An Example: Part 2

As the generic, focused approach to workforce planning was being rolled out, several senior managers still thought that some form of the process should be implemented for all positions, not just critical staffing issues. These managers felt that this type of process was needed, if only to help managers plan for and justify budgeted staff headcounts. Some approach to doing this had to be developed that would not have a negative impact on the issue-focused approach to workforce planning that had already been developed.

A good compromise approach was created and implemented. A form of workforce planning would be implemented for all positions, but the focus and objectives of that process would differ significantly from those of a more traditional approach to workforce planning. Instead of being used to define specific staffing actions, this more general process would simply require managers to identify planned staffing requirements and headcount changes at a “macro” (e.g., organization unit) level and come to one of two conclusions:

• Those headcount changes could be implemented fully by relying solely on “normal,” readily available HR processes (e.g., the recruiting and development practices that were available on an ongoing basis).

• The changes were more significant, and so the focused approach to workforce planning (described earlier) should be applied to create tailored, more strategic solutions (e.g., staffing strategies and staffing plans). These solutions might involve normal HR practices, specifically developed staffing strategies and plans, or some combination of the two.

Once each manager had defined the required headcount changes and determined whether normal HR practices or the more focused workforce planning methodology was required, the results were “rolled up” to the next level. The manager at that next level would review the work of the subordinate, approve headcount changes, and verify which approach to workforce planning would be required. If the manager had questions (or did not agree with the subordinate’s conclusions), then the work was passed back to the originator and a consensus reached.

Again, this approach proved to be another good application of workforce planning at 30,000 feet. An organization-wide approach was in fact created, but this approach did not call for performing gap analyses and defining specific, required staffing actions; instead, it was used only to verify headcount changes (i.e., approve headcount requirements) and determine “next steps” regarding the need for a more detailed approach to workforce planning.