Ask
Tom
Problem at work? Our
agony uncle has the solution
Q: My organisation
is notorious for meetings. We cannot go a day without one. Some
managers have become experts in the management of their issues during
these meetings. The end result is that nothing really gets done
after the meetings. This is frustrating. We are thinking of getting
the number of meetings and their duration to some manageable levels.
Will we succeed?
Pauline
A: Meetings
that do not yield action plans can be boring. If they are held often,
they turn out to be a harrowing experience for those involved.
Successful meetings are focused, have intense dialogue and strong
leadership. In most meetings, the dialogue is constrained and politicised.
Some people want to shade and soften what they say to avoid confrontation.
Others are out to crush those they are talking to into submission.
The key to effective meetings is execution of agreed tasks and a
good action plan. Set an agenda and stick to it. Do not allow
extraneous discussions from idlers. Get a focused, enthusiastic
manager to chair the meeting. A lousy manager will make it dull.
Get the minutes of meetings circulated on the same day. Discourage
people who enjoy attention by allowing each person some time to
talk. What is important for successful meetings include: knowing
the business, its processes and strategies; insisting on realism,
setting clear stretch goals and priorities; following through, rewarding
and punishing accordingly, expanding the peoples’ capabilities (in
the meetings and teams) and knowing yourself as the team leader
or team member in the meetings. Just remember that fewer meetings
do not reflect on efficiency.
Q: I am heading an
HR department of 25 practitioners. This is my sixth month in the
organisation. My previous employment was different with only five
members of staff handling HR matters. The staff establishment in
the two organisations is more or less the same. I am tempted to
recommend a reduction of the HR staff to about 10. I have noticed
that the department was the dumping ground for the non-performing
employees from other departments. Should I keep quiet?
Anthony
A: A human resource
department exists to deliver people-oriented service to employees.
The profession has had to grapple with the argument that it is a
cost centre across a number of organisations. With numbers such
as yours serving in HR, we do not have a place to hide from such
accusations. We are also accused of being the most obstinate towards
change in the organisation. The onus is on you to rationalise your
staffing levels in the department and get out the non-performers
or surplus persons.
Every organisation
has people who resist change and thwart efforts by real HR professionals
to dramatically improve human resources, so in reading your list,
think of those who have hindered the progressive work you were trying
to do. Be on the look out for the HR generalists, who set up empires
in the department and resist change. They love meetings and think
that going to one is more beneficial than reviewing metrics, doing
a post-mortem or forecasting future people problems.
Watch out for the lazy
recruiters more concerned with seeking approval and having forms
filled out. Ferret out the compensation and benefit cost cutters
who hinder great recruiting and retention by giving “equal pay”
wherever possible to avoid conflict.
They lose candidates
by being slow. Closely related to these are employee relations
specialists, who are experts at avoiding conflict. They have never
fired or reprimanded an employee in their entire working life. Identify
the pseudo technologists who fall for every fad on technology that
comes by. Task forces are their favourite. Finally, weed out
those who have ‘arrived’ in the profession. They have zero hunger
for knowledge and challenges. Conduct a job analysis exercise and
update all job descriptions in the department.
Q: Our board of
directors has insisted that the organisation must have effective
succession plans for its critical departments. Responsibility for
this has been pushed to HR. I am now expected as the head to design
systems to facilitate the plans. I have never done this before and
do not know how to start. What is the way out of this?
A: Many CEOs
still believe the human-resources department is responsible for
developing leaders and the organisation’s succession plans. It is
not primarily HR’s responsibility to develop these plans. It is
theirs. And that scares the heck out of most executive managers.
Solid leadership planning and development means you’ve created an
organisation that has junior and mid-level managers, ready to step-up
and take over for a number of your departmental heads, when the
need arises. Let the CEO know that this is a function he cannot
afford to delegate. To be successful, one must create a culture
that values the development of future leaders from within. All employees
must have the scope to appreciate the future of the organisation,
and how they can fit in.
Create a clear and
concise vision. Let the workers believe in the vision. Your role
as HR is to establish appropriate avenues to develop each employee,
whether by training, mentoring, or other special programmes. Work
closely with line managers to establish the best means for getting
well-developed future leaders. Have systems that share knowledge
across the workforce. Do not focus only on who is to retire. People
will leave the organisation at every other level. Be ready. Let
the workers see your succession systems working practically and
not just on paper. Review job descriptions, get managers to
have the capacity to coach and mentor, insist on professional development
plans during appraisals and always recognise and reward good performance
on a timely basis. Have a policy on succession planning.Tom muche'lle
is a management consultant and lecturer at the institute of personnel
management.
E-mail: jobs@nation.co.ke
.gif){kind=spacer}
