Generally managers and supervisors in low maturity organizations are ill prepared to perform their workforce responsibilities. Their management training is sparse and, when provided, tends to covers only those workforce practices with the greatest legal sensitivity. The organization may typically provide forms for guiding workforce activities such as performance appraisals or position requisitions. However, too often little guidance or training is offered for conducting the activities supported by these forms. Consequently, managers are left to their own devices in most areas of workforce management.
Low maturity organizations implicitly assume that management skill is either innate or is acquired by observing other managers. However, if managers are inconsistent in managing their people, nascent managers will be learning from inconsistent role models. Management capability should ultimately be defined as a competency just as other critical skill sets are required by the organization. However, in launching People CMM-based improvements, managers must be held accountable for performing basic workforce practices even though their personal methods for performing them may differ.
Since low maturity organizations rarely clarify the responsibilities of managers, inconsistencies are to be expected. Consequently, how people are treated depends largely on personal orientation, previous experience, and the individual “people skills” of their manager, supervisor, or team leader. While some managers perform their workforce responsibilities diligently, others perform some workforce activities with little forethought and ignore other responsibilities altogether. Studies have consistently shown that one of the major causes for voluntary turnover is related to individual’s relationships with their manager or supervisor.
Managers in low maturity organizations rarely share a common vision about the fundamental responsibilities of management. They perceive management to be about producing results, not about producing people who produce results. Although managers in low maturity organizations accept responsibility for the performance of their unit, many do so without understanding how to manage the collective performance of those in the unit. In particular, they often lack skill and place little emphasis in evaluating and improving the capability and performance of those who report to them.
Many managers in low maturity organizations consider workforce activities to be administrivia—something less than the real work of managers. As a consequence of this attitude, workforce activities such as performance appraisals and job candidate interviews are often performed hastily without adequate preparation. Responsibility for other workforce practices such as recruiting for open positions and identifying training needs are displaced to Human Resources or other staff groups. This displacement reflects a refusal to accept personal responsibility for the capability of the unit or the people in it. These actions are characteristic of managers who have not been properly prepared for their responsibilities in managing people.
If an organization does not establish clear policies for managing its workforce, it should not be surprised when some managers hold attitudes more characteristic of an era when unskilled workers were considered interchangeable. Although these attitudes are counterproductive in knowledge intense organizations, many managers have come from educational environments where they focused intently on developing their own skills and were not rewarded for developing the skills of others. From the perspective of the People CMM, individuals own responsibility for developing their knowledge and skills. However, management owns responsibility for ensuring that the people in a unit have the skills required to perform their work and for providing opportunities to develop these skills.
In immature organizations, many workforce practices are performed with little or no analysis of their impact. Recruiting campaigns, classroom training, and bonuses are among the many practices that are performed more as a ritual of organizational life than as processes that have been designed to achieve specific and measurable results. In the worst case, the failure to evaluate workforce practices ensures the failure to detect occasions when their impact is counterproductive to their intended effect. Consequently, ritualism can be as damaging to organizational effectiveness as inconsistency.
When an organization fails to proactively develop its workforce, career-oriented people pursue their own agendas. Mediocre performance and high turnover are typical when organizations provide few financial or career incentives for individuals to align themselves with the organization’s business objectives. Loyalty declines when individuals do not perceive the organization to be a vehicle by which they will achieve their career aspirations. In these circumstances individuals perceive the organization as an opportunity for developing specific skills that, once developed, will be used to pursue career opportunities elsewhere.
Constant churn in the workforce diminishes its capability. Although some turnover, or voluntary attrition, may be necessary or even beneficial, high turnover limits the level of skill available in the workforce, limiting an organization’s ability to improve its performance. Improvement programs guided by the People CMM are most often initiated when an organization faces a talent shortage exacerbated by an inability to attract or retain talented individuals. The first step in changing this state of affairs is to get managers to take responsibility for the capability and development of those who report to them.