Think HR Think CHRM
Sunday - 22 Sep 2019

CHRMGlobal.com on LinkedIn
Username : Password: Forgot Password?
Updates
Updates
Actions that boost Managerial Performance
Human Resources » Case Studies


Chrm Message From: murali_k Total Posts: 44 Join Date: 30/10/2007
Rank: Executive Post Date: 09/05/2009 17:32:20 Points: 220 Location: United States

Hi,

I want to start a dialogue on practical actions that boost managerial performance. Let me clarify with an example: "There's a technical whiz who got promoted to a manager's job. They promoted him because that's the only way that they could reward him. He had reached the top of his band and his boss couldn't give him money without making him a manager. Minus the money, the whiz would have walked. Everyone who's been around him knows that he really despises what he calls "that management nonsense". He has been a disaster on the job. He screwed up the schedule and the budget. His team of seven people hate him." Now HR genius, you've been called in to scoop the poop. What will you do?

Let me state the obvious. You cannot make or save money as a business if your managers can't or won't perform. Data, great visions, missions, cultures, goals, frameworks, approaches, strategies, processes and action plans aren't worth a shit if managers can't or won't perform. When managers can't bring themselves to act, the shareholder gets screwed. It is never too late to take remedial action, but it costs hellva lot of effort, time and money to get an estranged shareholder back to bed.

I recommend three dialogue rules in addition to the community rules.

1. We speak from the heart, the gut, the head, and any other part of the anatomy and experience base we want, but in plain English and cough up experiential specifics rather than theoretical master pieces. This dialogue is about the world as it IS, not what it OUGHT TO, SHOULD or COULD BE. So, let's be real and stick to "this was the problem - this was the solution we tried - this worked/did not work - why" mode of thinking.

2. We recognize that there are days when our coffee isn't strong enough and we post a message which makes us out to be the slowest hare in the forest. Big deal. Bring on half baked, ill formed, comatose ideas and let's work on them till they reach the state where we can accept or discard them.

3. We are honest enough to say that we disagree and why. And we allwow each other the luxury to say "we disagree because it don't feel right." We are all experts in our own realities but sometimes we may not be able to get the words to describe what we feel or mean.

What do you guys say?

Murali

Chrm Message From: priyanka Total Posts: 86 Join Date: 30/10/2007  
Rank: Manager Post Date: 09/05/2009 17:33:38 Points: 430 Location: United States

It's an interesting topic. I would like to make a point here. I feel this situation could have been avoided had there been two career ladders in the org - technical and managerial. The first one for people who are hard core techies, our guy falls there and the second is for people interested in taking up managerial roles.

What do you say?

Look forward to hearing from you.

Chrm Message From: murali_k Total Posts: 44 Join Date: 30/10/2007  
Rank: Executive Post Date: 09/05/2009 17:35:34 Points: 220 Location: United States

Priyanka,

Two career ladders is an interesting idea. Let us explore it a bit further. When would it work? When would it not work? What would it take to make it work?How would you implement it? How would you ensure that you don't blow the payroll budget? What would two ladders do to the speed of decision making? How is it any different from creating separate R&D/engineering organizations? What happens if you are small 200 person company? Are there alternatives to career ladders? Would it be cheaper to invest money in career planning and training managers than in creating more structures?

What do you say?

Murali

Chrm Message From: priyanka Total Posts: 86 Join Date: 30/10/2007  
Rank: Manager Post Date: 09/05/2009 17:38:08 Points: 430 Location: United States

Dear Murali,

Your questions are really thought provoking. Here are my replies:

When would it work?
It works in situations similar to the ones you mentioned in the case study. Further, not everyone is a capable leader or motivator. What will you do when you find a tech. genius with poor people skills? You certainly would not want to loose him but at the same time you will be concerns about his "people" skills. The Saviour here - use the technical ladder.

Secondly, not everyone wants to get into a managerial job. Consider this - Some of your better young brains are a couple of years old in the organization. Your ladder will make them APM or PM or something similar, but they do not want the M. Again, tech ladder comes to help.

What would it take to make it work?How would you implement it?
It will not take much to implement and make it work. As mentioned earlier not every one wants to get into a managerial job. I have met people who do not want a managerial role. Rather, they want to be pure techies. All you need to make it work is a separate set of skills and competencies for the tech ladder. Further, you can map both your technical and managerial ladders on the same scale w.r.t compensation and benefits, though there can be slight differences. You can then cook up designations that suit your org.

How would you ensure that you don't blow the payroll budget?
I really do not see two ladders blowing up the payroll budget. Please elaborate your views on this.

What would two ladders do to the speed of decision making?
I assume it speeds things up.

How is it any different from creating separate R&D/engineering organizations?
It is different from separate orgs. in the sense that though it is a separate ladder, yet it is functionally spread across the organization both vertically and horizontally.

What happens if you are small 200 person company?
I think the size of the org. does not matter.

Are there alternatives to career ladders? Would it be cheaper to invest money in career planning and training managers than in creating more structures?
I do not see how creating a separate ladder calls for additional expenditure. I would understand better if you could elaborate this.

Hope, I have been able to answer your queries. Group, what do you say?

Chrm Message From: CHRM Total Posts: 209 Join Date: 30/10/2007  
Rank: Coach Post Date: 09/05/2009 17:39:52 Points: 1045 Location: United States

Hi,

Just wanted to share what once i had found . Infact when we talk of career development and planning for techies, it is very important for organizations to consider that there is a considerable percentage of employees in the technical field, who do not want to opt for managerial roles at any point of their careers. In fact the percentage who opts for managerial roles is pretty small. Most of them want to stay in the technical roles only. So having a dual ladder definitely makes sense as it clearly communicates to the employees the roles that they are / would be in ( meaning that they shall get roles that they opt for and not something that they shall be forced upon)

In fact, considering such options by employees, many companies do have separate ladders ( some of the companies that in remember are Texas Instruments , which has a common ladder tilla point where the demarcation can be made into the 2 different type of roles depending upon preferences,; then SAP Labs India, IBM and a few others .........and i dont think ( as pointed out earlier by members of this group) that it would adversely affect the pay roll- why would it do so?? Of course a little more investment in terms of time and energy has to be spent for career development and planning efforts by the HR people as the career paths take a different future for technical and mangerial role people--so better career planning would be needed with both sets

Definitely for implementation , most companies go for competencies-identification and they have systems where competencies are linked to performance management. And contrary to what we might think, companies try to make a parallel ( level to level alignment) when it comes to compensation so that employees at the same level in both ladders do not feel that there has been any inequity ( probably the job responsibilities are structured that way)--because as we know compensation is indeed an attraction for people in the technical field.

Just my thoughts..

chrm


1 2 Next
 
Events
 
Related Discussion
Measuring the Performance
Best practices in employe
Evaluation Method for Per
How to make Performance R
Performance Appraisal of
Effectiveness of Performa
Feedback on Performance
Linking People, Strategy
Performance Linked Variab
Bell Curve for Performanc
 
Related Articles
Performance Development P
Linking Pay to Performanc
Pay for Performance Syste
Coaching for Improved Per
Poor Leadership Affects B
Bell Curve Method of Perf
Performance Measurement T
Measuring People and Perf
Diagnosing Performance Pr
Do HR Certifications guar