Well-managed chaos and organizational redundancy are both core components of a KM system and both are empirically verified to create sustainable and superior performance and advantage (Kloviene & Gimzauskiene, 2008; Zairi & Al-Mashari, 2005; Nonaka & Nishiguchi, 2001).  As it relates to creating new knowledge and utilizing existing knowledge, creative chaos contributes to an organization’s ability to achieve peak performance demonstrated through increased innovation in the form of products, services, and customer-client delivery. A key follow-on question to ask during the strategy formulation phase is “Is our system designed to exploit opportunities within our market in the form of enhanced products, services, or delivery?  This is an exhaustive question to be asked of all key stakeholders and is not confined within the C-level suite.  The input should be robust and measurable accompanied by defined expectations.  As an example, do you expect to reduce R&D time-to-market, increase patents, develop proprietary systems or products, and create strategic alliances and joint ventures?  Will leadership support a “fail-to-success” philosophy or is the margin for error slim?  How will internalization of processes be expedited?  How will you reward success and transparency?  What processes are in place – embedded within your KM infrastructure that rewards the sharing of knowledge?  Here are 4 key ways in which you can stretch your KM strategy and create intentional chaos:

1. Implement chaos with pre-determined objectives.  The opportunities are only confined by your objectives.  For example, how will you leverage your KM infrastructure in response to competitor entering the market with identical product or service delivered more efficiently than you?  What about new legislation recently enacted that has a direct impact on cost of service or product?  

2. Look for requisite variety.  Requisite variety is nothing more than implementing processes that can be quickly learned and duplicated.  Here is where you look for efficiencies from your workforce so that response to threats are addressed quickly with minimial impact on quality, service support, and customer experience – as a matter of fact, it may ideally be enhanced.  Here, you will evaluate your organization’s existing knowledge base and perhaps develop new bodies of knowledge.  This step tests your organizational culture and if you consider yourself a learning organization, it will test just how effective your organizational “university” can teach and implement skills when it counts most.

3. Evaluate organizational and individual performance.  At the conclusion of your “chaos event,” an assessment of learning, and individual and organizational feedback should be provided.  Don’t let your organization and your workforce guess at the outcome.  Develop a well-orchestrated communications plan with a key goal of allowing your team to recognize the connection between effort and benefit.  Each organization will do this differently.  If you are a young firm, you may want to project savings, revenue growth, and on-going capital requirements.  For more stable, mature companies, the chaos may actually be carried out until a defined point in your financial reporting to allow for quantifiable data and sound conclusions to be formulated.  However, it is important to remember that the shorter the measurement and time frame of your implemented chaos, the more likely you will not adequately capture any sufficient return on investments.  Avoid the trap of trying to measure ROI to quickly while balancing a realistic time for payback consistent with your organizational capacity.

4. Capture and implement new knowledge created.  The feedback cycle loop is where the chaos really counts.  The point of learning is to either discard existing knowledge or to create a unique body/subset of knowledge that did not previously exist.  In the case of organizational learning, your knowledge capture processes and supporting systems ideally capture knowledge that links to service, product, and customer-experience for the better, creating an advantage over your competitors or having a measurable impact on your organization’s readiness level.

Ever since Senge’s The Fifth Discipline was introduced, the concept of knowledge management and more specifically, the learning organization has fluctuated between passing organizational fancy to bona fide organizational practice.  Organizations that view KM as a bona fide organizational practice continually ask themselves, “Knowledge for what?”  The detailed answer is specific to your organization, but the short answer is this: Knowledge to improve product and service innovation while enhancing customer-client delivery.  You have to carry this point with you in order to elevate your KM strategy to its rightful place, which I argue is dead-center of your long-standing organizational initiatives.   So go out and create some chaos and clarify the confusion.  It may be just what your organization needs to survive and thrive.

Additional Reading/References:

Austin, M. J. (2008). Strategies for transforming human service organizations into     learning organizations: Knowledge management and the transfer of learning.  Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, Vol. 5(3-4).

Kloviene, L., & Gimzauskiene, E. (2008). The role of institutional factors on changes of performance measurement system.  Economics & Management, 49.

Nonaka, I., & Nishiguchi, T. (Eds.). (2001). Knowledge emergence: Social, technical, 
and evolutionary dimensions of knowledge creation. Oxford: Oxford University 
Press.

Zairi, M., & Al-Mashari, M. (2005). Developing a sustainable culture of innovation management: A prescriptive approach.  Knowledge & Process Management, 12(3), 190-202. doi:10.1002/kpm.229.

To put it straight-forward: Workplace diversity is a complex, contemporary organizational challenge that continues to be the source of misinformation, misguided perception, and uneven research findings (Van De Ven, Rogers, Bechara, Kangyong, 2007; Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). Business leaders, government employees, mid-level practitioners, non-profit members, and even the business start-up owner all have justified questions concerning the morale value, and business utility of workplace diversity. The question no matter how stated, simply boils down to “What is the business value and potential benefit of workplace diversity?”   

Six key points of consideration are hereby presented:   

Point 1 – There is a tendency to equate demographic diversity with federal equal opportunity and affirmative action laws.  This is done in error because of research and organizational initiatives that link the concept of diversity with federal equal opportunity and affirmative action laws.  This error leads to resistance and reinforcement of stereotypes, having a reverse, unintended consequence on justifying the business need for diversity.  

Point 2 – Most workplace diversity initiatives consider only demographic components of diversity.  In considering only the demographic aspects of diversity, organizations do not go far enough.  As a matter of fact, organizations have in many cases only increased the likelihood that any diversity business case and subsequent initiative will be met with resistance.

Point 3 – Cognitive Diversity along with the business need is the root starting point when exploring the organizational benefit of diversity.  Cognitive Diversity, as I define it, is the observed and unobserved attributes that distinguish individuals and their accompanying value and belief system.  Of course there are varying views of Cognitive Diversity; yet, the properties of this definition allow us to include both the demographic components, and beliefs and attitudes components of diversity.    

Point 4: Workplace diversity must be centered on a business need (perceived threat, rare opportunity, or a combination of the two).  The moral case as unfortunate as it may sound is not enough.  Research shows that organizations that succeed at diversity base it on sound business considerations such as entrance or expansion within a market segment, product and services aimed toward diverse segments of the marketplace, exploitation of unexpected demand (or potential for demand) in an untapped or under-performing market (Note: Under-performing in the sense that demand for product or service was not foreseen; yet is empirically proven to show consideration for increase “presence”).

Point 5: Not all organizations should pursue diversity, especially based upon demographic consideration.  Diversity should not be pursued (despite what many tell you) to correct moral wrongs or to “reflect society.”   There are laws (both passed and under consideration) and other causes that serve such purposes.  As for “reflecting society;” your market may only represent a unique, defined niche of our collective society and any efforts to “represent society” will be viewed as insincere or not justifiable if your products and services appeal only to specific segments of the marketplace. 

Point 6:  If organizational diversity initiatives are pursued, it is essential to focus more on cognitive diversity vice the demographic components of diversity.  Highlighting differences, based on research and experience of organizations that pursue diversity (successful and otherwise), show that when demographic understanding is sought, the inverse happens – more confusion and increased hostility often results (Van de Ven, Rogers, & Kangyong, 2008; Jayne & Dipboye, 2004).  Furthermore, appreciation of demographic diversity naturally results when diversity is pursued at the deeper, cognitive level.   

 So what are the benefits of diversity if the business case warrants worthy of pursuit?  There is no shortage of benefits, if your organizational business case (considering the above) is conducted with rigor.  Some of the benefits of workplace diversity may include:

Goodwill of the Community. If diverse segments of your customer base are diverse and your organization reflects this diversity, your efforts will not go unnoticed. 

Potential increase in earnings and profitability.  Directly related to the above benefit, customers show appreciation represented via “buying power” and increased sales.  Quite simply: They buy more from you and less from your competitors. 

Increase readiness.  If you are a government organization, diversity efforts are appreciated through increased contribution or increased willingness to join your organization or cause. 

Outreach into potential talent pools.  With increased outreach and appreciation of diversity, you have increased individuals looking to contribute their talents to your organization.  If competitive advantage is embedded within human capital, which I argue this is so, than deeper, richer pools of talent with unique ideas and perspectives will enable you to leverage this diversity – resulting in, ideally, innovative products and services delivered faster and better than your competitors – for the foreseeable future. 

References/Further Reading

Jayne, M., & Dipboye, R. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Research findings and recommendations for organizations. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 409-424.

Van de Ven, A., Rogers, R., Bechara, J., & Kangyong, S. (2008). Organizational diversity, integration and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29 (3), 335-354. doi:10.1002/job.511.

Allow me to present a story:  Once in a history not to distant, I was a supporting initiative project team leader and change management team member working on a fairly complex change management initiative.  This robust and aggressive inititiative involved the entire organization, its business units, core business functions, staff support functions,  and information systems.  Thus, in the organizational textbook sense of change management, it met the criteria of being both complex and essential to maintaining the advantage in the industry of which it was a part. 

The concept was Appreciative Inquiry (AI) and my core role during the exploration stages was to unearth practical utility prior to  implementation stages of supporting initiative projects.  The organizational leadership, rightfully, in my opinion, did not believe in abstract concepts unless empirical evidence supported cost and effort; in other words, could a quantitative and qualatative business case be built around workforce actions built into the operational and functional actions of employees. 

The resistance to the concept initially came from my inability to link AI (in this case) into observable actions.  And here is an important point: Professionals with whom I work usually have very little issue or challenge in developing and linking abstract entities and theoretical management concepts during the strategy planning and visioning phases.  However, there is a tendency to “fake it,” or at least hope someone will not notice when it comes to relating the concept to observable actions that can be empirically measured and assessed.  As it related to my experience,  the impression formed that AI was another fuzzy management concept with no practical utility.  It became a concept in which one accentuated the positive to perhaps reach states of the ideal working environment.  Bright (2009) states that a one-sided reception of AI hinders its organizational employment potential stating, “I am concerned that an understanding of Appreciate Inquiry as simply ‘a focus on the positive’ undermines its full potential to create sustainable change in organizations . . . researchers have helped us understand that organizations are most vibrant and alive when they embrace the tensions of the human condition” (p. 2).  My point quoting bring is that this can apply to most abstract organizational intervention (i.e. emotional intelligence, cognitive diversity, etc.)

Specific to my case, I felt that AI was more than just emotional and abstract strategic entity and intervention merely to be integrated with selected management methodologies such as performance management and its accompanying tools.  As related to AI, Bright (2009) points out the operational components of AI stating that AI “. . . refers to an increase in the value of capital. Operational appreciation usually refers to the value of financial assets.”  This was my intuitive “aha” moment that allowed the concept to gain traction.  When I approached AI from both connotations (the philosophical and operational), I not only received the necessary buy-in, I received support in the infamous stakeholder meetings in which every dollar toward project and their teams has to be accounted.  To put this in a tangible perspective, what I did was capture the ideal in theory and the practical in “real world” and linked those to the core functions, tasks, and outcomes to be achieved by the workforce – related to readiness, brand equity, profitability, and organizational citizenship.  As a result (and understand I am compressing for space sake), the mind-set shifted from “we are broken” to “we have done this before and we can do it again . . . even better . . . within the context we need to move forward.”  Again, this was intuitive at the time and have I had the benefit of additional experience and sound research, the learning curve may have not been so steep.

The lesson here: Abstract entities and notions must make sense from a business and organizational perspective.  My personal experiences tell me that until you link the concept to the concrete (what is real for the stakeholders, clients, workforce, etc.), organizational interventions, especially among senior level leaders, are merely theoretical rhetoric, which captivate scholars and consultants at the moment.  It is important to know the business and the concept. 

Further Reading/References:

Bright, D. (2009). Appreciative inquiry and positive organizational scholarship: A  philosophy of practice for turbulent times. OD Practitioner, 41(2), 2-7.

Perhaps your organization is being impacted by one of these factors, but an assumption is that a combination of these factors is having an impact on  your company.  It is during these times that ambiguity increases despite well-intentioned efforts to prevent otherwise.  One of the things that we as leaders need to focus our efforts (both individually and collectively) is on continuous communication and feedback. 

The danger of organizational ambiguity can have profound impacts, which  contribute to the factors mentioned earlier and taken together result in organizational politics.  Organizational politics itself manifests within our employees in the form of  stress, intentional and unintentional discrimination, and at the extreme, turnover. 

Thus feedback should consider multiple formats addressing areas to include employee performance, organizational direction-visioning, and business goals.  Your key objective as a leader is to maintain or improve performance so that your organization maintains or ideally improves effectiveness and its ability to  accomplish its organizational objectives.  Presented below are three ways to enhance feedback and create an open-feedback culture that ideally will increase morale, diminish the impact of organizational politics, and contribute to increased profitability, readiness, and affiliation with organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs):

1.  Ensure employees have access to relevant information regarding their performance.  This includes, but certainly not limited to individual efforts within the context of accomplishing organization, unit, division and department objectives.  With this access, senor leaders, managers, and supervisors should encourage open dialogue on not only the importance of the job, but how an employee’s job performance can improve at the individual level and mapping the linkage to organizational performance. 

2.  Provide informal and formal feedback outside of performance appraisal interviews.  As I persistently state within blogs, lectures, round tables, etc. is that performance discussions should not be limited to appraisal feedback sessions.  When you, as a leader, take the time to discuss employees’ performance in settings outside of performance appraisal review sessions and interviews, you are increasing trust-building and decreasing the impact of perceived organizational politics.  

3.  Discuss importance of job performance, teamwork, and feedback as it relates to desired OCB.  Integrate what your organization stands for as often as possible.  Your goal is to impact the subconscious work efforts of employees to align their behavior with organizational goals – that is always the number one objective.  Once your employees understand how their work behavior/performance outcome contributes to the organization’s ability to accomplish its objective, you have again decreased ambiguity and set a clear standard of performance. 

In the end, you, as a leader, must exercise the behavior and activities associated with transformational leadership during difficult times.  These are difficult times at some level and through your consideration of employees’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes as it relates to their job, job performance, job accomplishment, and job security, you will go a long way in enhancing organizational performance through increased productivity  and morale while at the same time create an atmosphere conducive to feedback, information sharing, and building trust.

For example, one executive stated that he needed skill development/technical training.  My questions to him were How much was the training going to cost?  What kind of training (specifically) was needed?  And, How did would he know that training being provided was effective?  In particular, what led him and the organization to come to the conclusion that  more training was needed:  Was it market position, defect rate, employee satisfaction feedback, customer satisfaction feedback, accident rates, or lost time?  Was it a combination of all of these measures – or did you even measure at all?

The second executive stated to me that he needed to have his particular SBU performance on par with the other SBU.  He also stated that because his product/service line was new that he was under much scrutiny.  My questions continued.  How do you know that the other SBU has it right? How is your SBU performing among industry competitors (locally, nationally, internationally)?  When do you know (or will you know?) you have gotten to where you need to be when two different markets are being served?

Finally, the last executive I spoke with stated that he wanted to “really go after” a chosen management methodology.  My questions continued: What is so important about this specific methodology? What is the resistance?  What incremental yard posts/milestones are in place to let you know that change is being captured and that the change management process accompanying the methodology implementation is taking hold?  What is so important about this methodology – is it growth based or improvement based?  Is it focused on ROA or revenue based that facilitates time-to-market and market penetration?

The final conclusion that I drew was that this organization had to define just what they were after.  Between talks of continuous improvement, training, and top-line growth strategies, I could not get a single consistent theme.  Now this does not take away from any of the professionals that I spoke with that day.  They are, I assume, talented individuals with a track record of success.  However, my point is that for there to be any improvement at all you have to clearly identify what you are going for else any improvement will do and little will have changed in what you are going after.  It is important for you, as a business and/or HR professional to see through the clouds of ambitious (and often competing goals), agendas that are contradictory, and measures that are consistent with where your organization wants to be positioned (are top line measures driven by top line enablers – drivers).  The list goes on.

Unfortunately, many professionals like to storm through strategy and business planning sessions to get back to work only to get back on the same path to nowhere.  It is up to you to prepare your peers and managers for the long path ahead by applying the needed focus required for the journey your organization wants to go after?

You want the chance to contribute to strategic growth and provide value – this is your chance and they exist in almost all organizations.  Go for it and share your story here.

Note:  This is just a humorous look on my unscientific approach; however, please take the time to realize that being an effective leader does not mean you follow any set pattern of leadership or some preconceived notion of someone’s notion of being an effective leader.  Effective leaders are found with varying personalities and traits.  They possess a keen sense of who they are and are aware of their strengths and weakness, maximizing the former and supplementing the latter.

Auto-follows on keywords/Auto Tweets:

Strength:  Someone that values automation and one time effort to gain leverage.  Once system in place and/or value discovered, it is likely that you don’t want to reinvent the wheel.  In addition, you are extremely well-organized (there is a word for that), and you are also very methodical.  You will quickly move-on from one project to the next and likely are very good at starting businesses, setting a system, and moving on to the next project/phase.  Likely considered a very efficient leader who makes decisions in an effective manner.

Weakness:  Details make your eyes glaze and sometimes you are too quick to delegate.  Because you often have more than one project/program/concept going, those working on supporting initiatives are often confused as to just what is your priority.

Tweets Less Than Once Per Week:

Strength:  One who focuses on projects and prioritizes based on competing demands.  You can handle multiple tasks; however, those that seem less important to you likely get pushed to the back-burner.  Out of 3-5 competing projects, you will likely pick 1 that is worthy of your time, delegate projects 2-3, sit-on project 4, and dump project 5.

Weakness:  Leaders, co-workers, and subordinates often think you forget about them because they don’t always have your personal attention.  You don’t necessarily announce that you are tracking through delegation, and really feel that your time is to valuable to explain everything that you are doing – or defend your worldview.

Tweets More Than Once Per Week:

Strength:  A quick mind who keeps a “Daily 1-R” log of activities that must be done – in other words: You are viewed as someone who can complete multiple projects and still get the “little things” done.  Your leadership style is one that values details and demands that the perceived minor activities do not get overlooked.  You are likely a leader who has (or prefers) a dashboard view of organization and takes a round-robin approach to ensuring that all bases are covered.  You value input from the quiet person sitting in the back of the room and want to know what she has to say.

Weakness:  You can be perceived as going to deep and if you are a senior leader, often viewed as one “in the weeds.”  When briefed on major issues, subordinates often think that you are focused on strategic-high level information, but you quickly dive into details at a technical-journeyman level.  They adjust and go into detail, and you counter by quickly pulling the stick back to the “big-picture.”

Quick to Un-follow:

Strength:  Aggressive, Alpha-type personality with a “time is money” approach to leadership, projects, and tasks.  Your leadership style invites plenty of people to the table, giving them a chance to show their worth – the bad news for them is that they only have one shot and they may not know it.  You have a knack (and gift) for discovering value quickly.  Likely seen as detached by subordinates, you prefer summarized information, and make decisions based on .5 gut and .5 fact.  Your subordinates and co-workers view you as someone who gets bored easily and you will often pursue several initiatives at once in an effort to see which ones stick (provide value) and which ones can be discarded.  You are also considered a change agent; however, the “change initiative” must be significant and provide early indication worthy of your time and effort.

Weakness:  Because you are quick to move, you often frustrate those that may have received late notice that you were interested in one of their projects/programs, and did not have time to prepare adequately to capture your interest.  You also see no value in incremental changes thus settings in which continuous improvement is the primary culture are not a fit for you – you have no patience for semi-annual updates and prefer results that can be immediately gleaned from quarterly reports.  You often are viewed as a leader that has read one too many “Harvard Business Review” articles yet does not have a defining philosophy that has time to settle and take hold within your organization, project, program, etc.

Slow to Un-follow:

Strength:  A loyal leader that likely delivers bad news slow and utilizes negative counseling/discipline as a last resort.  You are a leader that will be slow to hire and even slower to “fire” giving someone all chances to prove themselves before you “throw them to the wolves.”  You are also empathic and when all subordinates and peers tell you to pull the plug, you will “stay the course” to see when and if value is ahead (this is from a personal and project perspective).  When presenting and the audience is getting frustrated by persistent questions from “that one” who always asks questions – consistently, you will stay with the person until the question is answered, leaving everyone amazed at your patience and concern for others.

Weakness:  You often spend too much time trying to save people or projects that are draining resources (time, money, material, etc.)  You often are criticized for delivering projects in late and/or over-budget and though are very good at what you do (often considered the best), not necessarily the most efficient leader in the area of scheduling. Your saving grace is that you are able to garner large support from the “grass-root” and “deck-plate” levels, and excel on quality and program effectiveness.

Tweets Both Business/Professional Updates:

Strength:  You are likely a leader that can build relationships across the organization, maintaining a human quality, yet gaining the necessary respect and fellowship when required.  You seek to balance morale with organizational objectives and make it point to see that your subordinates/employees have fun at work.  You are also one that given a microphone (or maybe without one) and a PowerPoint presentation can make even the dullest presentations come alive with both empirical data and strong anecdotes to tell a story that would be boring presented by someone with a different personality.  Personal and professional relationships are important to you and you are a master networker.

Weakness:  Data oriented-peers, co-workers, and subordinates often feel your “personal touch” is intrusive or unnecessary.  Your style may unknowingly make subordinates uncomfortable with peers seeing your style as going into irrelevant areas, having nothing to do with the business at hand.  You are also often viewed as someone who could obtain the same results in a more compressed time-frame.  You do possess a high-sense of self-awareness and realize this perceived weakness, but you accept the trade-off much to the chagrin of your peers, co-workers, and subordinates.

Tweets Only Business Updates:

Strength:  You are a no-nonsense leader that believes in focusing on critical activities.  Someone that could hold marathon brain-storming sessions on critical business proposals and activities.  You also enjoy what you do and are the type of leader in which subordinates often say to themselves: “He lives here.”  You  associate yourself (and often your ego) with your work and have large amounts of concentration/focus.  People like you often fill the ranks of senior business leaders within an organization and you advance quickly on a given career-path.  You also know the “nuts-and-bolts” of the business and how it relates to delivery on business objectives and meeting business goals.

Weakness:  You may be seen as dull and calculating.  Meetings and projects that you chair and/or are a critical team member are often seen as “no flash” ordeals.  Though you are a great leader within an established framework, you may resist entrepreneurship/business opportunities, perceiving them as reap with unnecessary and avoidable risk with no defined “systems” in place (however, if teamed with business-personal tweeter that can be remedied – of course, they have to get to you.)

Tweets Only Personal (with a Professional Profile):

Strength:  You are a social butterfly.  The one that when approached by subordinates with situations they view as serious or emergent, quickly put them at ease.  Leadership style makes nervous subordinates feel comfortable. Though you are very social, you do know your business and your work, but it does not define you.  Also one to ensure that others participate in hobbies and recreational activities.  Strong believer in re-charging the batteries.

Weakness:  May be viewed as the popular leader and may need a strong “second” to offset open-leadership style.  You sometimes upset others within your organization because you may be distracted easily and may be perceived to lack focus.  You may get away with more than many other peers because of your ability to search out and find common bonds – your peers often view this as relationship management taking precedence over results-oriented and documented performance.

Followers Greater Than Those Following (by a significant margin):

Strength:  You are the type of leader that everyone talks about and gathers around when walking the “deck-plate” and”front-lines.”  Extremely poplar, you may have large groups of people clamoring for your time, because you are seen as invaluable or a star-performer among your peers.  Even seniors view you with admiration at what appears to be a natural ability within you to motivate others with relatively ease.

Weakness:  Though you are very poplar (and appreciate the fact that people gravitate toward you), you also consult with a small group of advisers and peers when making key decisions.  Because you possess such a strong following of peers and subordinates, you will often have others give bad news, maintaining your personal reputation and brand, even if it means damaging someone else.  Also there is a false sense that you have an open-door policy, when in fact, there is a considerable bureaucratic process that one has to go through to often get to your level.

Following Greater Than Followers (delta of 20% or more):

Strength:  You are a great entrepreneur and will not take “no” for an answer.  You are the type of person who writes down his or her goals, which appear to be dreams to observers (i.e., meet consult with world leaders or sit on prestigious boards).  You have an ability to come up with innovative concepts or work proven models to perfection.  If your concepts come into reality, you are likely to progress to the aforementioned stage.

Weakness:  Many may perceive you as annoying, or as a dreamer, or as someone to avoid.  Others may see you as a threat and protect information from you and/or see you as an outcast with no room for your concepts or ideas.  Because you are persistent, you may also be viewed as someone to avoid.

The complexities of managing this emerging, dynamic workforce and the accompanying labor pool are the diverse needs and aspirations of the people behind the numbers.  I predict that many will find happiness in their new roles and will want to grow with your organization.  Others are already working on consulting projects and/or planning new businesses during their spare time.  There will be others that will try to find happiness in both worlds (with your organization and on their own).  The result will be something more complex than just managing across generations and inherent skill sets; it will mean finding the right plan and approach down to the individual level.

We will witness $80K – $100K professionals “bump” down in pay to $12.00 an hour in non-exempt jobs.  They will be working for a young professional manager that may possess less education, credentials, and experience, but will have to be managed nonetheless.  The challenge in this example is two-fold: What are the goals and aspirations of the individual and just how is your workforce equipped to deal with these employees?

Just as complex, there will be “survival employees” (for lack of a better term for now), that will find pleasure and perhaps discover a “second wind” in their new career/job.  Why?!  Because some of these employees will enjoy the challenge of starting again and moving into roles with considerable impact in the future.  Thus the question:  What does your succession and career development plans have “mapped” for such a scenario?

It doesn’t end there.  You will witness “survival” employees that will bring their egos with them.  Perhaps being accustomed to dealing with what they consider peers – How will your organizational structure respond to an aggressive employee that brought their ego with them – AND – may be a productive employee in one regard, but present challenges in another as they seek to reclaim a life that has since passed (at least in the interim)?

I could go on-and-on about the challenges that HR and other organizational leaders will face: These challenges will include professionals coming out of functional roles that they may have worked in for ten years or greater and adjusting their skill-sets and talents to roles that may require greater technical competence and less managerial skills in the short term.  How is your organization prepared to deal with these employees?

The answer may be in what I call Succession-Career Planning 2.0 and take my word, it will not be a handful of employees, but millions of people when all is said and done.  The challenge for all business professionals in all sectors is to be prepared to welcome these employees, leverage their talents consistent with strategic and tactical objectives, and assess individual needs consistent with organizational requirements.  Sounds easy?!  It will be one of the greatest challenges we will face as HR professionals.  And if you think succession planning is lip service now and are frustrated by leadership’s casual interest in the concept – just wait.  It will be even more challenging and the result may result in lost productivity, under-utilized talent, decreased (or increased) morale, increased (or decreased) cost per-hire, and training challenges.

Your ‘New Economy Survival Employee’ in many cases is going to want to set the world on fire – perhaps.  In other cases, he or she may just be along for the ride looking for something new.  Now is not the time to gloss over the fact, but to plan now for the long-term impact this may have on your organization.  This subject of course is worthy of it’s own work and I am confident that in addition to myself, many other business professionals and HR researchers, consultants, and professionals will write works, observe/share best practices, and excite leadership with the perils and possibilities that will come.  I, for one, am researching and interviewing both employees and leadership that are experiencing this – so more to follow.  However, here are some quick things to think about (and perhaps act upon) now in this new order:

1) Evaluate your recruiting function: Because we find ourselves in a “new world order” operating under “old economy” rules, many competent professionals whose talents, skills, abilities, and competencies will be left out.  On the other side (and extreme), there will be professionals that possess impressive professional backgrounds and credentials, eager to work.

2) Plan for the Career Ladder:  Even if you think the “survival employee” may only be with your company in the short run as he or she gets “back on their feet;” my prediction is that many of these employees will see a challenge.  What are your plans for a highly competent professional that takes a “survival job,” in the short term?  Are you poised to offer a career path?  Is the career path realistic?  Can you engage this hire, so that they see the value in both the short and long-term?

3) Prepare for the Generational-Economic Cross Divide:  Here is where your college intern turn manager and/or your young superstar is managing, in greater numbers, older and accomplished professionals.  What leadership skills are you equipping your young leaders with, so that they are “set up for success?”  How will they handle the new, former superstar that not only may be looking at their supervisor’s job, but beyond.  It’s a common occurrence that will become more common and your young leaders must be able to deal with these employees that will come in greater numbers – and will be hired.

4) Drilling-Down Succession Planning:  The biggest weakness and challenges of succession planning, in my opinion is that not only is it not executed near the levels as we are fascinated with the concept, but it does not go deep enough.  Your new, former high-success/high power superstar, entry-level “survival employee” is going to want a road map – especially if they like their jobs.  The competitive nature and stability in which they seek from their career/job will force you (hopefully) to not only “shore-up” your succession planning, but perhaps go-deeper into the organization to find your next high-pos.

5) Organizational Culture Meet Organizational Discovery.  Have your leadership and front-line supervisors discuss the possibilities for the organization in both the short and long-term for the “survival employee.”  What will be the new perception of not only an older employee – the ground work and law stands as a guide in that case – but, for the older, experienced and highly credential employee within your organization?  Will there be a supportive, firm, stable, inclusive environment in which the “survival employee” can perform?  How about an employee that meets all the aforementioned criteria and is perhaps moving from a middle marketing position to entry-level/mid-level, non-managerial administrative support position?

In the end, the challenges and opportunities, as previously mentioned, are too great for a single post.  Yet, it is something that we should think about.  Many already know that I view the current concept of Talent Management and the accompanying Succession Planning with a slight distaste because in the end, it does not go far or deep enough. So however you want to term it is not the issue – just how far you will go to take advantage of the new workforce that will be left as a result of the economic fallout (or crises if you’re real doom and gloom) should start with you.

Don’t blink.

Any middle-ground has no significant impact.  Many of us can personally attest to this research in the real world as  organizations either put the thumb on us as merely daily tacticians or those that let us flourish.  Here is a time for us to flourish. Before revealing the Five Activities that we, as HR professionals, should be considering-undertaking, I want to share this observation:  A serious lack of judgment, conscious or not, is occurring each and every day amongst us as HR professionals that has potential dire consequences (or at least significant) to our organizations, which can set-up our organizations (and ourselves) up for failure – in some areas. As reported in the January issues of HRMag, EEOC complaints are up, training budgets are down, and complaints will be thrown our way from every angle from recruiting to talent management to outplacement and employee assistance.  These complaints will continue to rise in my view for a couple of compelling reasons: Displaced professionals are frustrated; organizations are forced to deliver on service-product quality while in many cases reducing their workforces, and employees are tense, angry, and maybe feel guilty about surviving when family members are being laid off/”right-sized”.  Of course the phrase: “It’s that dang HR function!” should be ringing in your head, for it surely will come from the mouths of many.

What can we do during these times?  Here are 5 activities that I recommend:

1) Know the business strategy and short-term plans, and how HR impacts its functional counterparts in achieving the objectives of strategic-tactical (survival) planning.  Depending on your level in the organization, the depth of your access may be limited, but at the very least find out what you can.  The reason that this is so important is because this is where you can start to develop or refine your organizational HR goals and strategies to meet our current economic climate. And no matter the function, it is going to involve, in some way, the organizational workforce.  Your relevant access to the business short term-tactical and long-term strategic goals can insure that you remain abreast of the HR/organizational opportunities, threats, strengths, and weaknesses with a goal of being engaged and poised to answer: “What does this mean to our workforce?”  Be prepared to partner with all of your key functional counterparts.  Keep your thought process strategic, yet focused.  The end-result of this goal is to think about what it means to the existing and potential workforce.

2) Review Organizational Job Requirements/Job Description: I have “tweeted” this with my fellow HR professionals.  I sincerely believe that a good number of EEOC/AA/ADA lawsuits will originate because of unclear or irrelevant job descriptions that are not BFOQ for the organizational positions – a gap between KSAs required for the position versus an idealistic interpersonal candidate based upon personal perceptions and “wish list” skills.  The intentions are noble on the surface: Receive a qualified pool of applicants with an ideal skill set in a local labor market; however, the end result is going to be litigation in many cases – I can assure you.  What you can do is ensure that your line manager counterparts adhere to job requirements, so as not to be blindsided by frustrated employees/potential employees that will challenge the job requirements as being essential.  Do not think for one second that your organization will not be challenged during these challenging times.  Instead, expect it and be proactive.  The precedents of organizations that ignored this are of course beyond the scope of this post, but conduct your own research, reviewing SC,  CC, or even your own organization’s legal cases for those that ignored this activity at their own peril.

3) Review and Participate in Your Organization’s Outplacement/Employee Assistance Program Services.  Whether this is an internal function or outsourced, you need to take the time to participate or observe your organizational outplacement and employee assistance program services.  There is a flurry of HR legislation that is going unnoticed (or not being noticed enough) because our plates our full.  Ensure that transitioning employees are aware of legislation that impacts their benefits to include recent amendments do the FMLA and ADAAA.  Also insure that you (or the person you designate) personally observe these critical services as if you are receiving the benefit of the information provided.  Are job search strategies reflective of the latest trends?  Are you conducting robust mock job interviews?  Are employees aware of the hidden job market?  In addition, evaluate to see that information being provided reflect recent changes that have impacted benefits, for example HIPAA and COBRA.  Keep a keen eye on individuals that may fit the new broader definition of an individual with a “disability”.  Finally, what transition coping skills are your assistance and outplacement services providing?  Are alternatives to current career paths being discussed?  The list can go on-and-on, but you get my point.

4) Ensure that succession-replacement planning IS REALLY initiated and/or continues.  Succession planning is well understood in concept yet practiced very little in execution.  If there was ever a need to execute a robust and well-thought out succession plan, now is the time.  Succession planning is not about trying to make your plan fit in an HRIS requirements-delivery structure within COTS/SaaS modules.  It is about insuring your organization has a plan to develop internal talent to meet future HC requirements projected to deliver on strategic objectives – remember HRIS is the enabler not the driver.  That’s it.  It’s not as complicated as many make it out in theory.  Yet, it does involve work (serious work).  It requires that we know the business plan of our organization and take a hard look at our internal talent pool and formulate ways “to grow the workforce” to meet the requirements of our organization.  What I challenge each HR professional involved in this process to do (or at least think about) is – dig deeper than the top tier.  Our new economy will force people out of their comfort zone to stay competitive.  If we take a moment to unearth the benefits to our organizations by developing robust succession plans that reach deep into the organization, we build loyalty and create (or at least stabilize) buy-in.  When the workforce sees/feels/observes their organizations developing and nurturing their skill-set to meet organizational requirements – well, let’s just say there is enough empirical evidence to support the impact on productivity and reduction of involuntary turnover.

5) Review organizational training-development planning. We, as HR professionals, are well aware that a workforce reduction does not equate to sacrificing quality and customer service thus training and developing the workforce should still be at the top of your list, making the case for this common “HR Driver” to be put under thorough review.  Too many organizational leaders make the argument that fiscal disbursement will be focused on key activities and line managers (and us in our eagerness to ensure we are seen as “business oriented”), get to cutting without a through review of how the cuts will impact on the very thing we are trying to deliver in most cases – efficient and effective customer service and/or increased readiness to stakeholders.  The step to remember here is for us to measure the impact of a training reduction in quantifiable measures and costs.  If cutting a program outweighs the benefit of the training taking place, then it should be considered for discontinuation in the short term.  If however, the benefit of the training received outweighs the benefit of discontinuing training then the case must be made to senior leadership to possibly continue the training.  As obvious as this may sound, many of us do the tried and true method of cutting training across the board, often handicapping development and training activities that will see us through these lean times.  Yes, it requires work and does have to be stated within a business context, but this is one of our many exciting roles: To ensure that critical training is conducted in innovative, cost-effective methods despite (yet keenly aware) of the economic climate.  There are several innovative ways to deliver training that you keep that one may want to consider (again beyond the scope of this post).  A couple – I can’t help myself  on something this important – worth mentioning that can increase confidence and build buy-in: Appoint internal consultants to conduct training  where outsourcing may have occurred OR designate that core training be updated employing innovative collaboration tools (Wikipedia style) via peer platforming.  There are several ways to keep it cost effective, but on the table if need be. In the end, these activities are not all inclusive or exclusive.

The point of this post is to ensure that we are continually thinking from a business context, both in the short and long-term, about ways to increase our organizational effectiveness within the stark reality of our current economic climate .  Next, we must remain proactive and take the value to the organization vice our counterparts or supervisors requesting that we “show them the money.”  Take advantage of this challenging time to ensure that we, as HR professionals, continue to shine.

Of course I laughed it off and just thought that his analytical skill set and thought process just wanted black-and-white and binary rule set data that made it all digestible and easy for decision-making.  However, as I progress through subsequent assignments and conduct interviews and conversations with other business professionals and HR leaders, I have come to realize that he had a point.  Specifically, during one meeting, I sat and listened to a senior HR leader explain to me that the company’s goal was to “align the workforce to meet the strategic initiatives of strategic planning so that they could deliver on organizational objectives.”  I thought to myself – huh?  Are you not the face of senior leadership representing the most valued asset of the organization and that’s the answer you are providing?

Now don’t get me wrong.  There is nothing wrong with being able to communicate in contemporary, relevant, common language that can be shared with other professionals internal and external to the organization.  However, to explain to someone who is trying to get to ground truth (with concurrence) in such abstract terms leads to one conclusion: You have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you know what you are talking about?  Can you state in concrete terms what your organizational strategic goals are where it makes sense to anyone listing.  If you communicate like the example I just gave above, I will answer that question for you: You may know, but only you know that you may know.

Allow me to provide an example of concrete strategic objectives in plain language: “Our goal is to reduce involuntary turnover by 30% over the course of the next five years by improving our sourcing-recruiting functions, improve our talent management processes by leveraging our existing succession-replacement planning and improving our knowledge management capturing through the use of HRIM/S technology currently deployed to support the organization’s goal of shaping a workforce to sustain attrition due to retirement eligibility and improve time-to-market for emerging new product lines.”

So if it’s that easy, why don’t more HR professionals communicate in concrete terms?  Because in truth, it is not easy.  It requires us to get our hands dirty and plan the process at the strategic level, while ensuring that we “roll-up sleeves” directly or indirectly at the operational-tactical levels.  Furthermore, we often want to encompass as much as possible thinking that being too specific shows a lack of organizational depth.  Of course mind-mapping, project planning, and cause-and-effect diagramming is fun as we work in a conference room with plenty of water and coffee to keep us awake.  However, to go out and link into our organization’s line functions and know about front-line processes that impact our ability to deliver requires work (of a different sort).  This work is not as “glamorous” or may seem contradictory as we throw elbows at the oft-used phrase “seat at the table.”  As for trying to encompass everything you can to prevent from leaving anything out, here is the rule of any business initiative or goal in execution: If you cannot succinctly define it – it is not defined.

Is there any wonder why heads tilt to the side as you talk to mid-level management about the dashboard view of their divisions and departments when they can’t even get a quiet place to on-board and train their employees?  Is there any wonder why faces bleed with anger as you talk about ERP back-end migration strategies and incremental roll outs when they can’t even get the existing Passport inventory system to properly load data and ensure that accurate inventory arrives JIT?

So in the midst of all our “high level” talk and good intentions, our professional colleagues just want a system that works.  They want enabling technologies to settle, so that they can properly train their employees to use the system without having to worry about an upgrade that is looming around the corner.  Yeah, Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) sounds good in strategic planning sessions, but employees want to know, where is the custom data that they have grown accustomed too.  You are talking hibba-hobba.

It’s important when wearing your change management-change agent hat that you communicate to employees (to include managers and front-line personnel) in terms they understand, value, and relate.  For if you don’t, buy-in is not only hard, it may be a serious barrier to success for successful implementation.  Having worked on my share of change management initiatives, it is not an easy task to incorporate strategic level goals and objectives into concrete language that ties in relevant process; however, our creditability often rests on our ability to do just that.

Many professional may think that “it’s not that serious.”  But if you have been around a while, I want you to think about a couple of questions: How many change management initiatives, goals, processes, policies, etc. have you seen fail?  Now, out of the ones that failed, how many were due to a lack of enabling technology not being able to deliver and/or financial resources-resource allocation not being provided COMPARED TO employees not only not willing understanding, but able to understand (thus execute) and/or the lack of organizational buy-in.

It’s a costly mistake to understate the power of language and communication.