Problems in Solving People Problems
We’re spent a lot of time and money on training. Why aren’t employees more productive? “We pay enough for good people. Why don’t the good ones stay?” Paternalism and corporate Darwinism aren’t very effective, although they may be the tools of the well-intentioned or results-driven. This article deals with three common mistakes made in human resource management:
Wrong Solutions,
Partial Solutions, and
Poor Implementation
If you don’t recognize your organization as described here, that’s good. You’ve probably worked with a human resource pro to avoid these pitfalls. If you do recognize your company from this article, you still have time to take action toward a solution.
We’re often called in when a prospective client already has a solution in mind. For example, we were asked by a high-tech company to conduct team-building. However, during the discovery phase of the project, we found that the cause of the problem was poor management – a lack of strategy, systems and planning. Team building will have a very short-lived effect when the infrastructure needs to be built.
Effective human resource problem-solving starts with good problem-finding. We take the long and broad view to look at these 6 factors:
Tasks – job design, job descriptions
Structure – organizing the work
People – selection, training, promoting
Systems – planning, communicating
Rewards – right consequences for results
Leadership – creating the vision and sustaining the effort
Here are further examples of “wrong solutions”: Teaching effective management when the problem is poor implementation of a matrix structure. Trying to train when it’s a selection problem. Losing the opportunity for sustaining the benefit of training because rewards were not in place.
Corollary: Wrong Problem-Solver
In the same way we find that solving the wrong problem leads to failure, we also find that having the wrong problem-solver leads to failure. The first example is the “anyone can train” myth. A services company spent a great deal of time building the training programs for a major product launch. Then after six months of development, they spent one day training trainers. Oops – the messengers weren’t ready; the programs flopped. There’s no such thing as instructor-independent or “fool proof” training. Even self-study participants have to be prepared for independent learning.
The other example is the “anyone can write training” myth. A young telecommunications company felt it couldn’t afford to buy the expertise they needed to develop their own training, so they decided to make their own. To shortcut their learning curve, they modeled their program on another one they “borrowed.” Oops – it didn’t work. They used a program that taught transactional selling when their product required consultative selling. The training couldn’t take them far enough.
One last example along the same theme: a problem-solver placed in the wrong position. We recommended to the Board that the company get its own internal human resource expertise and make it independent of the executives who were part of the company’s problem. The Board made human resources subordinate to the very position causing the problem, thus seriously compromising human resources’ objectivity and independence. Don’t politicize the human resource solution.
Partial Solutions
Another type of mistake is thinking that “half of a loaf will solve the hunger.” A partial solution often won’t give you 50% of the gain you hoped for.
Selection testing, no training
A high-tech firm had a formidable challenge – to build a state-of-the art plant and have it at top capacity with low defects in two years. The firm got a good start – the core – fully analyzed the new jobs to learn what knowledge, skills, and abilities (KS&As) were needed. Then they build rigorous selection tests to screen applicants. They had plenty of applicants and could select the best. So far so good. But then they stopped. They need an entire training curriculum to teach the entirely new work force how to run the plant. No formal training, just on-the job training. It wasn’t a disaster, and product eventually was shipped. We just ask: Could it have been sooner? Could it have been better?
Training, no selection testing
The reverse situation didn’t work either. A utility company decided to consolidate its customer service representatives into one large, regional center. They hired about 60% new staff and put everyone through rigorous training. However, there were no standards for hiring other than the “warm body” benchmark. As a result, it took months to remedy the selection mistakes through progressive discipline.
Too little training
There’s one other example of a Partial Solution – the “too little training” syndrome. For example, a services company broadened a customer service representative job (work design) so the job was three times bigger. However, the training was not three times longer. Performance standards weren’t met. And when standards weren’t met, fewer folks could be released for training, etc. This downward spiral spelled disaster. Bigger jobs require more, not less, training.
When a star-up airline tried to have ground agents rotated with flight attendants to benefit worker deployment and make staffing easier, they forgot to develop enough comprehensive training. Doing the job half-right for twice as long still makes you half-right. You need perfect practice to make perfect practice.
Poor Implementation
The last type of problem we’ll discuss is having a good solution, but not operating it well. For example, a services company developed 20 training programs for all levels and types of employees. The training pilots showed that the training worked – taught what it was supposed to teach. However, once the full curriculum was ready, participants didn’t fill the classes. Managers weren’t able or willing to let them go away from the job. The informal corporate motto is “It’s cash flow, stupid” – they wouldn’t make this short-term investment for the longer-term gain.
Not on-boarding the stakeholders
Human resources needs all the advocacy it can get. However, often human resources makes the mistake of moving ahead without selling the stakeholders. For example, conducting management training without the union or training employees without their managers. We know that training cannot be sustained without on-job support, monitoring and reinforcement. This means that you have to teach not only the employee, but also the manager.
Not addressing willingness before addressing ability
Classrooms change skills. Classrooms can’t guarantee to change minds. If you train but you don’t change willingness, then training won’t work. For example, we trained service employees to sell. But there were no selling incentives – no pay if you do; no reprimand if you don’t. Sales training won’t stick.
That’s an example of enhancing willingness after training. There’s also the need to address willingness before training. For example, a group who resists job enhancement doesn’t want to learn new skills – and won’t. Merely saying “It’s your job now” doesn’t make it true. The initial effort should be in the role clarification (your job, why and what) before training (your job and how).
Hopefully, you don’t see yourself in any of these examples. You’ve mastered the six factors of performance excellence – tasks, structure, people, systems, rewards, and leadership. That will put and keep you way ahead of the pack.