Jan De Visch (1961) is licentiaat in de psychologische wetenschappen, specialisatie arbeids- en organisatiepsychologie en volgde een postgraduaatsprogramma general management in Ashridge (London). Sinds 2000 is hij managing partner in Connect & Transform waar hij de thema's van transitiebegeleiding voor individuen, teams en organisaties verder doortrekt.
| Herstructureer uw HR beleid ! |
| vrijdag, 04 september 2009 13:07 |
|
We are living through events most of us thought we would never see. The financial and economic crisis has profound effects on every world citizen. It becomes clear that ‘business as usual’ will probably not return. In all disciplines a rethinking of the foundations of their models is going on. Although Human Resources won’t escape this exercise, very little attention is given to this at this moment. The ‘Mc Kinsey’s Leaders in Crisis Global Survey Results’ (08/09) and data from other surveys one can find on the Human Capital site, point out that HR is using the crisis to reposition its role with titles such as “Global Economic Crisis Has Made Integrated Talent Management A Business Priority” . According to a recent Watson Wyatt study (05/09), the key questions that keep HR Managers awake are : Notwithstanding the importance of these questions, they show that human resources is trying to put old wine in new sacs. Bassi, on the other hand, from the Human Capital Lab (06/09) argues that “Organizations cannot compete effectively - at least for long - without aligning their people with results. And yet the decision-making processes for optimizing the people side of the business remains rudimentary in most organizations - often amounting to little more than guesswork and gut feel. At a minimum, this state of affairs results in lost opportunities: a failure to attract, motivate, and retain a talented and diverse workforce; unnecessary escalation in health care costs; lackluster sales; or disappointing result from mergers and acquisitions.” HR-professionals are eager to try to find solutions for attracting and retaining people, but often neglect the systems in which people work. My recent talks with some CEO’s confirm that they expect human resources to move towards the centre stage in organizational strategy and businesses development. They are also convinced that they need to move away from the traditional HR centric approaches as the crisis grows. However, it is NOT the human resources function that is doing the “thinking out-of-the-box. New approaches in Human Resources will probably be introduced by CEO’s, senior managers, financial managers and risk managers. A good example is what happened at the Itau Unibanco (financial) Group in Brazil. It is Brazil’s second-largest private-sector bank and one of Latin America’s most profitable institutions. The bank has been growing up to 25 % a year for more than ten years. Its stock price increased by 13 % in the last year. Roberto Setubal, the companies CEO recently gave an extensive interview which has been published in the Mc Kinsey Quarterly (06/09). Where did he focus on that is relevant to HR ? Decision making authority & risk managementA first point he looked at were the systems and structures in which their people work, ensuring that each role had role unique accountabilities and decision authorities, so that it became clear what the added value was of each individual contributor. Most classical HR approaches keep focusing on clarifying tasks through function descriptions, layers and span of controls, without looking at the real accountability, nor decision making authority. The point for Human Resources is that, if they overview 70 % of the organizational capital, HR is asset management of human beings AND human relationships. How this is done can make or break the companies viability. Role-role relationships & trustA second theme that caught my attention was that a lot of energy was spend in clarifying the role-role relationships, looking at the cascading of accountabilities and decision authorities through the hierarchy, mostly by analyzing the contribution of someone, his/her boss and the manager once removed (boss of the boss) . The design of roles in classical HR approaches has an individual focus, whereas in the Itau Unibanco case role design was interwoven with looking at organizational gaps and jam ups in the structure, starting with the question how each role adds value in relationship to each other. The traditional focus on individual roles leads to individual “objective setting systems” and the induction of a culture of fear. The very heart of performance management is ‘reward’ and ‘punishment’. This focus neglects the importance of building relationships. People stopped to speak-up because they fear losing their bonuses. Sometimes bell-ringers got fired. This became highly obvious in the current financial meltdown, which was already identified in most large banks by auditors as early as 2006. But they did not speak up, fearing to lose their bonuses. Coping with complexity & crisis readinessA third interesting point was that the focus of training and people development was to prepare people to cope with complexity jumps as the scope of their roles changed. Their main focus was developing the ‘size of the person’ in relationship to the ‘size of roles’. ‘Participants’ are put in situations where they are invited to share experiences and examine those experiences using different angles and emphasizing multiple perspectives. Facilitators encourage meta-cognition, question categorical thinking by challenging labels and conclusions, emphasize the size of the ‘learners’ story, help learners to value approximization over precision. In so doing, they can dwell in fuzzy situations. This is in sharp contrast to the competency based approaches which assume that ‘developing behavioral strengths’ is the key to success. The failure of this last approach, focusing on ‘strengths building’, is illustrated by the bankruptcy of a number of companies that were described in Jim Collin’s books ‘Good to Great’ and ‘Build to Last’. An important consequence of being able to deal with complexity is the ability of a manager allowing himself to be challenged and questioned by others. Setubal puts it this way : “It was hard for many midlevel executives who were used to being powerful and not having their decisions questioned. Here we were, proposing an environment where people should offer their frank opinions and where executives could no longer hide in their big offices but had to engage in open debate with their teams. “ Felt Fair PayAlthough I have no evidence from the Intau Unibanco case, an element returning in other cases is that the remuneration policy is based on the principles of felt fair pay. This means that the pay structure is based both on external benchmarks and internal pay differentials. Performance, risk , delegated decision authority and judgment, and pay are all inter – related. The current remuneration approaches are mainly based on job factors with unclear relationships to how these job factors contribute to realizing added value. Your feedback is most welcome on Dit e-mailadres is beschermd tegen spambots. U heeft JavaScript nodig om het te kunnen zien. . |
Reacties