|
Take a sports team, for example. Every team has the same number of players in the field but not every team has good performance, thus number alone does not guarantee desired results. Other factors like the game plan, personal capability, morale, teamwork, etc., play a much bigger part. So merely having a right-sized squad will not take you to the finish line. It only enables you to start.
We may even ask whether there is such a thing as ‘the right-sized squad. In sports, it seems there is. How many people does it take to play rugby? One may say fifteen. But it can also be ten or seven. A team comprises not only the players in the field, but also substitutes and some more. Is there any magic number? And what if we do not play only one sport? How many athletes should a country have to win enough Olympic medals? etc., etc.
Actually, no exact figures seem to provide the answer. We instinctively know that, given players with reasonable talents, the more people we have in a team, the better chance of winning. However, infinity cannot be the right size because the more people, the higher expenses and the higher managerial complexity it requires. If there is a right sized squad at all, it must be relative to how much the team can afford and how it defines the term ‘manageable.
In the same vein, instead of viewing manpower planning as specifying the magic number, we might simply start with some affordable and manageable numbers. If we get it right, the right people can grow up to fit the requirements of the tasks. A manpower plan should not be inscribed on granite, but sketched on sand to allow a reasonable level of managerial flexibility. We decide on the optimum requirement for the moment, then roll our sleeves and take action. In today s volatile world, for most organizations it is overkill to spend a lot of time and other resources calculating the exact figures of manpower requirement and devise a sophisticated plan to recruit new talents in fanciful and expensive ways. In most organizations, experiences of the management team and a back up of simple guidelines will suffice.
Some organizations put a lot of energy into their manpower planning in an attempt to make the plan as close to perfection as possible, only to find themselves incapable of revising and redrafting the plan once the situation changes, and the organization needs to turn the bow towards a new course. This is because not much attention was given to the revision mechanism at the outset. One can make the most of a plan only when one can control it.
Control means no matter how the situation changes, one has methods and tools at hand to revise the plan as many times as needed. Just like flying an airplane, if the weather does not permit the captain to land at the designated airport, he can take it to land safely at a nearby landing field. While the manpower plan may need adjustment due to the changing situation and requirements, the exact same methods and tools should stay handy to provide management with certainty and consistency in dealing with the situation. A sound conceptual framework plus a set of powerful and flexible organization tools thus play a crucial role in this regard. When fully equipped, management can routinely face and handle structural changes unafraid and unabashed.
PeoplePlan is designed as a methodology based on Signature Solutions in-depth manpower planning research and extensive organization intervention experience to fully and flexibly equip organizations in their overall manpower analysis and planning, or to partially revise the plan, or to add on top of an existing manpower scheme designed by other methods as they wish. The idea is to have a set of effective and handy organizational tools ready so that the owner feels comfortable using it over and over. Besides, our optional, add-on features make it even easier to track and identify organization areas which need special attention.
To start on the right footing is to start with the most crucial tasks. Solve the major issues first, and the rest will fall into place. PeoplePlan requires only a few workshops for organizations to come up with their Manpower Master Plan that supports the organization s strategic intent. This work step will yield manpower requirements for core positions. Besides, urgent, strategic issues, existing or potential, concerning the organization s manpower situation will also be promptly highlighted at this stage.
Subsequently, line managers valuable experience, information, and insights concerning the organization, e.g., nature of the business, critical success factors, number and quality of people needed to carry out the organization s core mission and strategic tasks, will be solicited as part of the drivers identification process to lay a solid foundation for detailed manpower analyses and plans to follow.
Since staffing issues do not end at having a plan, but a successful implementation of it, the plan should go beyond specifying the number and characteristics of people to fill in positions. Classification of functions into core and non-core therefore provides a clear advantage from a strategic prioritization viewpoint: there is no point having enough manpower for non-core functions unless you have enough of your needed core personnel first. Focusing on core functions first sets the right direction for the people management task of the organization, and helps complete the planning process faster without compromising the quality of the plan. The types and number of people in non-core functions will then be worked out based on organization-specific drivers identified in the previous work step.
Symptoms of piecemeal planning surface, for instance, when an organization gets stuck with a bunch of skill obsolescence, or when the troop of promising talents do not have a career ladder to climb. For most business organizations, these situations result in high turnover, which leads to overly expensive people management costs or compensation packages to attract and retain talents. For public entities/organizations with no forced turnover, the problem could be worse. People can end up with low morale, half-hearted performance, grievances, or unethical acquisition of rewards to compensate for their frustration and disappointment.
|
