Motivational Organisations
There is nothing new about what makes an organisation function effectively. Many, many, moons ago it was identified that what motivates individuals primarily is (in this order)
· Knowing what their job entails including the expected outcomes and where it fits within the bigger picture of organisational outcomes
· Feedback on how they are doing against achieving the outcomes
· Appropriate reward for their contribution
The desired environment (organisational culture) is one of respect, cooperation and meritocracy. Progression paths are known. Development opportunities are provided to gain the required capabilities and advance within a fair and transparent process.
This is not rocket science. Individuals take accountability for achieving the required performance and for deciding how to take advantage of career paths. If they want to progress, they know the criteria and what they need to acquire in terms of expertise. If they do not want to progress further, they understand the rewards and consequences of continuing their current role.
The organisation takes accountability for providing career paths, offering development opportunities and ensuring there is equality of opportunity when selection occurs for job vacancies. At times jobs/departments may be restructured to align with the future goals of the company and provide those currently employed with development opportunities to fulfil the requirements of the new paradigm.
‘Stable’ Managers
In such companies there are excellent individuals carrying out the role of the ‘stable manager’. Such managers are performing excellently at the peak of capability. They are providing a stable ongoing effective contribution to the success of the organisation through the achievement of their core job role as well as through their knowledge/experience of the wider organisation. So their influences are threefold
· The achievement of the outcomes of their job role
· Their contribution to the achievement of the wider goals of the organisation through their involvement in projects outside of their core role
· Their contribution through coaching of less experienced colleagues thus providing a rich talent for the future of the organisation and the individuals involved
The whole modus operandi is selfless. It is for the greater good and they receive acknowledgement for their contribution in the areas above. Their sense of job satisfaction and self worth is great as they know they are making a significant contribution.
A culture of
· Accountability and achievement – performing to achieve organisational outcomes. (vision)
· Empowerment and enabling talent development – taking opportunities and providing opportunities for the development of self and others
· Performance management and coaching through feedback on learning and achievement
Where is HR?
And, you may ask, where is HR in all this wonderful productive way of operating. HR is in the way. It is more than in the way. It is often a block and a collaborator in the implementation of unfair systems of performance management, people development, recruitment and selection, reward.
Help. HR often thinks it is in a position to know exactly how people are performing, who should be developed, who should be promoted and who should be rewarded. They are the decision makers. And are often the know-alls who intimidate managers to adopt their recommendations.
HR has taken over the role of the manager in managing their people. It is not surprising that managing does not happen; that individuals court HR ensuring their name/profile will feature on ‘talent’ lists.; that managers are afraid to take action to discuss performance issues with individuals without the permission and guidance of HR. Often the guidance is misguided as HR feels they should be making a decision based on the information provided rather than enabling the manager and individuals to reach an effective decision. HR takes over the manager role thereby undermining their position.
Questionable Contribution of HR
HR is also excellent at introducing new systems for managers to implement. These are not optional – they are a requirement. The added value is marginal and is in real terms negative once the deflection from core business to implement such systems is taken into account. HR systems should not be changed/implemented unless managers and individuals can see clearly the added benefits to the achievement of the outcomes of the business/their department.
We end up with organisations that are not managed. They are increasing run by HR whose drive often does not take account of operational needs and customer service. It is a huge overhead in numbers employed and its budget.
HR seems to think that their contribution is excellent if they reinvent the wheel and put everyone in the organisation through a change process. Somewhere their focus on people and valuing their inherent skills and abilities seems to have been lost. HR constantly changes the cultures of organisations adversely through their ill thought through initiatives. It is time for this to stop.
Sheila Hampshire
20 October 2010