informal coalitions

Who needs job descriptions?

A few years back, I was a member of a group that was looking to design the managerial roles, management systems and work processes for a new organization. We were being helped by one of the then Big Five consultancy firms. As part of this, the consultants produced a set of draft job descriptions, which included one for the role that I would be filling.

I saw the descriptions as bland, matter-of-fact and limiting.

But, when I argued that I was not excited by them, my comments were dismissed by the in-house sponsor: "Job descriptions are not meant to excite," he insisted, "Provided they set out the main activities of the role and identify what’s in and what’s not, that’s good enough for me." My continued protests fell on deaf ears. Or so I thought.

During a break, the Director chairing the meeting confided that he’d agreed with what I’d said. Of course, he couldn’t say so in the meeting itself - money had been spent on getting the experts’ advice and the ‘defender in chief’ was his right-hand man – but he asked me to send him an outline of my thoughts. And so, the Contribution Statement was born.

Calling weaknesses "development needs" is not a sign of strength

Why is it that ...?

Many HR, L&D and OD professionals insist on referring to individuals' weaknesses as "development needs."  Perhaps this euphemism is meant to make people feel better and less threatened.  Perhaps it is an attempt to avoid giving people what is misguidedly seen as 'bad news'. 

Building commitment -v- rewarding performance

Many organizations retain an almost messianic belief in the power of performance-related pay and bonus targets to generate commitment and deliver high-quality performance. This is most evident in the approach to executive pay, which is rarely out of the headlines. But the same thinking often penetrates much more deeply into organizations - whether translated into formal pay systems or simply governing the organization's general approach to managing performance. Unfortunately, commitment can't be gained simply by setting up a process of formal target setting or arranging periodic 'performance review' meetings. People might comply - for a time and in a fashion - with externally imposed routines and targets. But commitment is an inner drive. It arises naturally where people feel that they have the motive, means and opportunity to excel at what they are doing.

The seductive power of ‘the one best way’

Towards the end of my time as an in-house OD Manager, I attended a series of half-day, inter-company workshops which had been organized by a leading HR-based networking and research organization.  These were designed to address a number of pressing HR issues of the time, including (so far as I recall) performance management, succession and development, manpower planning, competency frameworks and so on.  Each workshop was attended by senior managers from a range of member organizations.

"Compensation" offers no benefits for HR

Why is it that ...?

We often hear senior VPs, directors and managers in HR talking about their goal of making their organizations "great places to work" (or other similar phrases).  Why is it, then, that the HR profession persists in talking about "compensating" people for working there?  You compensate people for breaking a leg, not for turning up for work in the type of organization that the HR community claims to aspire to.