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.

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.