“Getting strategic” is considered a pretty weighty topic. If you were to go looking for HR strategy consultants who could give you definitive answer about what this all means you would find people who wear suits and look serious. They wouldn’t accept an engagement for less than a bazillion dollars. Their report would be long and contain background data, survey data, long diatribes about how they arrived at their conclusions and a really cool section on how the results are special just for you. Of course most of the results aren’t: it’s canned stuff from previous engagements. But it sure looks impressive and makes you feel good. And you get to put that big report on your shelf, which is kind of a pain when you leave for the next gig, but looks impressive until that time.
I bring this up because I don’t want to mislead anyone about how I am going approach the topic of strategy. Strategy is almost always worthless. Not because the strategy is bad, but because there is usually a huge gap between the strategy and the execution. After you get over all those “boy-am-I-impressed!” warm feelings that the huge document in the cool spiral binding gives you, this little voice starts speaking up in the back of your head. The voice says “Now what?”
Converting strategy into action is hard. But its nothing compared to coming up with ideas that put you and your function in a position where people will actually want your opinion on matters that affect customers. Until you cross that bridge all delusions of adequacy and big plans don’t really count for much. Execution flows from alignment (another topic I will be covering), and it’s hard to get alignment if nobody takes you seriously.
So the first steps we will be taking here are how to change the perception within the organization that HR is a feel-good, glad-handing happy factory that has a Mr. Hyde personality that carries out the CFO’s dirty work. Just getting you to explore the boundaries of what “being strategic” means will be a mission accomplished scenario for me. Maybe you won’t ever do an inside analysis (tomorrow’s post), but the next time you have a meeting with an employee you might start asking bigger questions about the business. It’s a small step, but a worthwhile one.
BTW – If you still want the big report and the good looking kids with the nice clothes, I know some people who are really good at it. I understand that your need may be just to be told you are OK by people who look impressive. That’s a valid personal need. Doesn’t do much for the business, but who am I to judge?
I can't agree totally with your statements on strategy so far. Let me take a few parts:
The traditional media view of strategy being set from on high is only partly accurate. Mintzberg's excellent book 'Strategy Safari' is a great overview of recent strategic thinking. Many models of strategy are based on strategy being set at the front-line in response to changes in the market. Strategy is itself only worthless if you take a narrow definition of strategy and view that the company has no influence on the market.
Your description of a McKinsey view of strategy is misguided. Most consultancies will view stakeholders as the focus, as illuminated by Kaplan. See Strategy Maps for a good overview. Secondly, McKinsey's own 7S model would show that for a long time shareholders have not been their only view. Your comments, however, might be applicable to Mercer and their shareholder value approach.
Companies have strategies. For a department like HR there is an interest in being strategic. I would argue that this is ensuring that departmental approaches are aligned to the company strategy, not strategy in their own right.
Given that I would argue that your view of strategic is not whole. Customer facing staff may ask your decision and take advice yet that advice might not be aligned to the business strategy. In a certain stages of industry maturity the business strategy may focus on cost reduction or leaving a market & therefore the desires of the front-line staff might not in themselves be aligned with the strategy.
Some resourcing initiatives can be described as strategic. Identifying where to build a centre or where to locate a team based on labour market data could be described as strategic. Taking a team from a competitor which a gave dramatic increase in market share might be viewed as strategic if without that hire the market would be difficult to enter.
I'm not arguing that most use of the term strategy in HR is nothing more than misguided, nor am I suggesting that implementation is not more valuable than strategic analysis. What I will through out is that without solid strategic analysis your implementation might be the wrong thing implemented in the right way. The two need to go hand in hand.
I'm sure you're going to address these points in the next few posts & will look forward to those.
Posted by: Andrew Marritt | January 05, 2006 at 02:10 PM