Does this make any sense at all??? (in need of a little help)
Hi all, I'm in the midst of developing a strategic process to leverage current staff and screen potential candidates, to maximize productivity in a recession. And i could use some feedback, if anyone's interested in sharing an opinion or three.
What I'm seeing is that many businesses are realizing staffing reductions, either by layoffs or through attrition and hiring freezes. In order to maintain the bottom line and remain productive, it seems that businesses are being forced to do more with less. What I'm trying to create is a process that HR managers or organizational development professionals can follow to take advantage of this climate, and develop a stronger and more diverse organization as a result.
The general premise is that people tend to enjoy diversity and variety in their work, and that many employees have skills that aren't tapped by their current job title/function.
The process would be to identify the specific functions and activities that were handled by a now vacant position, along with the specific skills needed and time spent working on each function/activity.
It could be looked at in two ways: If a marketing department was completing 100% of their work with 8 people, and now they're down to 6 people, there is a gap of 20% of the work load. The second way is to break up the work by person: lets say former employee 'A' spent 25% doing X, 25% doing Y, 15% doing Z, 30% doing V, and 5% doing W. As a company, you now have 10 hours a week of X that is not getting done (25% of a 40 hour week).
At any rate, once you've identified the time and specific skills associated, you can begin to find latent skills within your company. Let's say that Employee A was spending 4 hours a month on updating a website page. Perhaps there is someone working at your company in another department that has web experience, whether through a volunteer capacity or a personal website that they manage. Can that person fit 4 hours a month into their current workload, and would they appreciate the change of pace from time to time?
The same process would work with staffing: In this model, you'd be identifying both primary skills associated with the actual job function you're hiring for, along with auxiliary skills that could benefit the company, and help fill the gaps created by staff reductions.
Does this process make any sense at all??? Any input would be appreciated!
What I'm seeing is that many businesses are realizing staffing reductions, either by layoffs or through attrition and hiring freezes. In order to maintain the bottom line and remain productive, it seems that businesses are being forced to do more with less. What I'm trying to create is a process that HR managers or organizational development professionals can follow to take advantage of this climate, and develop a stronger and more diverse organization as a result.
The general premise is that people tend to enjoy diversity and variety in their work, and that many employees have skills that aren't tapped by their current job title/function.
The process would be to identify the specific functions and activities that were handled by a now vacant position, along with the specific skills needed and time spent working on each function/activity.
It could be looked at in two ways: If a marketing department was completing 100% of their work with 8 people, and now they're down to 6 people, there is a gap of 20% of the work load. The second way is to break up the work by person: lets say former employee 'A' spent 25% doing X, 25% doing Y, 15% doing Z, 30% doing V, and 5% doing W. As a company, you now have 10 hours a week of X that is not getting done (25% of a 40 hour week).
At any rate, once you've identified the time and specific skills associated, you can begin to find latent skills within your company. Let's say that Employee A was spending 4 hours a month on updating a website page. Perhaps there is someone working at your company in another department that has web experience, whether through a volunteer capacity or a personal website that they manage. Can that person fit 4 hours a month into their current workload, and would they appreciate the change of pace from time to time?
The same process would work with staffing: In this model, you'd be identifying both primary skills associated with the actual job function you're hiring for, along with auxiliary skills that could benefit the company, and help fill the gaps created by staff reductions.
Does this process make any sense at all??? Any input would be appreciated!
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Ulrici on -
It makes a lot of sense in a mathematical point of view. However, what I found out over the years, is that the law of physics takes over - what 8 people used to do is absorbed by the 6 remaining people. Somehow, the 6 employees become more efficient without expending more time.
-
Permalink Reply by JayB on -
Thanks Ron! I do have a quick follow up to your input, though. In your experience, does turnover increase as a result of the 6 people doing the work of 8? And is it normal to increase compensation to the remaining 6?
thanks again,
jb
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Ulrici on
-
Conventional thinking would answer "Yes" to your questions, but my answers are "No." The problem is - it is hard to explain to the average employee. This topic is full of paradoxes. If your organization has a healthy culture, most people will rise to the occasion and enjoy the new challenges instead of complaining about taking on additional duties. Typically, they aren't working harder or longer and you have to be very careful about increasing their pay unless the new duties are much more advanced than the old ones. I know it doesn't seem to add up, but they typically aren't performing the same workload as before; just more efficiently. That's why we in HR are paid the big bucks - trying to explain the paradox!
-
Permalink Reply by Baski Ambalavanan, SPHR on -
Ron,
Your thoughts make sense to me, although the 6 may not be working longer but they are working harder taking more workload than before and complete the tasks in a smarter way. Does it not warrant a second look at the compensation from the morale stand poin
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Ulrici on
-
I know that I'm sounding like a hard-liner, but I don't believe that they are usually really working harder. Maybe they are just working more efficiently. Okay, this does sound hard line: Why weren't they working up to full capacity before?
Again, your thinking is logical and conventional wisdom might say you should look at the comp issue, but I still vote no. Everytime, someone works "harder," do they expect a salary increase? We have to be concerned about worker expectations and our reward systems.
-
Permalink Reply by Arif Hussain Nomani on
-
Ron,
But the expectancy theory is that the expectation of a reward or recognition drives performance. Don't you think that hanging a carrot like creation of a new role and giving the opportunity to the six to work towards it would increase their productivity. However, i agree with you on the comp issue since the aim of the reduction in headcount is to rein in the operating costs so if the comp is revised the whole objective of losing the extra baggage will be lost.
© 2010 Created by Erik Samdahl.
Powered by 
.
