Thursday, 28 November 2019

For Love or Money 2: Changing Requirements of Staff




I've had a chapter included in MuseumEtc's book on reward, 'For Love or Money': Re-engineering the Way Museums Work, writing as an associate of Barker Langham.

However, I would hope the content will be relevant for people working in other sectors too.


This is part 2 of the chapter. Part 1 on the changing context of work was here: http://strategic-hcm.blogspot.com/2019/11/for-love-or-money-1-changing-context-work.html.



Changing Requirements of Staff

Managing staff more smartly is also more important because the expectations of the workforce in many areas of the world have changed. People want and increasingly demand a sense of purpose and meaning from their employment as well as connection with others in the workforce. Employers in all sectors already need to respond to this demand and this will become an absolute requirement if we ever see the widespread introduction of something like universal basic income. This will mean that people have a more realistic opportunity to take on work that they want to, rather than have to do and will potentially provide a significant opportunity for employers like museums working in the creative economy.

People also want more flexibility, often including the need to work part vs full time, to work at home, and increasingly to work for multiple organisations as freelancers, or by developing ‘side hussles’ on top of their main employment. Importantly, these expectations are not limited to generation Y / Z or their global equivalents, eg China’s post-80’s, but are increasingly expressed by people of any age.

Organisations therefore need to focus on meeting these workforce needs as well as their business and customer ones. Sometimes this can be quite easy. For example museums often need project based staff to design exhibitions and this short-term focus often fits the aspirations of people who want to work in this role.

Similarly, museums’ increasing need for flexibility often means they need to get work done by temporary employees, contract or ‘gig’ workers, and consultants. This contingent workforce is an increasingly common addition to the traditional organisation. For example, as shown in the above figure, Charles Handy’s shamrock organisation model (Handy, 1995) now needs to be considered to have four constituent parts (or leaves):

   A core workforce with specific skills and a high alignment with a museum’s mission and domain who want a long-term relationship with the museum. The core workforce may include curators, conservators etc, but also front of house / visitor experience staff where excellent as opposed to average performance, for example by offering and personalising explanations on exhibits, can make a huge difference to customer experience.

   A contract workforce of key talent who do not fit the above profile but are still really important for the museum’s future. Handy suggests this may include people who have previously been employed by the organisation. Web designers and other digital staff may also fall within this category.

   A peripheral workforce who will probably be employees rather than gig workers, but who may bring a ‘gig mindset’ (McConnell, 2018) to their work, meaning that they are more focused on their own development and career rather than loyalty to their current and short-term employment. This workforce segment will include staff working in generic functions such as Finance and Marketing as well as areas like security and food and beverage if these are not outsourced.

   The additional leaf provided by the contingent workforce of gig workers and other short-term contributors. This group could include people working in a range of different areas but where it is easier and more effective to rent rather than own capability. As opposed to the contract group, these staff will not generally provide a strategic differentiation and this means they may need to be managed with rather more focus on efficiency.


Each of these different workforce segments have different requirements and expectations and will need to be treated differently, though to the same extent in terms of the relative quality of the approach.

Meeting each of these segment’s needs can also be fairly easy as the flexibility required by an organisation often relates to the flexibility desired by individual staff. However, the challenge is often in matching the two. For example Glassdoor reviews from staff on UK’s zero hour contracts, show a significant difference in perspective depending on whether these arrangements have been designed to meet employees’ as well as the employer’s needs (Ingham, 2015). In addition, staff need to be participants in the design of the flexibility to ensure it really does meet their needs.

Organisations also need to focus on providing suitable integration between these workforce categories in order to avoid tensions between them (McIlvane, 2019), as has been reported recently at Google (Wong, 2018).

Other ways of meeting the workforce’s new expectations include providing more involvement in the core domain of the museum. For many staff, this will be a core reason that they work in the sector and most museums could make much more out of this alignment than they do, maximising the opportunities for intrinsic as well as just extrinsic motivation. For example, museums could develop internal communities enabling staff to contribute outside of their specific job areas.

The role of volunteers in many museums shows the potential provided by people who want to contribute to a museum’s cause, separate to any financial compensation for doing so. A good example here is the London Transport Museum which has a large volunteer workforce, including roles which might usually be standard paid positions, including research, IT, helpdesk analyst, curators, and event stewards. The museum even takes this approach a stage further forward by using volunteering as a means to meet the museum’s broader mission, providing volunteering experience as a means for people to develop into transport engineering careers with other employers through the museum’s Enjoyment to Employment programme.

However, it is also important that this opportunity is not taken too far. Providing broader and more altruistic benefits can never be a good excuse not to pay people appropriately!

The above strategies should also help museums improve their diversity as moving towards more personalised approaches also makes it easier to meet an increasingly varied range of requirements and hence appeal to non-traditional recruitment pools. However, making this approach work also requires an effective approach to inclusion, ensuring a more diverse range of people are able to contribute and work together effectively.


I'll be posting parts 2 and 3 of the chapter over the next couple of weeks.

Jon Ingham,
Top 100 HR Tech Influencer - Human Resources Executive

Mover and Shaker - HR magazine

info@joningham.com, +44 7904 185134

Wednesday, 27 November 2019

The Melded Network HR Model




My Different Slant article on the Melded Network HR Model in HR Magazine is now online.
 
The article suggests modern HR organisations will increasingly involve a mix of traditional functions, horizontal (process, project, product, agile) teams, communities and networks, as well as melds of these.

For me, it's the first model that truly takes HR beyond the Ulrich model:

-   The platform management group is qualitatively different to most existing service centres -   Centres of excellence become communities supported by an even deeper focus on projects
-   Business partners morph into network brokers - this is the most significant change and the one which makes me think the whole model has now, for the first time, been completely transformed. 


Importantly, it's not a change in the model for the sake of changing it, but a change to align with changes in organisation models - see part 1 of the two part series in HR Magazine too: http://strategic-hcm.blogspot.com/2019/11/role-people-centric-groups-communities-networks.html.
 
I've started outlining the model in a bit more depth in Linkedin, and you may like to check out those posts there as well:

...


Jon Ingham

Tuesday, 26 November 2019

Amazon Best Seller: The Social Organization



Thinking about a Christmas present for someone in HR or linked areas (Recruiting, Learning, Organisation Design & Development, Internal Communication, Talent Management, Property / Real Estate / Facilities Management, Digital Workplace, etc)?

How about Amazon's Best Seller in Human Resource Management, The Social Organization?

This week you can also get 30% discount if buying at Kogan Page - use the discount code FLASH30: http://koganpage.com/SocialOrganization.

Otherwise you can buy at Amazon, and keep it in the best sellers list: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Organization-Connections-Relationships-Performance/dp/0749480114.


Jon Ingham

Monday, 18 November 2019

For Love or Money 1: The Changing Context of Work



I've had a chapter on reward included in MuseumEtc's book, 'For Love or Money': Re-engineering the Way Museums Work. This was on behold of Barker Langham, a culture sector consultancy I've been doing some work for.

However, I would hope the content will be relevant for people working in other sectors too.


Introduction

Many museums have been trying to minimise their staffing budgets by reducing headcount and keeping their employees’ salaries low. But this strategy is not sustainable. It is a bit like trying to lose weight – you can focus on your diet and lose a few pounds, but are most likely to end up putting the extra weight back on. Instead of this, most people find the best way of losing weight is to change their lifestyle. The same type of thing is true in organisations too so what museums really need to do is to change the way they organise their work and their people. The supplementary benefit of this approach is often that museums will need less people. Many times, they will also be able to pay their people more appropriately too. This article reviews the opportunity for this re-engineering, supported by digital technology, and its impact on the types and levels of staff rewards.


The Changing Context of Work

Organisations across all sectors are currently undergoing major transformation due mainly to the impact of digital technologies. Many museums are introducing guides and apps to help people explore and learn about their collections. Good examples include new devices such as the Van Gogh Museum’s multimedia guide allowing visitors to walk at their own pace whilst accessing tour guide-like support (Van Gogh Museum, n.d.) and mobile games such as the Victoria & Albert Museum’s Secret Seekers which enable families to uncover facts about the V&A through a social gaming experience (Price, 2017). An even more innovative approach is Cooper Hewitt’s Pen which allows visitors to create and collect their own objects (Cooper Hewitt, 2014). Other institutes in Detroit (Detroit Institute of Arts, n.d.), Cleveland (Moore, 2015) and elsewhere are using virtual and augmented reality to provide exciting new immersive opportunities to interact with their displays. Increasingly, museums are looking at the internet of things and better use of data to provide even more personalised and engaging as well as educational experiences.

However digital transformation is rarely just about technology. All the above examples potentially disrupt these museums’ business models and allow or require the development of new, broader organisational ecosystems. For example, many museums have partnered with Google Arts & Culture (Google, n.d.) to extend their audiences and allow people to view new items or access collections in different ways.

Digital technologies also allow organisations to get closer to their customers as well as other stakeholders in order to better understand and meet their needs. Many museums are developing even deeper, longer-term and more collaborative relationships with their customers, embedding themselves within their communities. They also need to become more customer centric, including through the use of human centred design techniques such as journey mapping, personas, participatory design, user testing and prototyping.

These approaches are particularly important in museums which often find themselves in a rather unfortunate paradoxical position. The positive aspect of this is that the work museums do is increasingly recognised to lie at the centre of strategic culture, knowledge, creative and tourist industries all of which provide significant economic benefits. However, at the same time, museums’ outputs are often under valued by publics and governments which leads to reduced funding and greater pressure on being self financing, pushing museums to reduce salary levels too.

Dealing with this situation requires museums to become even more entrepreneurial and commercial as well as digital and customer focused in order to find new ways to provide a compelling experience for their customers. Museum staff need to be at the centre of this approach.

People have always been the main basis for success in any organisation. This is probably best explained in a classic Harvard Business Review article on the service profit chain which demonstrates how satisfied employees provide satisfied customers and high profits (Heskett et al, 2008). These days, we tend to focus on employee experience, or the level of satisfaction provided by the nature of people’s jobs, and the physical, cultural and digital environments in which they work (Morgan, 2016). We need to provide people with a compelling employee experience to provide the sort of compelling customer experience which was addressed above. And providing a compelling employee experience requires the same sorts of techniques, like journey mapping, which was described earlier, as well as organisational and managerial activities which are just as employee centric as the externally facing ones focus on customers.

As shown in figure 1, it is also useful to recognise that new opportunities for performing activities are often best identified by people acting near to where the work is done rather than by those doing it, for example by customer facing employees rather than customers for external opportunities, and by HR generalists or business partners rather than employees for internal ones.


Looking specifically at the retail sector, which is another area in which organisations often aim to reduce the numbers and pay of staff, Harvard professor Zeynep Ton promotes a good jobs strategy as a basis for an uncommonly employee centric way of operating (Ton, 2014). This is based on an ongoing cycle in which good quality and quantity of labour leads to good operational execution which then provides high store sales and profits which in turn allows high staffing budgets to provide the required labour. In particular, a good jobs strategy allows organisations to maintain a certain level of slack resourcing which enables them to respond to new requirements and opportunities.

Ton’s research suggests this strategy provides significant business benefits over a ‘bad jobs’ approach, and that the strategy works in other sectors too. For example, Toyota has been more successful than many manufacturing companies because its well trained and empowered workers are able to implement standardised management processes which enable the company to deliver excellent quality.

In the museum sector, a good jobs strategy needs to involve quality employees working in a flexible way. This will often require moving away from the standard 9-5 work day and a single location to being more available when and how customers want access, for example with more varied staffing patterns responding to peaks and troughs around exhibitions. Staffing also needs to respond to new and more quickly changing skill requirements, which include more commercial focus, customer service, partnership working, and the broader mindsets and abilities required to provide value. Increasingly, staff will also need to work in cross functional teams and internal or external networks.

One live example at the time of writing is a transformation taking place across the seven museums run by Leicester City Council where four curator posts are being replaced by a new audience development and engagement team, aimed at attracting new and more diverse audiences (Adams, 2019).

Therefore, although digital may reduce, and will certainly change the demand for staff, together with increasing people centricity, this will make people even more important to museum success. Museums need to invest in their core domains as well as putting an increasing focus into digital access and often into locating their physical displays in attractive buildings and facilities. But they need to invest in smarter and more tailored ways of managing their staff too.
-->




Sunday, 17 November 2019

HRD Live Podcast on Strategic Leadership




alt_text

I facilitated this podcast on 'What makes true Strategic Leadership?' earlier this week, together with Mark Bouch from Leading Change and Cath Bailey, HRD at Avon - both also speakers at next year's HRD Summit in Birmingham at the start of February.


I thought it went well - have a listen and let me know what you think.


https://www.hrdconnect.com/2019/11/14/what-makes-true-strategic-leadership-hrd-live-podcast-with-jon-ingham-cath-bailey-and-mark-bouch/


Oh, and if you want to come to the Summit as my guest, let me know about that too.


Jon Ingham

@joninghamhttp://linkedin.com/in/joningham
info@joningham.com, +44 7904 185134
Top 100 HR Tech Influencer - Human Resources Executive

Mover and Shaker - HR magazine


Monday, 11 November 2019

HR Magazine Different Slant: Modern Melded Network HR Model



My second Different Slant article on modern organisation design is in HR Magazine this month.

The first article was on modern, people-centric organisation models and summarised some of my insights from chapters 6 and 7 of 'The Social Organization', as well as providing a few slight updates on platform and blockchain based organisations too.

The new second article applies this same logic to the HR organisation and provides a new HR model, the Melded Network HR Model that is the first substantial update beyond Ulrich's three legged stool.

The full magazine is available to view or download here (you'll find my Different Slant article on pages 38-40).

And if you read it (and you should), do let me know what you think.

I'll also be publishing some more thoughts (somewhere between the high level review in the HR Magazine article and the detailed treatment in my book) on Linkedin - do check and follow / connect with me there too.


Jon Ingham, @joningham, http://linkedin.com/in/joningham 
info@joningham.com, +44 7904 185134

Top 100 HR Tech Influencer - Human Resources Executive
Mover and Shaker - HR magazine

Sunday, 10 November 2019

The role of people-centric groups in organisation design



My Different Slant article in HR Magazine is now online.

The article suggests modern organisation design will increasingly involve a mix of traditional functions, horizontal (process, project, product, agile) teams, communities and networks, as well as melds of these.

I've outlined these models in a bit more depth in Linkedin, and you may like to check out those posts there as well:





Alternatively, you'll find even more information in The Social Organization.


Jon Ingham, @joningham, http://linkedin.com/in/joningham 
info@joningham.com, +44 7904 185134

Top 100 HR Tech Influencer - Human Resources Executive
Mover and Shaker - HR magazine

Friday, 18 October 2019

Leading and managing the MOE



This is my fourth and final post on Arthur Yeung and Dave Ulrich’s new book, Reinventing the Organization. I’ve already dealt with Dave’s new organisational logic, the features of a Market Oriented Ecosystem (MOE) and the process for creating a MOE. The rest of the book deals with the consequences of choosing a MOE option.

The HR aspects of the model are dealt with by the book under the governance heading. Personally, I think these aspects provide more than just governance of the structure - many of them are actually a central part of the organisation form. Culture, in particular, is a key aspect of the ecosystem platform.

Arthur and Dave suggest HR activities will need to be tailored to a MOE and I agree. I actually think that we may need to do more tailoring than he or the case studies suggest. Eg Supercell is heavily focused on teams but they still believe “that one exceptional person equals a hundred ordinary people”. Perhaps it depends on what they mean by exceptional, but they certainly would benefit from recruiting people who can fit well within their teams (which many individualistic superstars often struggle to do). I make more suggestions about this in The Social Organization (TSO).

I’d also have liked to read more about the complexities involved in designing a non-MOE / more distributed ecosystem. These include, for example, how to bring partners with different capabilities together to support the overall capabilities of the ecosystem, and how to handle organisations with different cultures. However, in a MOE these difficulties are largely stripped out by the platform.


There are also some good suggestions on leadership, eg I agree that leadership in an ecosystem needs to be much more distributed than in a traditional organisation. But it’s interesting that they single out Lee Kuan Yew as a leader who ensures accountability. And I can see that this type of authoritarian leader might work well in a centralised MOE. Other more distributed ecosystems will need leaders who are much more consultative and democratic than this.

I also think Arthur and Dave begin an interesting point when they suggest that different types of leaders are required by the platform from the cells. Actually, for me, this is about the network and the cells - the platform needs designing and maintaining, but not leading, as opposed to the people and the network between the people which exists on or uses the platform.

And I think in many MOEs and other ecosystems and organisations, we’re going to need even more different types of leaders, including of networks and cells / horizontal teams, and also of communities and as is most commonly the case currently, of individuals working within functions. However, I do disagree that this should have anything to do with age.

I also think that in many cases, it’s going to be the same people working in various combinations of these different roles. So it may be that they are staffed by different people, but it may also be that the same people need to act differently in different capacities, eg when leading horizontal teams as opposed to when they’re leading communities.

Eg one of my recent posts discussed the challenges faced by people moving between project management and project member positions. I think if we’re asking people to shift between team leadership, network leadership, partner leadership and other roles the challenges are going to be much bigger than this.

I may focus on this agenda in my next book…


Also, I sent Dave a copy of the series before posting them, and he sent me this response which you may be interested in too:

"Response to Jon Ingram

Let me begin my response to Jon’s comments with an apology and a thanks.  In our book Reinventing the Organization we wanted to build on and synthesize previous literature on innovating organizations.  We included 12 initiatives to rethink elements of organizations (network, ambidextrous, post hierarchy, holocracy, agile, ameba, team of teams, etc).  Clearly, we did not include all of these studies, and we missed Jon’s “outstanding” (from my foreword) book The Social Organization.  This was my mistake and we should have included a discussion of his work on platforms which is another piece of the broader market oriented ecosystem (MOE) logic we proposed. 

Our goal was not to just do a book on “organization redesign” (or other elements of reinvention) with a focus on platforms and capabilities (2 chapters in book) but to cover the entire organization reinvention logic, including environment, strategy, integrated governance mechanisms, and leadership  (13 chapters).  So, I apologize to Jon for not including his organization design work.  I am sure we missed insights on elements of the reinvented organization as well (as Jon points out).  Again, we see most of the insights Jon points out are elements of the overall organization reinvention logic. I also want to thank Jon for his insights on organization design. 

Jon disagrees with some of our logic, which is fine.  We like to see pivots from one organization logic to another (hierarchy to systems to capability to market oriented ecosystem).  This means that MOE builds on these previous logic, but evolves them.  We did not make this clear and some organizations still operate as hierarchies, systems, or internal capabilities.  But, in an increasingly turbulent environment (chapter 2) and with strategic agility (chapter 3), the MOE organization offers a new logic of organizing. 

There is a good debate about starting organization change from the inside (my book Organization Capability had a subtitle, “competing from the inside out”) to leverage core competencies versus starting from the outside (our book HR from the Outside in) to anticipate and respond to external changes.  In some ways where organization change starts (inside or outside) is less relevant than the 2 are connected. 

Jon dives deep into the role of platforms.  We would agree that the role of platforms in supporting cells is evolving.  Platforms offer support through technology, common enterprise-wide values, shared learning about building capabilities, and creation and distribution of new processes. 

I am/we (arthur and I) are open to debate as this organization reinvention emerges.  One of my concerns with Jon’s comments is that he keeps talking about “Dave” when these ideas are clearly drawn from exceptional work by Arthur Yeung, the first author on this book and originator of most of the ideas.  He has trained many of the leaders of Chinese companies (including Haier) and has been granted first hand access to the ideas he shaped and companies have implemented in our case studies."  


I told Dave there was no need to apologise, and I wasn’t trying to make a thing of  the connections between our books. This blog is a personalised narrative on what I see happening around me, but also on what I’m doing. And therefore a lot of my posts are commenting from a fairly egocentric perspective. Two years after my book, that still often means commenting on, and making links back to that. So I see and have described how the books has advanced thinking from TSO, but I wouldn’t expect Dave to refer to it. (And he's already been very generous in  shout outs at various conferences around the world too.)

And Dave was right about Arthur of course (not saying he was wrong about everything else) and I've tried to give Arthur a stronger billing, at least in the last three posts.


There's also this comment from Dave on his HR Magazine article:

"Jon has done and will continue to do exceptional work. It is a legitimate and great debate to do work from the inside/out or outside/in. My first book Organization Capability (1990) was subtitled, "competing from the inside out" and built on CK Prahalad's idea of leveraging your core competences. More recently, we have focused more outside in (HR Value Proposition; HR From the Outside In). Hopefully, where ever one starts (inside or outside), they create a virtuous cycle (actually spiral) to both win in the marketplace with customers and investors and in he work place with individual competencies and organization capabilities. Jon's note that not all organizations should be MOE's is a very nice addition we should have acknowledged."


My previous posts:


For more information...
  • Consulting   Research  Speaking  Training  Writing 
  • Strategy  - Talent - Engagement  - Change and OD   
  • Contact me to create more value for your business  
  • jon [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com