Tags |
|
|
Links |
|
|
Actual for You - Why Do We Have Conflict At Work? The Ubiquitous Position Description
Staffing is an integral part of any company. In fact the success or the failure of a company depends on a large extent on the type of staffing a company has. It is very important to have proper people running your company if you want to see your company grow really fast. Staffing outsourcing has been very successfully used by many companies to their advantage and benefit. Many companies have ventures into the outsourcing process to help their business grow and prosper.You have been thinking of expanding your company, but dreading to employ new staff in your company? There is a very simple answer to all your worries about staffing. Simply outsource staffing for your company. You will feel the benefits to your company only after you have undertaken the actual process of outsourcing.If you are actually looking forward to hiring trained professionals t
Quality output standard of data is maintained
All staff meet their performance standards
2. Provide on-the-job training aides for operating staff to ensure the standard operations procedures are maintained. Would be rewritten as . . .
Standard operating procedures followed
Errors are minimised
Problems solved within specified time and quality standards
You may like to try your hand at rewriting 3, 4 & 5!
As you do, you will notice that outputs start to repeat themselves fairly frequently. That's because outputs focus on the results not "how " the job is done. Although "how" is important, it can be stated in terms of standards that must be met and maintained overstating the "how" and breaking it down to a small number of tasks, leaves people with no room for initiative nor decision making and often leads to role overlap or underlap which eventually ends in conflict.
How do we arrive at outputs? Very simply. Just add " . . . so that" to each input and complete the sentenc
Think before you jump the corporate ship!Are you absolutely sure whether being an entrepreneur, a solo business owner, is the way to go for you? There are capabilities that you undoubtedly need to have.You must be a aware of what other businesses are doing. Are you observant? You must have the desire to be your own boss. Do you have organisational talent?You have to be goal oriented. Do you have excellent self-management skills? You need to have the wish to succeed. Are you decisive? Have you got stamina?You must be able to link up with people with ease. Can you build and manage networks? You should be flexible and adaptable. Do you see problems or challenges?Often you will have to make decisions on your own and have no-one w
A couple of weeks into our new roles, my colleague and I were starting to have some differences, which by the end of three months, had escalated to conflict. Why? We liked one another, got on well together both socially and as work colleagues in our previous organisation and shared very similar views on the role of the training function.
The problem lay in the "how" the training function was to be managed I had my views and he had his. Our new organisation had developed Position Descriptions for each of our new roles, but they were written in "input" terms i.e., how we should do things rather than "output" terms, i.e.., what we were each expected to achieve. As a result, there was major overlap in role descriptions and so our disagreements became "role conflict".
One of the real problems I find with Position Descriptions is that they are often written in Input terms (i.e. what people do) rather than Outputs (i.e. what people achieve). This is often sadly also true for PD's written in KRA (Key Result Areas) terms. The result? People can stick rigidly to what they are expected to do rather than looking at the bigger picture and what they need to achieve for the betterment of their team and ultimately, the organisation. In addition to the potential for role conflict, this can lead to other problems.
For example, in larger organisations, particularly where there is a culture of "rigid hierarchy", use of PDs in this manner invariably leads to conflict and the PD being used as alibi paper when something that should have been achieved, slips through the cracks (even the best written PDs will not cover all eventualities, that is why the focus on outputs is so important). In smaller organisations, use of PDs written in input terms can lead to a feeling of being overworked or "this is not my responsibility" when the person has to do something that is not specifically written into their PD.
The answer to all of this, for both large and small organisations, is to use the PD and in particular the writing of the PD, as a process of agreement between people as to what their output areas are. It is the process of discussing and agreeing on output areas that is critical for effective working relationships, job design and ultimately organisation structure, not the piece of paper that the PD ends up on.
PDs should not be written in isolation by one person, nor should they be written by the HR Department. The HR Department's (or HR person's) role in PDs is to coach, train and facilitate the writing of the PDs by the people who will be doing the actual work.
How do you write effective Position Descriptions that are expressed in output terms? One way is to convert existing PDs. For example, look at the following list of duties from the Supervisor's PD at a large main frame computer centre:
1. Supervise and direct the operations of the computer room in a large scale, multi-mainframe operations environment.
2. Provide on-the-job training aides for operating staff to ensure the standard operations procedures are maintained.
3. Provide assistance in the analysis and correction of systems hardware, software and production failures and/or notify appropriate personnel.
4. Maintain computer usage records and operational logs.
5. Deputise for the shift manager.
All of the above are expressed as "inputs" rather than "outputs" In output terms they could be written as:
1. Supervise and direct the operations of the computer room in a large scale, multi-mainframe operations environment. Would be rewritten as . . .
Mainframe down time is minimal
Quality output standard of data is maintained
All staff meet their performance standards
2. Provide on-the-job training aides for operating staff to ensure the standard operations procedures are maintained. Would be rewritten as . . .
Standard operating procedures followed
Errors are minimised
Problems solved within specified time and quality standards
You may like to try your hand at rewriting 3, 4 & 5!
As you do, you will notice that outputs start to repeat themselves fairly frequently. That's because outputs focus on the results not "how " the job is done. Although "how" is important, it can be stated in terms of standards that must be met and maintained overstating the "how" and breaking it down to a small number of tasks, leaves people with no room for initiative nor decision making and often leads to role overlap or underlap which eventually ends in conflict.
How do we arrive at outputs? Very simply. Just add " . . . so that" to each input and complete the sentence
The challenge and cost of employee turnover is one of the most discussed, most frustrating and most misunderstood problems businesses face. CEOs have identified employee retention as one of their key challenges in 2005. Yet organizations continue to struggle with this costly issue. The science of psychological assessments has recently advanced, allowing the development of much more predictive assessment tools.If you do not know what your employee turnover cost is, many experts agree that you can come surprisingly close to the cost of a single turnover incident by simply multiplying the annual salary for the position times 2.5 that will cover productivity loss, recruiting and hiring cost, training cost, liability, unemployment and the other 101 hidden costs that we usually try not to think of when we lose an employee.Employee turnover often begins
The problem lay in the "how" the training function was to be managed I had my views and he had his. Our new organisation had developed Position Descriptions for each of our new roles, but they were written in "input" terms i.e., how we should do things rather than "output" terms, i.e.., what we were each expected to achieve. As a result, there was major overlap in role descriptions and so our disagreements became "role conflict".
One of the real problems I find with Position Descriptions is that they are often written in Input terms (i.e. what people do) rather than Outputs (i.e. what people achieve). This is often sadly also true for PD's written in KRA (Key Result Areas) terms. The result? People can stick rigidly to what they are expected to do rather than looking at the bigger picture and what they need to achieve for the betterment of their team and ultimately, the organisation. In addition to the potential for role conflict, this can lead to other problems.
For example, in larger organisations, particularly where there is a culture of "rigid hierarchy", use of PDs in this manner invariably leads to conflict and the PD being used as alibi paper when something that should have been achieved, slips through the cracks (even the best written PDs will not cover all eventualities, that is why the focus on outputs is so important). In smaller organisations, use of PDs written in input terms can lead to a feeling of being overworked or "this is not my responsibility" when the person has to do something that is not specifically written into their PD.
The answer to all of this, for both large and small organisations, is to use the PD and in particular the writing of the PD, as a process of agreement between people as to what their output areas are. It is the process of discussing and agreeing on output areas that is critical for effective working relationships, job design and ultimately organisation structure, not the piece of paper that the PD ends up on.
PDs should not be written in isolation by one person, nor should they be written by the HR Department. The HR Department's (or HR person's) role in PDs is to coach, train and facilitate the writing of the PDs by the people who will be doing the actual work.
How do you write effective Position Descriptions that are expressed in output terms? One way is to convert existing PDs. For example, look at the following list of duties from the Supervisor's PD at a large main frame computer centre:
1. Supervise and direct the operations of the computer room in a large scale, multi-mainframe operations environment.
2. Provide on-the-job training aides for operating staff to ensure the standard operations procedures are maintained.
3. Provide assistance in the analysis and correction of systems hardware, software and production failures and/or notify appropriate personnel.
4. Maintain computer usage records and operational logs.
5. Deputise for the shift manager.
All of the above are expressed as "inputs" rather than "outputs" In output terms they could be written as:
1. Supervise and direct the operations of the computer room in a large scale, multi-mainframe operations environment. Would be rewritten as . . .
Mainframe down time is minimal
Quality output standard of data is maintained
All staff meet their performance standards
2. Provide on-the-job training aides for operating staff to ensure the standard operations procedures are maintained. Would be rewritten as . . .
Standard operating procedures followed
Errors are minimised
Problems solved within specified time and quality standards
You may like to try your hand at rewriting 3, 4 & 5!
As you do, you will notice that outputs start to repeat themselves fairly frequently. That's because outputs focus on the results not "how " the job is done. Although "how" is important, it can be stated in terms of standards that must be met and maintained overstating the "how" and breaking it down to a small number of tasks, leaves people with no room for initiative nor decision making and often leads to role overlap or underlap which eventually ends in conflict.
How do we arrive at outputs? Very simply. Just add " . . . so that" to each input and complete the sentenc
Once upon a time, there was a young, stressed out corporate events planner called Tanya. She was organising a large-scale event for her firms biggest client.In the midst of organising the guest list, Tanya's boss told her that the client had requested some video footage be edited together to open the event. It had to be done in a hurry.Tanya asked her boss, What do they want the video to tell their audience?Oh, they dont have any messages, said her slightly panic stricken manager, they just want to show footage that was taken years ago that seems relevant for their new launch.Tanya knew nothing about video production. She didnt even have the time to find out. After quickly talking to a few production houses, she chose one that was close by that had quoted a cheap price.The production house was able to quickly ed
The answer to all of this, for both large and small organisations, is to use the PD and in particular the writing of the PD, as a process of agreement between people as to what their output areas are. It is the process of discussing and agreeing on output areas that is critical for effective working relationships, job design and ultimately organisation structure, not the piece of paper that the PD ends up on.
PDs should not be written in isolation by one person, nor should they be written by the HR Department. The HR Department's (or HR person's) role in PDs is to coach, train and facilitate the writing of the PDs by the people who will be doing the actual work.
How do you write effective Position Descriptions that are expressed in output terms? One way is to convert existing PDs. For example, look at the following list of duties from the Supervisor's PD at a large main frame computer centre:
1. Supervise and direct the operations of the computer room in a large scale, multi-mainframe operations environment.
2. Provide on-the-job training aides for operating staff to ensure the standard operations procedures are maintained.
3. Provide assistance in the analysis and correction of systems hardware, software and production failures and/or notify appropriate personnel.
4. Maintain computer usage records and operational logs.
5. Deputise for the shift manager.
All of the above are expressed as "inputs" rather than "outputs" In output terms they could be written as:
1. Supervise and direct the operations of the computer room in a large scale, multi-mainframe operations environment. Would be rewritten as . . .
Mainframe down time is minimal
Quality output standard of data is maintained
All staff meet their performance standards
2. Provide on-the-job training aides for operating staff to ensure the standard operations procedures are maintained. Would be rewritten as . . .
Standard operating procedures followed
Errors are minimised
Problems solved within specified time and quality standards
You may like to try your hand at rewriting 3, 4 & 5!
As you do, you will notice that outputs start to repeat themselves fairly frequently. That's because outputs focus on the results not "how " the job is done. Although "how" is important, it can be stated in terms of standards that must be met and maintained overstating the "how" and breaking it down to a small number of tasks, leaves people with no room for initiative nor decision making and often leads to role overlap or underlap which eventually ends in conflict.
How do we arrive at outputs? Very simply. Just add " . . . so that" to each input and complete the sentenc
Increasingly, companies are making use of compromise agreements - sometimes for redundancy but most frequently in situations where an employee is being dismissed. The agreements are legally binding; normally this is desirable for the company as it prevents the person being dismissed from pursuing a case with an Employment Tribunal. In most cases if you have to sign a compromise agreement there will also be some kind of severance payment as a form of compensation.Often people might see compromise agreements as beneficial to the company rather than the worker, but if you have been approached to sign a compromise agreement there is no reason you should see this as a bad thing. Whether the agreement is a result of a dismissal, redundancy or general breakdown in the relationship between you and your employer there are plenty of reasons why a compromise agreem
How do you write effective Position Descriptions that are expressed in output terms? One way is to convert existing PDs. For example, look at the following list of duties from the Supervisor's PD at a large main frame computer centre:
1. Supervise and direct the operations of the computer room in a large scale, multi-mainframe operations environment.
2. Provide on-the-job training aides for operating staff to ensure the standard operations procedures are maintained.
3. Provide assistance in the analysis and correction of systems hardware, software and production failures and/or notify appropriate personnel.
4. Maintain computer usage records and operational logs.
5. Deputise for the shift manager.
All of the above are expressed as "inputs" rather than "outputs" In output terms they could be written as:
1. Supervise and direct the operations of the computer room in a large scale, multi-mainframe operations environment. Would be rewritten as . . .
Mainframe down time is minimal
Quality output standard of data is maintained
All staff meet their performance standards
2. Provide on-the-job training aides for operating staff to ensure the standard operations procedures are maintained. Would be rewritten as . . .
Standard operating procedures followed
Errors are minimised
Problems solved within specified time and quality standards
You may like to try your hand at rewriting 3, 4 & 5!
As you do, you will notice that outputs start to repeat themselves fairly frequently. That's because outputs focus on the results not "how " the job is done. Although "how" is important, it can be stated in terms of standards that must be met and maintained overstating the "how" and breaking it down to a small number of tasks, leaves people with no room for initiative nor decision making and often leads to role overlap or underlap which eventually ends in conflict.
How do we arrive at outputs? Very simply. Just add " . . . so that" to each input and complete the sentenc
Here are three lessons about meetings that came from a walk through the forest.1) Giant SequoiasThese marvelous trees are a living example that some things take time.True, we need to work with a sense of urgency. We need to do more with less. We need to move faster than the speed of chaos.And we also need to be appropriate.Rushing through some issues can produce false solutions.For example, a group slams together an annual plan, only to find that the plan ignores real market conditions, organizational limitations, and individual support. The result is a document that no one uses.For example, a powerful group makes a decision without listening to other people's ideas. And then a bad situation becomes worse. In fact, sometimes the neglected side retaliates with such force that the original group loses status.B
Quality output standard of data is maintained
All staff meet their performance standards
2. Provide on-the-job training aides for operating staff to ensure the standard operations procedures are maintained. Would be rewritten as . . .
Standard operating procedures followed
Errors are minimised
Problems solved within specified time and quality standards
You may like to try your hand at rewriting 3, 4 & 5!
As you do, you will notice that outputs start to repeat themselves fairly frequently. That's because outputs focus on the results not "how " the job is done. Although "how" is important, it can be stated in terms of standards that must be met and maintained overstating the "how" and breaking it down to a small number of tasks, leaves people with no room for initiative nor decision making and often leads to role overlap or underlap which eventually ends in conflict.
How do we arrive at outputs? Very simply. Just add " . . . so that" to each input and complete the sentence. Or, ask "Why?" of each input and keeping asking "Why?" until the answer becomes an output. For example, "Supervise and direct the operations of the computer room in a large scale, multi-mainframe operations environment . . . so that . . . Mainframe down time is minimal . . . so that . . . Quality output standard of data is maintained . . . so that . . . All staff meet their performance standards" Most PD's written in output terms will have no more than 5 or 6 outputs. For lower level roles, this can rise to as many as 8 10 (although be careful that none of these are or become inputs). The more senior the role, the less number of outputs a manager should have until ultimately the CEO has only one "Stakeholder expectations managed effectively"
Remember as I said earlier, it is the process of discussing and agreeing on output areas that is critical for effective working relationships, job design and ultimately organisation structure, not the piece of paper that the PD ends up on. So make sure the people doing the work are involved in writing the PDs.
Oh, by the way, you may be wondering what eventually happened between my colleague and I. He applied for a role elsewhere in the organisation his old role was not refilled. I and the organisation had learned about "outputs" by that stage. Happy output development!
Copyright (c) 2006 The National Learning Institute
HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
<a href="http://www.actual4u.com/article/46931/actual4u-Why-Do-We-Have-Conflict-At-Work-The-Ubiquitous-Position-Description.html">Why Do We Have Conflict At Work? The Ubiquitous Position Description</a>
BB link (for phorums):
[url=http://www.actual4u.com/article/46931/actual4u-Why-Do-We-Have-Conflict-At-Work-The-Ubiquitous-Position-Description.html]Why Do We Have Conflict At Work? The Ubiquitous Position Description[/url]
Related Articles:
Who Gets Funded Today? Are You That Great Entrepreneur?
In Direct Sales - Customer Care Calls - Preparation is the Key!
Bookmark it:
|