Strategic Workforce Planning (by any name)

Back in 2007 I described leadership development in a speech as “ensuring we have the right people, in the right place, at the right time, and at the right cost, now and years into the future.”  When I coined the phrase, it felt like a winner– very easy to explain and understand.  I still use this description in conversation, and even in recent posts! :)

For a year or two I felt original, then found that several others must have been generating similar ideas and thoughts for years.  The U.S. Department of Interior came up with it in 2001 to describe Workforce Planning (WFP).  The County of Fairfax in Virginia presented “Strategic Workforce Planning” in 2003 – noting at the link that “planning begins with the organization’s strategic plan.”  In 2006 NOAA used the phrase in describing “workforce planning,” considered much more strategic than simply “succession planning.”  The effort was called “One NOAA,” an effort to “develop, value, and sustain a world-class workforce.”  In 2009 GFT used the phrase to describe “flexible resourcing.”

Today, Human Capital Institute, highly regarded in Human Resources circles, offers the SWP certification with this quote:  “Strategic Workforce Planning is the most sought after skill in talent management today….”

Blockers

When I speak about talent management, I describe the work as follows:  talent management is about ensuring the right people are in the right roles at the right time.  It's easy to say - rolls right off the tongue.  However it's very complex, and not so easy to implement.

Most large firms have a formal review of talent at least once per year. A component of this conversation is to discuss individuals in three broad dimensions: performance against goals; behaviors that benefit the individual, team, and firm; and the potential to develop and contribute at a higher level in the organization.

Span of Control

Recently we tackled an organizational design project. This particular project, like most, included determining the appropriate organizational shape.

Organizational shape is exactly what it sounds like – if you're looking at an org chart. People talk about flat organizations, tall organizations, etc. A flat organization is one that has a lot of direct reports for every manager, and a tall one has fewer. If you're staring at an org chart, you can see the difference in the “shape” of the chart, a rough triangle with the head of the organization at the top.

The number of direct reports a manager has is that manager's span of control.

Division of labor

If you've worked with a performance improvement consultant (nod to Geary Rummler, founder of the Performance Design Lab, may he rest in peace) or anyone in the organizational design field, you've probably taken a very close look at how work gets done in the organization.  Here's a term you might come across in one of those conversations:  division of labor.