practice that would develop from it, had to be both supported from and enforced from the top of these departments, and from more senior executive management as well, in operationally distinguishing between what has to be kept entirely in-house and in only certain allowed areas there, and what can become more open and publically known – where complete confidentiality has become impossible in a world so interconnected through the interactive online and social media context that we all now live in.

That represents one working example of how change in a business’ context – here the emergence of an interactively online social media community that crosses traditional boundaries, can compel a need for change and even fundamental change in a business itself, and certainly for anything related to personnel policy or expectations. Considering this from a larger perspective that includes both a business itself and its competitive context. This boundary crossing has called for a fundamental rethinking of traditional business-to-business contexts too, and the potential for sharing sensitive information with business rivals as they seek out the same best employees that your business does. And it also and at least as actively means boundary crossing between hiring and potentially hiring businesses, and the community of workforce participants who seek or who might seek to find new employment opportunity, and who both need and actively seek out as much information as possible as to what any particular, individual company can offer and both normatively and as best terms from a new hire’s perspective.

Think of this in terms of a hiring business and a potential new hire job candidate playing cards: high stakes poker perhaps, and the players on the company side finding themselves with some of their cards showing that they used to be able to keep hidden – but where all such businesses have now come to face that same challenge so this has not necessarily created special advantage for any of them. It has just shifted the overall balance of potential advantage that they all face. This type of shift in what a business faces and in what it has to expect can create compelling need for it to change its policy and practices and from the top down and from the bottom up (from the experience of individual job hiring campaigns in that.) And this type of scenario and ones that are functionally like it can arise through:

• The emergence of sudden and disruptive change,
• Or slow and evolutionary change – and particularly in this case when an increasingly disconnected status quo, “tried and true” understanding and policy is simply maintained as is, until something bad arises from its continued use.

The second of those possibilities is not all that likely to arise when simply hiring for routine positions and certainly when there are more prospective job candidates out there actively looking for those types of positions than there are such positions to fill. This is going to arise and even painfully so when the need is pressingly intense to bring in and hire – or to retain a special skills, high priority employee and where hiring and retention are anything but a buyer’s market for the business.

I identify this posting in its title tagline as one that addresses “taking an overarching strategic approach to this.” Strategy by its very nature takes a longer timeframe and a wider context perspective than do day-to-day tactical implementation, or the “this is how we do things” linear momentum of routine business practice as it of necessity templatizes tactical solutions and resolutions into routine, standardized accepted business process and practice. Ultimately, when I write of change here, and in a more meaningful context that just that of exception handling: when I write of more fundamental and long-term change in what would and would not go into tactical level practice and implementation and on a routine basis, I write of underlying, or if you will overarching strategy. And once again, this brings me back to the more senior managers and leaders of a business, and of that business as a whole and of its key functional areas. And this brings me back to the lower implementation levels where any strategic decisions: any change or any carefully considered continuation of policy or practice would be reality checked. The issues that I address here cannot ever be considered fully established; change happens and have to be responded to and proactively where possible, and certainly if a business seeks to develop and create a competitive advantage for itself through how it maintains its personnel and its key staffing.

I am going to conclude both this posting and this series with that point, though I am certain to return to issues and questions raised in these eighteen installments in future postings and series too. Meanwhile, you can find this and related postings at my Guide to Effective Job Search and Career Development – 3 (with this included as a supplemental posting there) and at the first directory page and second, continuation page to this Guide. Also see HR and Personnel and HR and Personnel – 2.

Don’t invest in ideas, invest in people with ideas 29 – bringing innovators into a business and keeping them there 12

Posted in HR and personnel, strategy and planning by Timothy Platt on April 4, 2017

This is my 29th installment in a series on cultivating and supporting innovation and its potential in a business, by cultivating and supporting the creative and innovative potential and the innovative drive of your employees and managers, and throughout your organization (see HR and Personnel – 2, postings 215 and loosely following for Parts 1-28.)

I began systematically working my way through a to-address list of issues that are relevant to finding and bringing in innovative, creative new hires, in Part 27 and Part 28 of this, which I repeat here for smoother continuity of discussion as:

1. First, you need to reach out through communications channels that the people you seek to reach actively use,
2. Then you need to craft conversation starting messages that will prompt them to reach back to you, and to at the very least look further into what you have to say, and into what you do and are as a business.
3. Then you have to actually engage, and with a goal of starting a conversation – which would lead to these people thinking of your business as a possible next employer, and with their coming to see one or more positions that you have available as possible good next career steps for themselves.
4. And this crucially means you’re learning more about them, just as they reach out to learn more about you.

I offered at least orienting, framework responses to the first two of these points in the immediately preceding installments to this series. My primary goal for this posting is to continue from that start, to address the remaining two points of that list. And I begin doing so, at Point 3 by making what should be a tritely obvious point – but one that in practice is all too often overlooked.

• Conversations have to be two-way in order to be conversations.

The standard business culture expectation and practice, is that the vast majority of a job candidate search and hiring process conversation has to be essentially one way, with the business doing most of the talking and potential new hires doing most of the listening. They provide feedback and information that a hiring manager and their Human Resources colleagues would use in making their candidate filtering and selection decisions, and from early on when first winnowing an initially large resume submission list, through making their final decisions from among the smaller number actually brought in for interviews. But the overall emphasis is from within the business outward in all of this, and with any job candidates or potential job candidates primarily just offering information that the business would need and use as it carries out its selection processes.

What I am writing about here amounts to turning that entire process around and onto its head, and making conversations more genuinely two-way and in fact more genuinely collaborative. What can I as a hiring manager or owner, and this business as a whole offer you, and what can you offer us, and how can we best meet each other’s needs and priorities, working together? Candidate filtering and selection and all of the best-fit oriented considerations that enter into a more traditional hiring process, still take place and in many respects in the same way. You still look for the best people to meet your current and anticipated needs, and people who can work effectively in your business and with others there and in the context of your corporate culture in place. It is just that allowing your hiring system and its selection processes to take place in a more open and even collaborative context can help you and your business to find the people who you really need, and particularly when you need new hires who do not simply fit into cookie cutter, standard employee moulds.

• Think of this as hiring with a goal of improving your odds that the best out there will see working with you as their best choice too, and that you will find them in the first place so you can help make that happen.

I stress here that while I am writing about business processes in this, I am also writing about the underlying business culture in place too, and about the sometimes need to change and even profoundly change that too – if this type of approach is to work. Openness and a willingness to actively listen and engage with new people cannot work, if those words simply become slogans and unpursued ideals that are more routinely honored in their breach than in their practice. If a change to this type of business process system is announced as the new one to be followed and the new way to do things, but without any real buy-in from those who would have to actually implement it and make it work, it cannot succeed. I am going to very explicitly return to the issues of corporate culture in all of this when I delve into the issues of working with the people and systems already in place as a business enters into this type of systematic change, later in this series. I bring up this aspect of this challenge now too, because the issues that I at least briefly allude to here and that I will delve into more deeply in that later posting, are important for every aspect of what I am writing about in this series and certainly in this part of it.

That stated, let’s consider the specifics of Point 3 itself, as offered above. I have been addressing its issues up to here from an overall process perspective. I wrote Point 3 in terms of the temporal order that this would take place in. And I pick up on that face of Point 3 here by adding in a need for feedback and course correction, and certainly if evidence gathered already as to hiring process success would indicate that good and best candidates are falling away at some step and at an unacceptable rate.

Review how these systems work and both in general and in the hands of specific stakeholders who actually do this work. If effective hiring performance fall-offs and unwanted hiring candidate losses are happening, or if there is significant evidence that would suggest that this probably is happening, that raises two fundamentally important questions:

• Is it the hiring process itself that needs to be corrected as a system? Consider for example, a scenario in which the decision making process and its step by step flow is saddled with avoidable delays in carrying out next steps – while the great candidates who you most want are still actively looking elsewhere too and going elsewhere as a result.
• Or is this a training issue where some of the key people involved in this activity from the business side need to learn how to communicate more effectively in a hiring context? Consider here, a scenario in which key hiring managers create avoidable friction or disconnects in the basic message that they convey to potential new hires, that would conflict with any more open and two-way engaging approach, and that would tell these people that this is a business that does not really listen. Are some of your stakeholder participants saying or doing things that would discourage or turn away your potential best new hires and in ways that they could learn do differently and better, or simply stop doing entirely?

I only assume here that your business is in a position to be able to effectively compete for new staff and even for the best of them, in the face of what your also-hiring competitors can offer. I only assume in that, that your business has sufficient strength of position and sufficient resources to be able to compete for good candidates, and that it and you are going to be able to effectively argue the case that you have a lot of good to offer them too.

Picking up on the second of the above-stated bullet point possibilities, but this time in terms of business culture and the possibility of disconnects that it could create here:

• If a hiring manager persists on taking a more “I talk, you listen, We have the upper hand in all of this” approach and even when meeting with essential hire candidates – who have options elsewhere,
• Things are not going to work out well and certainly not consistently and certainly not long-term.

I express that example scenario in perhaps extreme terms but I have seen it play out essentially exactly as stated, and even when a business has a real hole in their essential in-house skills sets and then finds that they have just avoidably let a great candidate walk away who could have filled it.

• Start conversations and actively continue them from there – and take the initiative when that would increase you and your business’ chances of achieving its best possible hiring results, and certainly for any high needs candidate search and hire campaigns.

Point 4, in many respects simply reiterates and reinforces a basic message that should already be very clear by now, at least when considered in terms of this flow of discussion. Every candidate and potential hire that you might face and consider, and for any job opening is going to do their research on you and your business – and on you personally if you are the hiring manager and if they have your name and title, and you have a social media presence of any sort – and if they actually have any interest in this job. You have to expect that. And as part of the critical, essential business-side due diligence of these potential conversations and collaborations, you need to research your job candidates too, and both to help identify who you would best consider and pursue, and so you can do so more effectively – so you can develop and engage in the right conversations with them and for both you and for them.

I offered a brief what’s-next list of discussion topics to come in Part 28 of this series, for after completing at least a first take on addressing the issues raised in my above-repeated four point list. And the core item that I would look into after completing that, was a complex of issues that I have already mentioned in passing above, which I repeat here as initially stated in Part 26:

• “And beyond that, how can you more effectively bring current employees and managers on-board with change, as their business pivots towards being more innovative – and even in its basic business processes where that would create greater business flexibility and competitive strength?”

I am going to address that more individual employee and individual manager-oriented set of issues in this series. But to set the stage for it, I am going to turn back to reconsider a closely related and at least equally complex set of issues that involve bringing innovation into a business from a structural perspective (as delved into in some detail in an earlier series that I would cite as being particularly relevant here too: Innovators, Innovation Teams and the Innovation Process, which can be found at Business Strategy and Operations – 2 and its Page 3 continuation as postings 366 and loosely following.)

My intent here and for purposes of this series, is not to recapitulate or reframe my earlier discussion of innovative teams per se, or of other relevant organizational structures and systems as a whole, but rather to focus in on one aspect of that larger conceptual and operation challenge: enabling a smoother integration of the type of change that I address here, into a perhaps very settled existing system and in ways that can increase buy-in from stakeholders and gate keepers already in place – and at a structural organizational level. Then I will turn to consider the more interpersonal dynamics of this.

Meanwhile, you can find this and related postings and series at Business Strategy and Operations – 4, and also at Page 1, Page 2 and Page 3 of that directory. Also see HR and Personnel and HR and Personnel – 2.

Intentional management 39: adding people and their management into the equation according to the basic default model

Posted in HR and personnel, strategy and planning by Timothy Platt on March 19, 2017

This is my 39th installment in a series in which I discuss how management activity and responsibilities can be parsed and distributed through a business organization, so as to better meet operational and strategic goals and as a planned intentional process (see Business Strategy and Operations – 3 and its Page 4 continuation, postings 472 and loosely following for Parts 1-38.)

I began this series with a primary focus on the What and How of management processes and practice and have at least relatively systematically pursued that approach from its Part 1 beginning. Then I switched directions in Part 38 of this ongoing narrative to more fully and directly begin considering the Who side of this too.

To be more precise here, the intentional management approach that I offer in this series seeks to arrive at and develop a management systems methodology that could be optimized for any specific business under consideration, with its particular business model and overall mission and vision goals, and its marketplace and general context, and with its corporate culture in place. And this approach would at least ideally offer a relatively clear path forward for planning out and executing upon business growth, as well as for managing through change and uncertainty. Together, that means my goal in all of this is to offer tools and approaches for arriving at and following a more agile and responsive management system and approach that would be a better, if not always best fit for meeting the needs and opportunities of the specific business organization, and with all of its defining points of uniqueness as well as for where it is following a more standard and a more commonly held approach.

That presents intentional management from the What and How perspective that I have been developing up to here. Turning to the Who, this approach as considered from a Human Resources and Personnel perspective, seeks to develop and implement a combination of personnel policy and practice, and employee and team management practice, that enable realizing those goals, and for all of the various individuals who have to actually carry out this work and as non-managerial hands-on employees and as managers of all levels and throughout the table of organization, and for the functional teams that they work within in doing this, and for the organization as a whole.

I began this series with an initial orienting discussion of an historical default management model in Part 1 that I then began to elaborate and build from in subsequent installments. I begin with that same historical default management approach from this point in this overall discussion too. So for clarity and continuity of discussion I begin this installment by briefly restating that starting point paradigmatic model as a foundation point for developing this and subsequent installments to come (as drawn from Part 1 and as expanded upon in light of this series’ subsequent more What and How installments.) Note: I specifically recommend you’re reviewing Part 1 for its orienting details, noting that I at least briefly began acknowledging the need of a Who side of this overall topic there too, when first setting up this series and when I began to more fully discuss and develop its What and How details.

The historical default management model: The default model is one of at least seeming organizational simplicity in which individual managers directly and comprehensively oversee a specific group of direct reports, holding overall responsibility for their activities and their work performance on the job, and for carrying out management-level personnel related activities on their behalf and certainly on matters related to the performance of their specific teams in their own areas of responsibility.
• This is an approach that in its simplest form can lead to tables of organization and patterns of management oversight that are fairly simple and lean, and certainly for whatever specific overall business scale that has been achieved. But as a default approach – and one with complications and variations in how it is implemented that are not well considered, that can and often does mean increased inefficiencies and reduced business effectiveness and reduced overall realizable business potential too.
• It is a management approach where individual employees report to one supervising manager for essentially all of their work activities and on essentially all work-related matters for which they would have to report at all, as just noted above. And as the business grows, this modular one team and one designated manager system expands out, and generally in a completely linear growth, more of the same pattern. And concurrently with that, simply following this default management model means that the table of organization and its structural complexity grow out too, and in a one size fits all manner, and as the overall employee head count and supervisory management head count rise too.
• This means not identifying or allowing for or accommodating particular organizational needs that might arise in different areas of the business where differing approaches might at least more locally make more sense for them, given their areas of functional responsibilities and the make-up of their teams. And this momentum and with time tradition-driven inflexibility means there is at most going to be limited capacity for these systems to adapt and change – as there is little is any room for testing out or even just fully considering alternatives.
• Another reason why this is called a default model, and one that is crucially important here, is that it tends to be all but automatically followed, and with its only real variations included in it coming from how individual managers carry out their duties – automatically and often by the default of following the management practices and approaches, and the communications and information sharing approaches and styles that they themselves have experienced in their own work lives leading up to now, starting from their own earliest work experiences. Managers are in effect on their own in this and following a set playbook, and they tend to fall back on what they know in carrying this out and without anything in the way of systematic review of what management approaches they actually follow – as long as at least their basic task goals are being achieved.
• That point in fact points to the one key area in these business systems where variety can and actually does enter into their management practices, and in how an organization is actually run day to day when it is run in accordance with them. And I add that that type of ad hoc, local rule diversity in style and approach can create both business systems friction and business inefficiencies, and particularly in larger more geographically spread out organizations where leadership and management fiefdoms can arise through business growth and expansion.
• As a next crucially important initial consideration here, as I turn to more fully consider the Human Resources and Personnel side of this, this model also tends to focus essentially entirely within the business – and even when that organization has become critically dependent on the effective functioning of supply chain and other business-to-business collaborations that it has had to enter into in order to remain as competitively effective as it can be. This is important here, as a failure to connect the dots in communicating and managing across the organizational boundaries of more complex, larger systems (as represented by supply chains), leads to disconnects and inefficiencies.
• Businesses have to be able to work together smoothly and seamlessly in their business-to-business collaborations, if they are to achieve the full realizable positive value out of them that should be possible out of them. This holds true as they each perform their half to this work on a day-to-day and a transaction-by-transaction basis and through employee and manager decisions and actions taken – as determined at least in guiding outline by whatever system of management and leadership practice are actually, actively in place in the businesses involved. To be clear there, I am not writing about in-principle, or on-paper business philosophies or practices; I am writing entirely in terms of what is actually done and whether that means following more established in practice processes, or deviating from them into exception handling attempts.

I have intentionally outlined this selective summary of the What and How, at least in part from a Who perspective and I will expand on that in this Human Resources and Personnel, and this hands-on functional area management and leadership perspective in installments to come, starting with the next one. Meanwhile, you can find this and related postings and series at Business Strategy and Operations – 4, and also at Page 1, Page 2 and Page 3 of that directory. Also see HR and Personnel and HR and Personnel – 2.

When expertise becomes an enemy of quality service 17 – personnel policies as dynamic and at least ideally, coherently and consistently organized operational systems 5

Posted in career development, HR and personnel, job search, job search and career development by Timothy Platt on January 22, 2017

This is my seventeenth installment to a series on expertise, and on what an employee or manager needs to bring along with it, if it is to offer real value and either to themselves or to the business they work for (see my supplemental postings section at the end of Guide to Effective Job Search and Career Development – 3, postings 69 and following, for Parts 1-16.)

I have been systematically discussing Human Resources and personnel policies over the course of the last four installments of this series, for a set of issues that are relevant to this series and its overall topic. And I continue that here in this posting, with a goal of addressing a point that I raised without further discussion at the end of Part 16:

• Personnel policy: all personnel policy has to be framed and if need be reframed in terms of realistic information management policy and its operational follow through.

I have already raised the issues of what can and what should be held confidential as personnel-related business intelligence, and particularly in Part 16. And to rephrase a core consideration of that decision as already touched upon in this series, I note that while for most businesses it is crucially important to safeguard compensation and other personnel data related to specific individuals, it is neither necessary nor even possible to safeguard more demographic data of this type. And it is impossible to prevent those who would share their own personal compensation details publically, from doing so – and certainly in an age of online social media where any such disclosures automatically become openly public.

• It is vitally important to at least think through the changing boundaries between “must maintain confidential”, and “would like to” or “should at least ideally” for that.
• And this is a type of review that has to be repeated on an ongoing basis, and as a standardized routine process, and even out of schedule too if compelling emerging events call for that.
• What would constitute compelling events there? One obvious case in point reason would be the passage of new regulatory law related to protection of personal information. But just as importantly, this also has to include case law decisions and how the official interpretation of laws already in place can be changed as that law is enforced in the courts – with the real potential of this moving the lines between what has to be safeguarded and how, and for what can be disclosed. (Note: new laws are essentially always drafted for this type of issue with an awareness of need to comply on the part of information-holding businesses, and an awareness that effective compliance would call for their making changes that take at least a measure of time to complete. But case law reinterpretations do not automatically come with anything like that type of changeover timing accommodation – unless the relevant court rulings just reached are contested in a higher court and lower court rulings are stayed pending that, which cannot automatically, generically be counted upon.)
• And to cite another driving reason for this type of due diligence exercise, when the information management reviews that I write of here are grounded in maintaining best practices in a business for meeting its risk management requirements, one of the more compelling reasons for conducting a thorough systems review there would be the occurrence of an information security breach. There, the issue is one of identifying where intended access goals were missed because the processes and systems set up to meet them failed. (Note: this obviously applies when this breach takes place in the business under consideration here. But it is also important for businesses to keep track of events of this type as they occur elsewhere, insofar as information about beaches in other businesses is made available. That type of occurrence should raise a simple, basic question, and every time. If another business has just lost control over some portion of its sensitive or confidential information stores through a security breach to its systems, does my business have the same information systems vulnerabilities that hackers exploited there too, that they or others could exploit here too?)

And with that stated, I turn this line of discussion back to the main topic of this series, and by raising a basic question that is grounded in the title of this series as a whole. That title reads “when expertise becomes an enemy of quality service ….” The question raised and certainly from a Human Resources perspective is: Human Resources requires skilled professionalism as much as any other functional area of a business does, so what precisely is relevant expertise in this context? And beyond that, what of it has to be held in the HR department itself, so their personnel can at the very least work more effectively with professionals from departments such as Information Technology?

Stepping back from that detail to consider the topic of this posting as a whole:

• It is not just the policies and practices in place that have to be dynamically maintained in as up to date and relevant a manner as possible, as a core business risk management issue. It is the ongoing training and experience requirements of the people who set and who carry out those processes that have to be dynamically maintained too – and as proactively as possible so change can be planned for and carried out before crises happen.
• And this applies to the Human Resources department as much as it does to every other functional area in a business.

Let me take that out of the abstract, with an uncomfortably real example. Most Human Resources Departments, and certainly in large organizations, are led at a senior management and executive level by professionals who have accumulated long-term experience and expertise in that type of department or service – and who have focused more on management than on hands-on execution for a number of years now as they have risen through the ranks and up their tables of organization. That is a good thing, and certainly when it means understanding and managing stable processes that seek to meet stable and ongoing business needs. But for a great many large corporations, their HR leadership and their overall policies governing employee behavior and relevant personnel policy, were caught off-guard by the seemingly sudden emergence of sites that openly gather in and publish shared information about salary and compensation ranges, work conditions and other once secret types of personnel-related business intelligence.

Some businesses, when confronted by this new openness, actively threatened action against any employees who were found to have divulged even just demographic level data about them, when those web sites and social media-based information sharing channels first came out. The Roman emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, derisively nicknamed Caligula (meaning little boot), once famously ordered his Praetorian Guards to attack the surf to make Poseidon back off on an approaching high tide. Attempts to stop social media based release of compensation and workplace information online, proved to be just as difficult to enforce and just as prone to failure as Caligula’s folly, even as businesses did try siccing their counterparts of the Praetorian Guards on their “wayward” employees over this.

Expertise has to be kept current if it is to retain value. And this applies to any changing, evolving field of endeavor and its underlying knowledge base. I have primarily focused in this series on how this and related issues apply to employees and managers who work outside of Human Resources, but this applies there too

I am going to turn in my next series installment to consider the issues that I have been raising here in this series, from an overall business strategy and business development perspective, as businesses face both evolutionary and more predictable, and disruptive and unpredictable change. Meanwhile, you can find this and related postings at my Guide to Effective Job Search and Career Development – 3 (with this included as a supplemental posting there) and at the first directory page and second, continuation page to this Guide. Also see HR and Personnel and HR and Personnel – 2.

Don’t invest in ideas, invest in people with ideas 28 – bringing innovators into a business and keeping them there 11

Posted in HR and personnel, strategy and planning by Timothy Platt on January 16, 2017

This is my 28th installment in a series on cultivating and supporting innovation and its potential in a business, by cultivating and supporting the creative and innovative potential and the innovative drive of your employees and managers, and throughout your organization (see HR and Personnel – 2, postings 215 and loosely following for Parts 1-27.)

My focus in Part 27 of this was on more effectively communicating your business as a best place to work, for the creative, innovative new hires who you need to bring in-house. And in the course of that discussion, I offered a four point list of communications-related issues that I will at least start to address here, in more explicitly operational terms than I did there:

1. First, you need to reach out through communications channels that the people you seek to reach actively use,
2. Then you need to craft conversation starting messages that will prompt them to reach back to you, and to at the very least look further into what you have to say, and into what you do and are as a business.
3. Then you have to actually engage, and with a goal of starting a conversation – which would lead to these people thinking of your business as a possible next employer, and with their coming to see one or more positions that you have available as possible good next career steps for themselves.
4. And this crucially means you’re learning more about them, just as they reach out to learn more about you.

I discussed the issues raised in that list in general orienting terms in Part 27; my goal here is to at least begin to flesh out how to actually implement them in your ongoing hiring processes. And I begin with the first of them and knowing where to reach out and communicate.

This means really knowing your target audience: the most likely demographics of the type of people who you would seek out. And this means taking a very proactive approach to hiring innovators: not simply waiting for the right people to try applying to you, but rather you’re reaching out to them and where they go to connect and communicate.

I stress this point because “proactive” has never been a particularly common default approach for finding and selecting new possible hires. The received wisdom such as it is, that has more traditionally been essentially automatically assumed is that there are always going to be more candidates, and good ones than jobs. And there are always going to be more good candidates than good, let alone “best” job opportunities, and the best job seekers out there will simply come to you. This is not true, and certainly for those with high demand specialty skills and abilities and even when there is a seeming glut on the market for more routine hires, and where hiring per se is more of a buyer’s market for hiring businesses.

• There are always going to be more job opportunities for the best, most innovatively creative people than there are such people – and that conservative approach to hiring these special would-be employees is the only prudent one to follow. (And yes, I said conservative there – as opposed to automatic and unconsidered.)

So be proactive and do your homework – and even when that means buying relevant marketing data from third party business intelligence providers, in order to know how to reach out here. Where do the people you need, who creatively work at the cutting edge for the technologies that you require, connect online – and certainly when doing so professionally? What professional social networking sites do they use? What online groups do they join and at least follow? What terms and terminology do they use where you could use their language to help you find them and connect with them? And what types of message would catch their eye?

This brings me to the second point on that list and to an approach that I mentioned at least in passing in Part 27: share word about your business and about how good a fit it is for innovators who seek real opportunity. I offered a brief list in that installment, of what might be considered fluff content details to include in your basic message, as you seek to develop genuine two-way conversations. But as trite and obvious as those points might seem when simply stated as is, they are important. And the hiring business that can convey them in the clearest and most sincere and believable manner is the one that will win; they are the business that will engage in more real conversations, that can be converted into those right, best people applying for jobs. And to repeat the fluff, clearly and concisely present the case that:

• Yours is a business that values and supports the innovative: people with vision and understanding who are willing to reach out to create New, and bring it into ongoing marketable product and service reality.
• And yours is a business that values and supports the innovative in how your business operates too, so it can more effectively, rapidly identify and meet consumer and marketplace needs and for all that it offers.
• And that yours is a business where good people can become better in what they do, and one where they can and do advance in both their skills and in their positions there. Yours is a workplace where people can thrive as well as succeed, and to the fullest of their capability and drive to do so.

Ultimately, that is what the people you most want and need to reach are looking for. And that message is not going to be captured in online job descriptions that mostly just offer laundry lists of specific skills and levels of experience with them that you want to find. That is not going to be contained in dry Public Relations oriented boilerplate text, that more generically than anything else “describes” your business and in essentially entirely impersonal terms, either.

This is about conveying a more compelling interpersonal message about where the people who you need in-house, would use their skills and experience if they come to work for you. It about conveying a message that yours is the business that they would find the most fun to work at, as they use their skills and experience. I use a word like fun there, very intentionally. Look back at your own career path; it is likely that the best jobs that you have ever had were ones that you really enjoyed – that you found fun to do, as well as intellectually and monetarily rewarding. Craft your messages, and enter into conversations that convey how the people who work at your business like doing so – and that they are supported and appreciated and given opportunity to succeed while doing so.

I am going to continue discussing the four points in my above numbered list in a next series installment, and will proceed from there to address job descriptions and how they can be more effectively framed, written, and publically posted. And then after completing that portion of this series, I will turn to consider the final to-address point that I listed as needing coverage here, in Part 26:

• “And beyond that, how can you more effectively bring current employees and managers on-board with change, as their business pivots towards being more innovative – and even in its basic business processes where that would create greater business flexibility and competitive strength?”

There is an old saying which I have cited a number of times in this blog, to the effect that the devil is in the details. This last point is where any potentially irksome details that could arise, are most likely to do so and in ways that can challenge and even block any effort to make a business genuinely more innovative – and even as you actively seek out new types of more innovative employees.

You can find this and related postings and series at Business Strategy and Operations – 4, and also at Page 1, Page 2 and Page 3 of that directory. Also see HR and Personnel and HR and Personnel – 2.

%d bloggers like this: