If that does not work, try to at least get the opportunity to implement the process on a limited basis (e.g., to address one staffing issue that you all agree is critical). Use that example to demonstrate what an effective process looks like and show them the realistic, implementable plans that result.

If this approach is falling on deaf ears, do a bit of an end run. Find a line manager who is facing a critical staffing issue and pitch the process to that person. Get that manager to want to implement workforce planning. That will make it difficult for other HR staff to say no. Make sure that you involve that manager’s HR business partner, but do it in a way that allows you the opportunity to discuss the issue and present the process to the manager with the issue—don’t try to “dress up” the business partner to meet with the manager in your stead.

One last point on this subject: Not too long ago, I was hired by the head of strategic planning to implement an effective workforce planning process for his organization. The “work team” included that manager, the heads of each of the operating divisions of the company, and the most senior HR person. The businesspeople on the team loved my focused approach. The HR representative was convinced that it would not work and tried to get the team to implement a traditional, one-size-fits-all process. When she was unable to do that, she left the team, sure that the project would fail. It turned out to be one of the most effective projects of my career.

One other caution: While it might be possible, it may not be a good idea to make a big announcement regarding the implementation of a new approach to workforce planning and then roll out that process on an issue-by-issue basis (as I recommend). The announcement will create far more demand for workforce planning (and related HR staff support) than you will be able to handle. You might consider not making a general announcement at all. Instead, build a workforce planning capability and share it with individual line managers who are facing critical staffing issues to which workforce planning applies—on a case-by-case basis. I sometimes tell clients to think about the creation of a workforce planning capability as if it were a “skunk works” during World War II. For example, the best bombsights were invented, designed, and prototyped by small teams working out of individual garages. When the product was perfected, production was transferred to a larger manufacturing facility and the new product was installed on new bombers as they rolled off the line. There was no big announcement—just a new, very effective capability that was developed in secret and rolled out on an as-needed basis. Sound familiar?

As for the one-size-fits-all approach, convince the management team that various job categories require different planning parameters and thus different models. Again, use the IT versus management depth example in Chapter 4. That example demonstrates that at least the planning horizon (if not other planning parameters) for those two staffing issues needs to be different. Also, consider implementing a version of “workforce planning at 30,000 feet” (see Chapter 6) on an organization-wide basis, thus giving managers the flexibility they need to identify critical staffing issues and develop staffing strategies and plans at a level of detail that makes sense to them.

You can also use strategic staffing to define your diversity goals initially or to ensure that any goals that you have already set are realistic (i.e., that they can actually be attained within the time horizons that were set). Again, use your staffing model to determine the number of openings (opportunities) that are expected in each planning period. When you are setting goals for the first time, determine how many of those opportunities can realistically be allocated to diversity candidates and then calculate a target that reflects this number (e.g., the new ratio of diversity candidates to total incumbents). Calculate the representation that would result if you were to allocate the maximum number of anticipated opportunities to diversity candidates. Compare this number to the goal that exists. In many cases, diversity goals that have been set outside the staffing process cannot be met—even if every anticipated opportunity is allocated to a diversity candidate. If your stated goals exceed the number you just calculated, you will need to either define a more aggressive approach (e.g., adding positions for diversity purposes) or reduce your diversity objectives to levels that are realistically attainable.

There is one component of the process in which the law of large numbers may apply, however. When you estimate voluntary turnover, you typically forecast a rate and apply that rate to the population in question. For example, if a job category includes 40 staff and the turnover rate is 5 percent, you would probably estimate that 2 staff would leave voluntarily during the period (i.e., 0.05 times 40 equals 2). But what if there were only 4 staff in that category? How would you account for a loss of just two-tenths of a person (i.e., 0.05 times 4 equals 0.2)? In cases like these, where the population in any cell of your model is small, voluntary turnover rates won’t apply and different assumptions regarding turnover must be made.

First, try to identify the root cause of their resistance. Some managers feel that quantitative models are solely tactical and should not be part of a strategic approach. Others may resist implementing the quantitative component of the planning process just so that they cannot be held accountable for meeting or not meeting their staffing goals. This is a difficult issue to address. It is unlikely that you will be successful if you confront the managers who feel this way; instead, emphasize all the positive reasons why strategic staffing must be both qualitative and quantitative in nature.

Show these managers that it is extremely difficult to implement plans that are solely qualitative in nature. Qualitative plans lack scope, and without some measure of scope, the best solution cannot be defined. If there is a skills gap, for example, the best solution if there were 5 anticipated openings would clearly be different from the best solution if there were 500 such openings. Chapter 19 expands on this thought.

Another reason to include a quantitative component is so that progress can be measured. Suppose that your organization needs more people (with qualitative plans, we can be no more specific than that) in quality engineering, and we hire five such people. How well are we doing in meeting our need? Clearly, it is impossible to tell. Defining staffing needs in quantitative terms allows you to determine just how much progress you are actually making. Hiring five when you need six in total tells one story; hiring five when you need a hundred tells an entirely different story.

There is one last reason for including quantitative analysis in your strategic staffing process. Ironically, this reason tends to be one of the major impediments to implementing a quantitative approach. Defining needs in quantitative terms and evaluating progress against those goals allows you to hold managers specifically accountable for meeting staffing needs and implementing staffing plans. Without quantitative measures, it will be impossible to do this. In some (hopefully rare) cases, managers will realize this.