As we work with major organizations undergoing HR transformation (and many are still underway), we find variants of the three-pronged HR delivery model (business partners, HR operations and centers of expertise) popularized by David Ulrich over 20 years ago. One recurring challenge is freeing up Business Partners to fulfill the strategic relationship building and brokering role envisioned in many, if not most HR models.
So you have to make cuts. Make sure they’re the right cuts. “Here I am—most unwelcome, I know. Against my own will, too, since no one loves a messenger who brings with him bad news.” Sophocles’ play Antigone expresses well the distaste of delivering bad news. It’s one of the toughest parts of being a leader. And often the bad news is that costs must be cut.
We all deal with a flood of information. Spam, unwanted correspondence, and irrelevant information stuff our inboxes and voicemail. It can be difficult—despite sophisticated technological communication systems—to get clear and relevant information.
Only by living in a house do we come to know intimately the many disadvantages of our particular structure. Depending on our attitude, this may become all we see. We may long for another house – one without the downsides that daily irritate us. We romanticize about how much better our lives would be in that other house, without those issues that have fatigued us. But we may learn that another house brings a new set of downsides. Sometimes it makes sense to give up our current structure and move to another house, but sometimes we learn we’ve just traded one set of problems for another.
Everyone has limited resources. Everyone must choose where value will and will not be offered. Understanding and appreciating this enables organizations to focus limited resources on the most strategic and differentiating activities. It enables leaders to be smart about where they prune costs. Believing that your organization can do everything—that it can be everything for everyone—prevents an organization from really differentiating itself in a sustainable way.
By Ken Brophy, AlignOrg Solutions, Asia Pacific and Reece Notton, Director, Grafton If you have experienced being coached and have felt ‘underwhelmed’ due to lack of objectives and outcomes, you are not alone. Coaching has multiple meanings and associations and is used by everyone, or so it seems, from the
The typical organizational design process is like drawing a blueprint, building a house, and moving in. This is the familiar strategy-structure-staffing sequence that has come to dominate the practice. Ongoing organization effectiveness work in emerging markets is revealing that this tried and true pattern for effective organization design still applies, but there are some unique considerations that need to be grappled during the push forward into a new frontier. We will highlight four key issues—speed, entry and evolution, leadership development, and unique design needs—that can change the rules when doing organization design in high-potential markets.
In the age of social networking, the question is being asked more and more by both ourselves in the consulting fraternity and within our clients – what tools should we use to ensure we have a productive social presence. Is being out there (a passive presence) sufficient or should organisations be more proactive and involved in social communities? As the online dialogue gains prominence, it poses some challenging questions for organisations such as, what if people start saying things about us that we don’t like? Should we respond or not and if so, how?
This article will compare two recent redesign efforts, within two different companies to paint a picture of how to drive successful organisational design and change. Both of these businesses had been the player in their respective industries, both had always achieved very nice profits for their owners and traditionally both had always been able to exert their size and dominance in the market to such an extent that competitors were few and far between.
We’ve all heard many times the idea that “people will do what they’re measured on.” Is it really true? If I told you that the defect rate for this company’s premier product dropped from 12% to 1% in only three weeks and then further declined to 0.5% in just three more weeks, you’d probably think I was making it up. Well, that is exactly the result that occurred—and it occurred solely from beginning to measure quality in parallel with measuring productivity (in this case, speed). Perhaps what is even more revealing is that there was no incentive linked to quality improvement. All the while, workers were being paid a bonus for speed—which, incidentally, did not suffer when quality improved. That they were not being equally rewarded for quality made no difference. The metrics alone changed their behavior.