Engaging Line Managers in Workforce Planning
Managers will always support processes that they find valuable—those whose results outweigh the time and effort that the process requires. Usually, many of the managers who are not engaged in the workforce planning process just don’t feel that it helps them to manage more effectively or to meet their day-to-day objectives. These managers may recognize that workforce planning yields some “greater good” or macro-level benefit for the organization as a whole, but they often feel that there is nothing in it for them as individuals. If workforce planning really did help these people to manage more effectively, they would participate in the process willingly. However, traditional workforce planning processes often waste managers’ time by asking them do things and provide data that are simply not valuable or required. Here are just a few examples:
Workforce planning processes routinely require managers to “forecast” staffing requirements too far into the future—beyond any time frame where those estimates can be realistic or useful. This forces managers to provide forecasts that at best are guesses, just to fill in the blanks on a form. Ask an IT manager (or any manager in a unit where technology is changing rapidly) how confident she is about estimates of staffing requirements three to five years in the future, and just how valuable staffing plans based on those estimates might be. The answer you will get will probably be “not very.” Yet these long-term estimates are often included in many workforce planning processes. The time that managers spend on these meaningless forecasts is simply wasted, and any workforce or staffing plans based on those forecasts cannot be valuable.
When implementing workforce planning, HR often asks managers to analyze all positions in the process, including those for which longer-term staffing strategies and workforce plans are just not warranted or valuable. Creating long-term staffing strategies for positions where simple short-term staffing plans are more than adequate represents time lost and effort wasted—more reason for managers to shun the process.
HR sometimes tries to “sell” managers on workforce planning by telling them that the process will be helpful to the organization as a whole in the long term. Yet organizations usually hold managers primarily accountable for achieving shorter-term objectives for their specific units. This causes at least some managers to see workforce planning as a corporate responsibility that does not affect their ability to manage their units effectively in any appreciable way. They feel that they are not rewarded at all for doing what they are asked to do in this area; in fact, the time needed to do it must be taken from some other activity that they do value. Consequently, they see no direct, personal benefit or value in participating in the workforce planning process. For some of these managers, workforce planning becomes a task that they just want to get off their desks as quickly as possible with as little effort as possible.
You must convince managers that the workforce planning process is indeed valuable—that each of them will benefit from the process in ways that exceed the time and effort they must expend to participate in it. But you won’t be able to gain their cooperation and support by making an inappropriate workforce planning process more efficient. It is not a matter of reducing the work or the time needed to complete forms or baseless forecasts, nor of finding a system or software that will greatly facilitate the gathering of meaningless data. Instead, you must greatly increase the effectiveness of the workforce planning processes that you implement, so that managers see and realize tangible benefits. What changes must you make to develop and implement workforce planning processes that are truly effective?
The answer to these questions is, at least in part, “workforce planning at 30,000 feet”—the hybrid approach to workforce planning that is described in Chapter 6. With this approach, companies mandate workforce planning processes that have common approaches and parameters up to a point (i.e., the 30,000-foot level), but allow managers flexibility in how they develop, implement, and apply workforce planning below that level. This approach ensures that workforce plans are developed in a consistent way across the organization, yet allows managers to tailor the process so that the workforce plans they create address what they perceive to be their most critical staffing needs.
Implementing the following four solutions within the context of the 30,000-foot approach will ensure that workforce planning is effective and that managers will value the process and its output.
Solution 1: Explain to managers that the new approach to workforce planning (including the redefined objective) will help them manage more effectively right now. If we define the objective of workforce planning to be “avoiding future staffing problems,” we are in effect asking managers to expend time and resources now to help their future successors—something that they may be less willing to do. On the other hand, if we define the objective of the process to be allowing the organization to make effective decisions right now, managers themselves will realize some direct, immediate benefits from participating in the workforce planning process. Managers will obviously be more willing to support a process that they perceive as helping them to meet their own performance objectives (as opposed to those of their successors).
When done effectively, the workforce planning process provides both longer-term staffing strategies (describing how staff needs are best met across planning periods) and staffing plans (defining specifically what should be done to meet staffing needs in any given planning period). Explain to managers that by taking these two components together, they will be able to define the most effective, efficient near-term staffing plans possible (within the context of longer-term staffing strategies).
Solution 2: Define an overall direction for workforce planning, but do not force managers to use a particular approach. While a common direction is usually helpful, not all components of the workforce planning process need to be exactly the same and applied consistently across an organization unit. Provide managers with some high-level commonality, but allow them the flexibility they need to tailor a particular approach beneath that 30,000-foot level.
Your common, overall direction for strategic staffing/workforce planning should include:
A clear understanding that workforce planning is a management accountability. Before you worry about the process, make sure that all managers understand that they will be held accountable for identifying and addressing the staffing implications of their strategies and plans (in both the long and the short term) on an ongoing basis. Also, make sure that managers have the skills and understanding needed to do this effectively.
A consistent definition of the process. Define for managers (from an overall/overview perspective) what the workforce planning process is (e.g., defining and addressing the staffing implications of business plans and strategies) and what its expected results are (e.g., both long-term staffing strategies and short-term staffing plans). However, do not define the process in detail or specify exactly how managers must implement it. Of course, you may wish to provide and support a suggested process that managers may choose to use if they have no alternative method of their own.
Mandated output, but not process. Hold managers accountable for identifying critical staffing issues and for developing and defining the staffing strategies and plans that will address those critical issues most effectively. However, don’t force them to use a particular “one size-fits-all” process to accomplish that. If managers can achieve the expected results using a workforce planning process that is different from the one developed corporately, let them. On the other hand, be prepared to help them implement the suggested approach to workforce planning should they want to use that method.
Developing corporate staffing strategies only where absolutely necessary. Strategic approaches to staffing are absolutely required for some staffing issues—but not all staffing issues. Don’t waste managers’ time and resources by forcing them to spend time creating corporatewide staffing plans where such plans really are not required. Workforce planning addresses critical staffing issues; don’t assume that there needs to be one coordinated, integrated “plan” that addresses all the staffing issues a company is facing.
Solution 3: Allow managers to tailor the process to better meet their needs. While the organization’s direction and objectives must be common among units, process need not be. At the detail level, don’t implement a single approach to workforce planning or force consistency for consistency’s sake. Instead, allow managers the flexibility that they need to develop and implement the staffing strategies and plans that they think address their most critical staffing issues most effectively. This might include:
Developing “issue-oriented,” not “unit-oriented,” staffing strategies and plans. Make sure that managers develop the staffing strategies and plans that they need in order to address critical issues, but do not ask them to develop strategies and plans for their organization unit as a whole.
Allowing managers to identify the staffing issues that they think are most critical. Let managers choose which staffing issues warrant the time and effort required to apply the workforce planning process. Don’t force them to apply the process everywhere or to address staffing issues that they just don’t think require a strategic perspective.
Letting managers identify the jobs to be included in the process address each issue. Not all jobs are so critical that they should be included in a truly strategic workforce planning process. Because workforce planning requires a lot of time and effort on the part of managers, maximize the effectiveness of that time and effort by allowing managers to focus solely on those positions that require such a high level of scrutiny that comprehensive workforce planning is, in their minds, warranted.
Allowing managers to define critical planning parameters. Different units will be facing staffing issues that have different rates of change and levels of detail. While mandating a long-term view, don’t define what the length of that view needs to be. For some units that are facing rapidly changing conditions, “long term” might be 18 months; in other areas facing less change, “long term” might be three to five years. Also, don’t try to set one level of detail to be used by all units. In an IT area, for example, a small number of particular technical skills may adequately define staffing requirements, while a longer list of more generic management competencies might be appropriate at senior levels in another part of the organization.
Solution 4: Provide resources, tools, and support that managers find helpful. Don’t just tell managers what to do. Instead, provide them with whatever tools and resources might help them to understand workforce planning better and implement the process most effectively. Here are some specific suggestions:
Clearly show what you think the workforce planning process should look like. While not holding them to a particular approach, provide managers with a fully developed version of a workforce planning process that they can choose to implement if they wish to identify critical staffing issues and develop the staffing strategies and plans that best address those issues.
Provide tools and support that are consistent with the approach you are suggesting. Develop and widely distribute the tools, templates, forms, and other resources that managers might need to support their workforce planning efforts. This might include process outlines and diagrams, spreadsheets that can be used to define staffing gaps and surpluses, completed examples of staffing strategies and plans, workbooks and resource guides, and easy access to workforce planning web sites. However, don’t mandate that managers use these resources (e.g., that they have to fill out a particular form). Let managers use any resources that they feel are necessary and helpful. Do provide ongoing, tailored internal consulting help that directly supports workforce planning, regardless of the specific process that a manager is using.
Involve managers in staffing strategy development. Don’t expect that HR should be solely accountable for developing staffing strategies and plans across an organization. Instead, have managers work with HR business partners or functional staff to develop staffing strategies and define staffing plans. Involving managers in this aspect of the process ensures that the solutions that are developed are appropriate for each unit and increases the chances that those managers will actually support and implement those solutions.
Provide customized support. Where feasible, work with individual managers to provide the specific support that they need. Some may need help identifying critical issues, but no help at all in developing staffing strategies and plans for addressing those issues. Others will be able to identify the issues, but may need help in implementing workforce planning to address those issues. Still others might need assistance in the more quantitative aspects of workforce planning, such as calculating staffing gaps and surpluses. Whatever assistance is needed, keep the focus on addressing critical staffing issues, not on following a given process by rote. HR business partners, functional leads, and workforce planning staff can all help provide this service.
In summary, never ask managers to participate in an ineffective workforce planning process. Garner their support by implementing workforce planning processes that address the staffing issues that they find most critical. Strike the right balance between “common” and “tailored.” By implementing the four solutions given here, an organization will develop workforce plans that are adequately consistent in approach and output to address those staffing issues whose solutions span units. Yet by allowing for tailoring of the process—and thus ensuring that the value of managers’ time and effort is maximized—you will produce workforce plans that are effective and realistic. This will ensure that you will engage managers willingly and directly in the process, instead of dragging them along kicking and screaming!