Showing posts with label values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label values. Show all posts

Wednesday, 27 November 2013

What is the ideal workforce make-up for the Public Sector?

Every Public Sector organisation across the world is facing the same challenges caused by the current tough economic climate, which means that - as part of wider organisational considerations such as property assets and reducing duplication - workforce make-up is crucial in helping Public Sector organisations to become adaptable/agile and survive economic pressures.
 
Public Sector organisations need to become more aware of the types of employees they employ, including those who can best support the adaptability and transformation needs the organisation needs to consider in becoming more efficient and leaner, and those who are able to help the organisation manage the peaks and troughs of demand, and all this without negatively impacting on service delivery and local economic growth. 
 
There is a trend which has been set by some Public Sector bodies in London in working with Private Sector giants for both back office and community facing service delivery. These giants however face the same challenges as any Public Sector body in managing peaks and troughs. And they have an extra challenge, and that is 'winning business' of other Public Sector bodies in order to achieve local efficiencies through collaboration and partnership working. The question is however: 'Are Private Sector giants best-placed or even interested in supporting local collaborations and partnerships? Plus are they themselves agile and flexible enough to negotiate the same tough economy as faced by the Public Sector?'
 
The answer to sustainability and continuity of high-quality service delivery may be closer to home than first thought, namely the (often hidden) strengths of the Public Sector workforce. Public Sector workforces are often made up of people who live locally, who have worked in the Public Sector for some time and who are willing to be contributors and creators of a stronger local future for all. A great source of local knowledge and strengths!
 
The key is taking time to analyse the perfect workforce make-up for your organisation!
 
There are three types of employee status I would like to highlight in this blog:
  • The 'permanent' workforce - Many organisations perceive this type of workforce to be ideal as they undoubtedly work hard and have extensive internal knowledge. They are also willing to work to organisational rules, policies and procedures. In reality this type of employee will only reluctantly offer challenge to something which could be improved upon out as they worry they might lose their job and are mostly driven by job security, stability, money and/or status. These drivers often mean the permanent workforce are less resilient to organisational change/transformation and some may even (wittingly or unwittingly) sabotage transformation initiatives due to lack of objectivity.

    It is noticeable that organisations who employ high numbers of permanent staff often have to resort to expensive and highly disruptive staff restructures in order to continuously improve and evolve. Moving staff around based on strengths rather than job descriptions is difficult as traditional contracts and consultation policies make it time consuming to change hierarchical management structures. The result is often the creation of more bureaucracy and higher complexity of decision-making processes, slowing down and at times paralysing transformation initiatives and service delivery.
  •  
  • The 'free agent' workforce - This type of workforce has two subcategories. The internal free agent aka the intrapreneur, or the external free(lance) agents aka the entrepreneur. Both are highly committed to creating efficiencies and sustainability by breaking hierarchical silo mentalities. They are self-driven and on the whole take responsibility for their own learning and performance. They are less driven by job security, stability and status, and are not concerned about working themselves out of a job as they enjoy variety and more likely to work from the principle of empowerment of others (the 'teach a person to fish, ...' principle) which means they can step away. The intrapreneurs are often perceived as 'disruptive' by traditional managers as they challenge the status quo and act outside of their job descriptions.

    In case of the external freelancer, it has been noted that organisations often invite back employees who have worked for them in the past. This may be perceived as expensive by permanent employees, however this is a myth. Freelance staff, while they may be more expensive in relation to pay, actually save organisations a lot of time and money by being a highly flexible workforce, which mitigates the need for costly and highly disruptive restructure programmes. Freelancers bring an objectivity to transformation programmes which require tough decisions which are likely affect the organisational structure, its corporate centre controls and its workforce, and as such help drive the transformation forward. Organisations are better able to attract and where needed switch off knowledge and skills based on fluctuating demand. 

Given the economic pressures and the need to encourage more local economic growth I would argue that the ideal workforce for any Public Sector organisation who seriously needs to consider 'downsizing' is to identify and work with its internal Free Agents, but also with local external Free(lance) Agents. Internally Free Agents make for a highly flexible and resilient workforce and using local Free(lance) Agents utilises local strengths and knowledge, engages citizens into local action for a better future and supports the local economy.
 
So what is your organisation's ideal workforce make-up for surviving tough economic times?

Thursday, 4 July 2013

Innovation Series - Are you asking the right questions to help you innovate & future-proof your business?

In an uncertain world it is more important to be outcome-focussed. Why?

Here is a simple metaphor that hopes to shine a light on the difference between engaging stakeholders using solution-driven (aka output-driven) and outcomes-driven (aka values-driven) questions.

Two identical ice cream vendors have noticed that over the past year they have been losing customers. They both want to learn from their customers what they can improve. 

The first vendor opts to ask its customers solution-driven questions:

- Do you like the ice cream in our products?
- Do you like the texture of our cones?
- Do you like the chocolate sauce?
- Did the flake meet your needs?

Following analysis of the seemingly positive feedback, the first vendor tweaks their product based on their customer feedback and continues to sell ice cream. Over the next year they continue to loose customers.

The second vendor asks its customers outcomes-driven questions:

- How can we improve our product based on our commitment to offer you (our customers) something refreshing closer to home?

From the feedback, the second vendor learns that his customers have become more health-conscious. He researches new healthier product lines, such as yoghurt ice cream, smoothies & fruit salads, and transforms his business model to reach more customers. The business is growing from strength to strength. 

Where's the difference?

The first vendor has made the assumption that ice cream is what their customers want to continue to purchase and have failed to learn that more and more of their customers are becoming more health conscious. 

The second vendor has approached the problem from a completely different perspective and as such - with the right type of question - has invited his customers to help him transform (and sustain) his business for the future.

Did you ever think that questions could be that important?