El planeamiento es una cuestión delicada. Muchas veces simplemente es imposible crear y ejecutar un plan debido a que se presentan muchos eventos desconocidos e inesperados. Sin embargo, aún en las más difíciles circunstancias, es útil realizar un tipo de plan. El planeamiento es una manera de pensar acerca de los retos que vienen. El planeamiento de RRHH es ciertamente difícil, pero eso no es excusa para no hacerlo. Recursos Humanos no puede forzar al negocio a realizar este tipo de planeamiento pero puede orientar las cosas en la dirección correcta al tener expectativas claras sobre lo que las unidades del negocio deberían hacer cuando se habla de planeamiento de RRHH.
Qué queremos decir por planeamiento de RRHH?
La primera dificultad es que las personas frecuentemente no son precisas con respecto a la definición del término Planeamiento de RRHH
A continuación una definición muy buena realizada por el Gobierno de Canadá
Un planeamiento de RRHH riguroso relaciona la gestión de personas a la misión, visión, logros y objetivos de la organización, así como a su planeamiento estratégico y a sus recursos de presupuesto. La clave para el éxito del planeamiento de RRHH es obtener el número correcto de personas con las habilidades, experiencia y competencias necesarias en los puestos precisos, en el momento y al costo adecuado
Esta definición nos sirve de inicio, pero revela el real problema con el planeamiento de RRHH. Está claro que todo lo que planeamos hacer en RRHH debe estar ligado a las necesidades del negocio. El problema es que es muy difícil conocer cómo realizar dicha unión. Lo que necesitamos son procesos específicos que nos permitan realizar un planeamiento útil.
Vale recordar que hace tiempo las grandes organizaciones tenían sistemas de planeamiento de recursos sofisticados para asegurar que su gente tenía las habilidades precisas en el momento requerido. Esos sistemas fueron abandonados cuando se probó que eran incapaces de una predicción certera cuando se necesitaba gente que rápidamente se adaptara a los cambios mundiales. El planeamiento de la fuerza de trabajo está en una suerte de “retorno” pero aún estamos lejos de llegar a un acuerdo sobre las mejores prácticas en planeamiento de RRHH
Dos cosas a evitar
Podemos no tener las mejores prácticas, pero tenemos ideas claras sobre lo que no funciona: una aproximación al planeamiento de RRHH con expectativas irreales
Una suerte de expectativa irreal es aquella en que pensamos que seremos capaces de regresar a los días cuando teníamos planes de RRHH altamente detallados a lo largo de muchos años.
En el mundo actual, un plan probablemente se enfocará en algunas áreas críticas y enfatizará una dirección general (Necesitaremos más personas que puedan trabajar en China) en lugar de especificaciones detalladas (Necesitaremos, en 4 años, siete gerentes de producto que hablen Mandarín)
Otra expectativa irreal es que los gerentes preferirán otro proceso de planeamiento extensivo sobre el ciclo de planeación existente. Cualquiera sea la solución para el planeamiento de RRHH, tiene que sentirse como parte natural del planeamiento del negocio, y no como trabajo extra.
Dos soluciones
Una aproximación razonable es entrelazar el planeamiento de RRHH con el proceso de planeamiento del negocio, de manera que los temas de RRHH aparecen en la medida que son necesarios. Si una unidad de negocio está hablando sobre cerrar una fabrica en el proceso de planeamiento, entonces será natural que aparezcan temas como que pasará con las personas que trabajan allá y cómo afectará la moral en otras unidades del negocio.
Otra aproximación es la referida a los procesos de planeamiento cíclicos: estratégico, operacional y RRHH. En American Standard con Larry Costello como líder de RRHH, el equipo superior de liderazgo conocería cada unidad de negocio y discutiría la estrategia, luego las operaciones y finalmente sobre capital humano.
En este caso, era cuestión de tener un equipo de gestión dedicado y conocedor que continuamente esté observando los planes del negocio desde estos 3 diferentes ángulos.
Un hilo común
Si usted integra RRHH en los procesos de planeamiento del negocio, o tiene un ciclo de 3 partes sobre planeamiento, el hilo común será que RRHH es parte del proceso completo y no una adición. En American Standard, Costello no se desvió hasta que la sesión de planeamiento de capital humano arribó. El también estaba involucrado en el planeamiento estratégico y operacional. En un proceso integrado, los temas de RRHH no aparecerán en el momento apropiado a menos que el responsable de RRHH esté en el mismo salón cuando estos tópicos están siendo discutidos.
El camino hacia delante
El paso más importante en el planeamiento de RRHH es obtener al Gerente de RRHH directamente involucrado en el amplio proceso de planeamiento del negocio. Si RRHH está en el momento preciso, puede asegurar que los puntos críticos del planeamiento de RRHH sean tratados de la mejor manera en el momento adecuado. Sin embargo si RRHH es excluido del planeamiento del negocio, y el planeamiento de RRHH es visto como algo adicional, entonces será difícil crear planes efectivos.
mardi 8 décembre 2009
jeudi 22 octobre 2009
AYUDANDO AL GERENTE A AMAR AL FACTOR HUMANO
AYUDANDO AL GERENTE A AMAR AL FACTOR HUMANO
Autor: David Creelman*
Hay muchos gerentes que piensan que los negocios son acerca de las finanzas y ven al elemento humano como poco placentero. Hay, también, gerentes que valoran profundamente a las personas lo cual es demostrado en sus acciones. Mientras su gerente puede encajar en uno de esos extremos, lo más probable es que ellos se encuentra en algún punto intermedio. Más importante aún, ellos pueden parecerle que se inclinan más hacia el lado de las finanzas del espectro anterior de lo que realmente lo hacen. Recursos Humanos no debería sumir que el Gerente está estancado con alguna actitud fija; una de su funciones es ayudar al gerente a "amar" al recurso o factor humano.
¿Por qué los gerentes parecen motivados por las finanzas?
La consultora Patricia Seemann de la empresa Advisors Sphere nos comenta una gran historia sobre un Gerente que insistía que el próximo año las "personas" serían su principal prioridad. Luego, se alejaba en un retiro y regresaba con su agenda personal elaborada. Cuando Patricia miraba a su lista de las 10 primeras prioridades, adivinen donde el ponía a las "personas"....Al último!
El gerente quedó sorprendido cuando Patricia le indicó este hecho. La fuerza del hábito, las presiones de los inversionistas y la urgencia de otros asuntos importantes habían minado su sincero intento de enfocarse en los asuntos de personal. Una vez que estuvo consciente de lo que había pasado, repensó su lista. Los Gerentes necesitan de alguien que los ayude a sobrepasar la presión de todos los otros asuntos que tienen que enfrentar y colocar el tema de "las personas" en la agenda. Ese es el trabajo de Recursos Humanos.
Cambiando Conductas
Si su Gerente valora a las personas pero falla en mostrarlo, entonces su trabajo no está en cambiar actitudes sino simplemente en cambiar conductas. En la historia que comentó Patricia, todo lo que se necesitó fue que alguien le hiciera notar al gerente la falta de atención al asunto humano y éste respondió. Recursos Humanos puede jugar el mismo rol preguntando gentilmente donde el gerente considera que los asuntos sobre el factor humano deben estar en la agenda y luego revisando si efectivamente están donde se considera. El Gerente de una gran compañía minera especificamente dijo a su vicepresidente "Tu trabajo es hacerme saber cuando no estoy haciend lo que digo".
Una de las mejores maneras de ayudar al gerente es mostrarle a conexión entre el factor humano y otros factires de alta prioridad. Si tratar con normas y regulaciones es un asunto apremiante, entonces usted puede plantear si la organización tiene el talento para lidear con esas regulaciones, y si las habilidade correctas están siendo desarrolladas, y si el personal es recompensado por dichas conductas de la manera correcta. Todas esas cuestiones son asuntos del factor humano y es el trabajo de Recursos Humanos señalarlas en voz alta.
Cambiando Actitudes
La venta más dura es el cambio de actitud de un gerente que realmente no "ama" a las personas. Lo que tiene trabajando en su contra es que las creencias humanas son difíciles de cambiar. Lo que tiene a su favor es que en la realidad, las personas genuinamente se preocupan por otras personas. La realidad es una potente arma que tiene de su lado.
Esto nos lleva al tema de cómo convencer a las personas. Hay 3 tácticas:
- Influencia de otros
- Anécdotas
- Hechos
La mejor manera de que las personas cambien su actitud es a tavés de la "influencia de otros". Si usted busca encontrará que hay personas a los que los gerentes escuchan y si logra apoyar su mensaje con ellos, entonces usted tiene una potente arma para el cambio de actitud. Necesita realizar su propio "networking" para encontrar quienes podrían ser sus aliados para ir consiguiendo paulatinamente la atención en el factor humano, en lugar de tratar de hacerlo directamente.
Por anécdotas, me refiero al hecho de que los administradores tiende a llegar a concluiones basados en situaciones específicas que pueden "ver y oir". Si el gerente pierde a un jugador clave y usted puede mostrarle que fue el resultado de una pobre inversión en el recurso humano, entonces el Gerente prestará atención. Si el Gerente participa en un taller de liderazgo y puede sentir el impacto de éste, entonces es muy probable que apoyo la inversión en el factor humano.
Conclusión
Parte del rol del lider de Recursos Humanos es manejar las relaciones públicas de su propia función. No asumir que el Gerente tiene una actitud fija y que no puede ser cambiada. De hecho, él o ella puede estar mucho más dispuesto a apoyar al factor humano de lo que uno mismo ha pensado. Entonces, es necesario hacer un esfuerzo en cambiar actitudes y conductas, porque hasta que usted tenga el apoyo del Gerente no será capaz de cumplir plena y efectivamente en su trabajo.
*Este artículo llega gracias a la colaboración de David Creelman, quien es gerente general de Creelman Research, provee de artículos, comentarios e investigaciones sobre Adminstración del capital humano. La mayor parte de su tiempo la invierte en ayudar a ejecutivos y gerentes de RRHH a reportar a la Junta Directiva sobre capital humano. El trabaja en una variedad de talleres, cursos y actividades académicas, así como en consultoría. Es proveedor, además, de soluciones de RRHH en EEUU, Japón, Canadá y China. Puede ser contactado al email dcreelman@creelmanresearch.com
jeudi 3 septembre 2009
Rationality, Sentiment and Habit
Natural philosophers have recognized that humans make decisions based on sentiment and habit more than rationality. The irony is that sentiment and habit are both in a way more rational than rationality. Sentiment is a kind of pattern matching technique. We look at a situation in a holistic way and make a decision based on what kind of situation this seems to be. Habit is a kind of evolutionary approach to decision making. We chose options that have survived the test of time.
The irony is rooted in the fact that rationality is not just about pursuing the best decision, but pursuing it through analysis. Analysis is a dangerous technique in complex situations because it involves radically simplifying the problem. The danger is amplified because the solution to the simplified problem may be very clear and hence pursued with great conviction.
This is why it is so important we value humility and ambiguity and doubt. We must also place sentiment and habit as rational tools along with analysis. Recommending an approach that emphasizes the limits of our power to act in the world will never be as easy a sell as an approach that suggests we can determine the best solutions with a high degree of certainty. But then, we've long known the devil has the best tunes. Awareness that the devil has the best tunes is again a reminder of the virtues of humility, ambiguity and doubt.
The irony is rooted in the fact that rationality is not just about pursuing the best decision, but pursuing it through analysis. Analysis is a dangerous technique in complex situations because it involves radically simplifying the problem. The danger is amplified because the solution to the simplified problem may be very clear and hence pursued with great conviction.
This is why it is so important we value humility and ambiguity and doubt. We must also place sentiment and habit as rational tools along with analysis. Recommending an approach that emphasizes the limits of our power to act in the world will never be as easy a sell as an approach that suggests we can determine the best solutions with a high degree of certainty. But then, we've long known the devil has the best tunes. Awareness that the devil has the best tunes is again a reminder of the virtues of humility, ambiguity and doubt.
mardi 9 juin 2009
Low Performers
"There is always a high turnover of generals in wartime. Some get replaced because they turn out to be no good at the job, but many others are changed because they have failed at a task that was beyond anybody's ability to accomplish.
They are fired, in other words, because the alternative would be to blame the person who gave them that impossible task.'
Historian Gwynne Dyer from his blog entry Afghanistan: Changing Generals in Midstream
In jobs where you have lots of people doing the same thing (e.g. in a call centre) it reasonably objective to compare one individual with another and rightly label someone a poor performer. However, when it comes to a unique project (like the Afghanistan civil war) one can really only judge someone against expectations. And if the expectations are wrong, whose fault is it: the employee or their boss?
It possible to argue that"poor performance" is always chiefly the boss's fault. Either they had unrealistic expectations, assigned the wrong person to the task or failed to provide them adequate support.
One doesn't want to run with that argument too far becuase it gets ridiculous, but it does remind us that in performance management the responsibility for an employee's success is very much shared between the boss and employee. We should be slow to stick the "poor performer" label on someone's head and instead seek out root causes for failure in the broader system of boss, peers and business processes.
Changing generals in Kabul is unlikely to help and often blaming someone for a performance problem won't help either, in fact placing blame can merely be an excuse not to look more closely at the underlying causes.
They are fired, in other words, because the alternative would be to blame the person who gave them that impossible task.'
Historian Gwynne Dyer from his blog entry Afghanistan: Changing Generals in Midstream
In jobs where you have lots of people doing the same thing (e.g. in a call centre) it reasonably objective to compare one individual with another and rightly label someone a poor performer. However, when it comes to a unique project (like the Afghanistan civil war) one can really only judge someone against expectations. And if the expectations are wrong, whose fault is it: the employee or their boss?
It possible to argue that"poor performance" is always chiefly the boss's fault. Either they had unrealistic expectations, assigned the wrong person to the task or failed to provide them adequate support.
One doesn't want to run with that argument too far becuase it gets ridiculous, but it does remind us that in performance management the responsibility for an employee's success is very much shared between the boss and employee. We should be slow to stick the "poor performer" label on someone's head and instead seek out root causes for failure in the broader system of boss, peers and business processes.
Changing generals in Kabul is unlikely to help and often blaming someone for a performance problem won't help either, in fact placing blame can merely be an excuse not to look more closely at the underlying causes.
dimanche 17 mai 2009
Language in Business
One of the most useful things I’ve ever learned came from David Maister. He said rather than asking “What is the right answer?” we should ask “What is helpful answer?” This simple substation of a word changes everything.
To illustrate Maister’s point, imagine a technical expert sure that the best solution is a certain technology. He rails against the stupidity of the committee which does not accept his advice and simply insists he is right and that’s that what matters (and yes, for the record he is ‘right’). But if someone is always “right”, but never has any impact on what happens then what is the point? If the expert were instead to say to himself “What would be helpful?” then suddenly it opens up a world of choices. Perhaps he should be guiding the group to a compromise or reframing the issue (which may change his own analysis on what is right), or managing their disappointment that the best decision requires them to pass on bad news to staff they care about.
There is little better development you can give to people with a strong technical background than to teach them to replace “right” with “helpful.”
In my own work on HR metrics I’ve found a key substitution is to replace the word “measure” with “assess”. Measurement is a narrow concept, too narrow for the world of business. If we ask “how can we assess the impact of the program” rather than “how can we measure the impact” then we immediately open up a much more helpful set of possibilities.
Henry Mintzberg didn’t suggest as neat a substitution, but he would like us to use the word “leader” less often and instead talk about community or citizenship . Leadership is not a bad word anymore than “right” or “measure” are bad words, however in American management the focus on leadership has distorted into a worship of the elite. The continued talk about leadership blinds us to the importance of the whole community of people who work together in an organization. Whenever you find your organization talking about leadership, try to balance that discussion with a talk about community.
The words we use do matter.
Mintzberg also warns against the misuse of words. When you call something “managed care” how can you possibly be against it? Any time there is a term that you can’t possibly be against then it doesn’t stimulate thoughtfulness. If you find your organization using language that by its nature stifles debate then you ought to challenge that language.
“Leadership sounds wonderful,” says Mintzberg, “but what people don’t realize is that every time you identify a leaders you are also identifying a whole bunch of followers. People might say leadership is about empowering people and engaging them but it isolates the individual. If you create a turnaround by virtue of a leader, then that turnaround may only be good for as long as that leader lasts. We make things dependent on individuals and then they are not sustainable.”
Kenny Moore suggests that instead of asking “How can we solve this problem?” we sometimes should be asking “How can we manage this predicament?” Problems are technical matters, they have a solution. Predicaments are the stuff of human systems, there are no real solutions only compromises, ambiguities and choices of lesser evils. Moore notes that early in his career his job required him to face problems which he solved, leaving him feeling pretty good at the end of the day. Later in his career he was more likely to face predicaments which have no final solution and even after he managed the situation he’d leave conflicted and in doubt. That is the reality of the human experience and we must learn to approach predicaments for what they are and that they demand humility and wisdom not brilliance.
Here are two other useful language substitutions:
• Don’t ask “How can we motivate employees” ask “How can we support employees”
• Instead of “How do we grow this business” ask “How do we create a sustainable business”
Jon Ingham notes the numbing effect of certain phrases. He says, “I'm not keen on certain phrases such as 'you can only manage what you measure', or 'ROI is the holy grail' which people tend to trot out without really thinking about what they're saying and if they really believe in this. HR has got to play a part in bringing a more people focused language into organisations.”
What got this post initiated was a conversation in Fitou with Leif Edvinsson. He pointed out that one term for “management” in Swedish is skötsel which has connotations of “care” and “tending”. Language is not everything, but someone who goes to work to “care for people” or “tend the operation” may well behave differently from some who shows up to work ready to “manage”.
So what does all this mean? Well, I expect marketing people to know all about the desires of customers. I expect accountants to know about the latest subtleties in accounting law. And I expect HR professionals to be sensitive to the role language plays in affecting organizational behaviour.
To illustrate Maister’s point, imagine a technical expert sure that the best solution is a certain technology. He rails against the stupidity of the committee which does not accept his advice and simply insists he is right and that’s that what matters (and yes, for the record he is ‘right’). But if someone is always “right”, but never has any impact on what happens then what is the point? If the expert were instead to say to himself “What would be helpful?” then suddenly it opens up a world of choices. Perhaps he should be guiding the group to a compromise or reframing the issue (which may change his own analysis on what is right), or managing their disappointment that the best decision requires them to pass on bad news to staff they care about.
There is little better development you can give to people with a strong technical background than to teach them to replace “right” with “helpful.”
In my own work on HR metrics I’ve found a key substitution is to replace the word “measure” with “assess”. Measurement is a narrow concept, too narrow for the world of business. If we ask “how can we assess the impact of the program” rather than “how can we measure the impact” then we immediately open up a much more helpful set of possibilities.
Henry Mintzberg didn’t suggest as neat a substitution, but he would like us to use the word “leader” less often and instead talk about community or citizenship . Leadership is not a bad word anymore than “right” or “measure” are bad words, however in American management the focus on leadership has distorted into a worship of the elite. The continued talk about leadership blinds us to the importance of the whole community of people who work together in an organization. Whenever you find your organization talking about leadership, try to balance that discussion with a talk about community.
The words we use do matter.
Mintzberg also warns against the misuse of words. When you call something “managed care” how can you possibly be against it? Any time there is a term that you can’t possibly be against then it doesn’t stimulate thoughtfulness. If you find your organization using language that by its nature stifles debate then you ought to challenge that language.
“Leadership sounds wonderful,” says Mintzberg, “but what people don’t realize is that every time you identify a leaders you are also identifying a whole bunch of followers. People might say leadership is about empowering people and engaging them but it isolates the individual. If you create a turnaround by virtue of a leader, then that turnaround may only be good for as long as that leader lasts. We make things dependent on individuals and then they are not sustainable.”
Kenny Moore suggests that instead of asking “How can we solve this problem?” we sometimes should be asking “How can we manage this predicament?” Problems are technical matters, they have a solution. Predicaments are the stuff of human systems, there are no real solutions only compromises, ambiguities and choices of lesser evils. Moore notes that early in his career his job required him to face problems which he solved, leaving him feeling pretty good at the end of the day. Later in his career he was more likely to face predicaments which have no final solution and even after he managed the situation he’d leave conflicted and in doubt. That is the reality of the human experience and we must learn to approach predicaments for what they are and that they demand humility and wisdom not brilliance.
Here are two other useful language substitutions:
• Don’t ask “How can we motivate employees” ask “How can we support employees”
• Instead of “How do we grow this business” ask “How do we create a sustainable business”
Jon Ingham notes the numbing effect of certain phrases. He says, “I'm not keen on certain phrases such as 'you can only manage what you measure', or 'ROI is the holy grail' which people tend to trot out without really thinking about what they're saying and if they really believe in this. HR has got to play a part in bringing a more people focused language into organisations.”
What got this post initiated was a conversation in Fitou with Leif Edvinsson. He pointed out that one term for “management” in Swedish is skötsel which has connotations of “care” and “tending”. Language is not everything, but someone who goes to work to “care for people” or “tend the operation” may well behave differently from some who shows up to work ready to “manage”.
So what does all this mean? Well, I expect marketing people to know all about the desires of customers. I expect accountants to know about the latest subtleties in accounting law. And I expect HR professionals to be sensitive to the role language plays in affecting organizational behaviour.
mercredi 26 novembre 2008
Spot the Crisis
Reports show the US economy shrank 0.5% in the 3rd quarter. This means if you were used to earning $10,000 / quarter now you would only have $9,950.
Why is this is a crisis?
It's because there is something fundamentally wrong with the type of fiat currency we use.
(see Bernard Lietaer's The Future of Money)
Why is this is a crisis?
It's because there is something fundamentally wrong with the type of fiat currency we use.
(see Bernard Lietaer's The Future of Money)
vendredi 21 novembre 2008
History Majors vs. MBAs
According to an article by Liar's Poker author Michael Lewis, it was Meredith Whitney who on October 31, 2007 recognized that "Citigroup had so mismanaged its affairs that it would need to slash its dividend or go bust." This insight "shaved $369 billion off the value of financial firms in the market."
Whitney is a history grad and this reminds us why we should hire more liberal arts grads and fewer engineers, accountants and MBAs.
People in professional disciplines are taught a small set of powerful analytical tools. They are exposed to many problems in their education, but only those problems that can attacked with those tools. As a result they end up with a very narrow world view and are easily fooled. Why is it that some economists think heroin addiction is a rational choice and trying to discourage it would make people worse off? (see the soon to be published Free Market Madness by Peter Ubel) It's because they've been so highly indoctrinated in a specific analytical method they've lost the ability to think.
Those educated in the humanities/liberal arts are taught to inquire deeply about the nature of very complex and ambiguous things. These are the people you need on your staff.
Now, I'm an MBA so I have seen the dark side (although I went to an MBA school where we learned more about telling jokes and putting hockey sticks across conveyor belts than about obscure financial theory). However, somewhere in my informal education I picked up a fair bit about the humanities as do many engineers, lawyers and perhaps even some accountants.
If you think the future will be uncertain, complex and ambiguous then you want to hire people who through their formal or informal education have been taught to understand such things.
Whitney is a history grad and this reminds us why we should hire more liberal arts grads and fewer engineers, accountants and MBAs.
People in professional disciplines are taught a small set of powerful analytical tools. They are exposed to many problems in their education, but only those problems that can attacked with those tools. As a result they end up with a very narrow world view and are easily fooled. Why is it that some economists think heroin addiction is a rational choice and trying to discourage it would make people worse off? (see the soon to be published Free Market Madness by Peter Ubel) It's because they've been so highly indoctrinated in a specific analytical method they've lost the ability to think.
Those educated in the humanities/liberal arts are taught to inquire deeply about the nature of very complex and ambiguous things. These are the people you need on your staff.
Now, I'm an MBA so I have seen the dark side (although I went to an MBA school where we learned more about telling jokes and putting hockey sticks across conveyor belts than about obscure financial theory). However, somewhere in my informal education I picked up a fair bit about the humanities as do many engineers, lawyers and perhaps even some accountants.
If you think the future will be uncertain, complex and ambiguous then you want to hire people who through their formal or informal education have been taught to understand such things.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
