An article on Workforce Planning
Judging by the frequency of articles and seminars on the topic, Workforce Planing is coming into focus for organisational planners and decision-makers. It is coming to notice because it is seen as a way to address the increasing skills-shortage problems caused by the aging workforce, fewer apprentices, excessive turnover, reducing ratio of male to female workers, and so on. These pressures are ‘forcing’ organisations to think not only about their current workforce, but about how serious it will all be in the future.
Until now, we have been able to regard employees as ‘numbers’ – use them – discard them – replace them. The only employees we need to ‘attend’ to are the ones that are hard to replace. That philosophy won’t work much longer – if at all. It has always been socially, ethically and morally shameful. Consider the ‘unintended consequences’ of one example of this. In Australia we are having to ‘buy in’ doctors from countries that can not afford to let rich countries like ours lure their medical expertise, and rob their own people of medical services, just because we didn’t plan. They have an excuse for their shortage of doctors – their economy didn’t support the training for the entire range and numbers of professional they need. What’s our excuse? At worst, it shows that we don’t care very much about the damage we do to the communities from where these ‘bought’ skills come. Why should they suffer the consequences of our lack of attention to professional management?
Now we have arrived at the time where executives are being ‘compelled’ to consider WP.
Government agencies the world over (1st world), as the largest employer group, have felt the impact early and have used their resources to paint scenarios of the future. A search of the internet shows that the USA is most active in its increasing attention to WP. The future seems gloomy indeed, to the extent that those governments now lead the way in exploring and using variations of WP. Typically, the directive comes down ‘we want to see your workforce plan’, and those charged with the task begin to read the reports and seek ‘models’ and expert guidance. Judging by the copious articles appearing, the approach is inevitably from the view of the looming shortage, and therefore we have to do this.
Unfortunately, there are no formal models of WP that are supported by empirical evidence. In fact, a search of thousands of research and other journals found no empirical evidence of any kind concerning WP. There’s no one model. Some writers suggest that of the many models, you select one of that seems to fit best. The only common element is reference to ‘the gap’ – the difference between what you have and what you need or want. The rest is very murky.
WP is at risk of becoming a new burden on busy executives, who will find it necessary to relegate it to someone ‘to do’. By assigning responsibility, the busy executive can continue to be busy putting out all those fires, and await arrival of the finished plan. WP is at risk of failing because of this unhealthy approach, and things will get worse until the interest fades following the failure of WP generally.
This approach to WP is negative and discouraging – its reactive to our emerging woes of worker availability.
Perhaps, far from being a ‘new’ need. WP is something that should always have been done. Perhaps if it had become a standard part of strategic planning in the past, we would not have our current concerns. We would already have enough doctors, teachers, nurses, engineers, and trades people.
Perhaps a better approach, and one we can elect to adopt if we wish, is to recognise the rightful place of WP, the place where it has always belonged, and admit that we have ignored it at our peril. We can decide to understand it properly, and use it properly – for the proper reasons, and proactively. We could, and should, do this at national, state, and corporate levels.
The alternate view is one that recognises the importance of ‘people’ in strategic planning, and thereby put WP proactively in its rightful place in the strategic loop. There are the two interdependent sides of this approach – the people, and strategic planning. The optimal functioning of the workforce then becomes one focus of the strategic plan.
The ‘people’ side needs to understand that a workforce will not function optimally if it being treated poorly, or there is an underclass – and so on. We know that people want to succeed, be recognised, feel supported, belong, and develop. There are known motivators, and these can be used. The quick fixes of more money or special allowances will rarely work, and not for long.
The strategic loop side places WP in its high-priority position such that the strategic sequence becomes:
- organisational purpose (most organisations do not have clarity here, and without clarity there can be no strategic plan)
- strategic intent (described by the CEO or similar, represents the positioning of the organisation to best align with its purpose)
- strategic planning (there is not enough space to give this the attention it deserves, but for now consider the following:)
- capabilities planning (designs the capabilities needed to follow the plan, and includes assets such as machines, and the workforce)
- workforce planning (part of capabilities planning, this describes the steps needed to attract, keep, and develop the people-skills needed, and the climate most likely to facilitate)
- climate planning (part of workforce planning, changing climate from something that is typically an accidental result of everything to one that is intended to enhance workforce effectiveness and efficiency)
- implementation (of all the plans and the monitoring)
- monitoring (of the plan to ensure it is being followed, and early warning of problems)
- measurement (of the effectiveness of the plan and the processes of planning, this provides information for the review)
- review (all outcomes – intentional and unintentional, provides information for the next cycle of this loop – returning to number 1)
|
