Are Internal Struggles Holding Your Team Back? Insights Every HR Professional Should Consider

Hi all,

I am a Performance Management Consultant working for a leading training and consulting firm. I have a sound performance solutioning background. (And if you are wondering what it means—identifying a performance issue, whether people or process-based, building a solution around the same, deploying the solution through people and process correction mechanisms like training, coaching, mentoring, etc., and showing effectiveness in what we do.)

I thought of writing this article from my experience of having to work with a large client organization (I guess it's not right to name them).

Fighting the Enemy Within

Have you come across this situation? You are in a client-facing role, your customer is very demanding, and you are anxious to grow for yourself and your team. I am sure many of us would relate to this.

But this is interesting. Have you had to work in a team where your operations/back-end team tests all your persuasion abilities to deliver a project on time, to an extent that if you had spent the same energies at the client side, you would have grown the business threefold? Sounds funny, isn't it? Does this happen? Can it happen? I am sure it happens in most cases. As professionals in HR practices, do we get to understand what causes these? Does it tire our teams? Is it why people quit? Do people articulate these when they leave?

Whom are we fighting with—customers and competition outside or the back-end team, which is supposed to be your strength? There are a few people-based attributes that contribute to these issues.

First of all, are the goals of all the departments linked to the same objective? For example, if the organization's critical goal is Customer Satisfaction, does it link to every department in the system? Is your finance team working towards customer satisfaction? Is your HR system aligned? Is your purchasing/administration linked to it? Though it sounds very obvious, it is painful to observe that many big organizations do not do this. Do you want to check if your organization does this? Ask ten people around you, "What is the organization's most critical goal that links the entire organization to work towards it?" If you get varied responses ranging from vague to weird, you work for a system that is close to 60% of most organizations today. Check 2: Do you have teams working on new projects but struggle during implementation? Check 3: Do you have people quitting in the middle of the project abruptly?

To sum it up, the organization's most critical goal needs to be linked to every department, every individual in the organization.

Secondly, the CYA Attitude—pardon my language on this. But I would prefer to be this strong. You would find people wanting to cover theirs and be protected, not bothered about the outcomes. "Oh! If it's good, it's mine; if it's bad, is it yours? Or is it yours? Sure, it's not mine." Have you heard this before? This is another issue that we review people on. Do we review actions or outcomes? Prudence says review actions, reward outcomes. Please check what happens in your teams and other teams you liaise with. Link it back to the GOALS again. Do this, please. Write down the departments that are dependent on you and departments on whom you depend. Ask yourself, do you know what their goals are? If you do not know, CYA is the best policy.

Sum it up: What do you review?

Thirdly, leadership—the largely abused word. Is your senior management aware of these issues at the ground? Are they talking about global strategies when people below are fighting fires continuously and consistently?

Sum it up: Leadership—where is it focused? Is there a balance between internal and external?

Fourthly, the SNAFU Managers—SNAFU does not need an explanation. Though if you want, please look it up online. These are managers who push people to get things done and avoid the pain of handling issues that surface every time. After all, solving a problem is surely a lot of pain and effort. They do not stop to check for the issues. Why not? Stopping to check issues will lessen my productivity—short-sightedness. Are managers qualified to manage people? For all the management qualifications we all have, no one teaches people management better than experience. I am sure you agree. In the current economy, we develop managers too quickly, even if they are not ready. Longevity of tenure in an organization sometimes seems to be the reason for people growing because good performers would leave anyway.

But the point is, what gets projected to the management? Results or issues with methods to handle them? Most often, managers do prefer to paint a rosy picture always (SN: Situation Normal bit). After all, managers need not be evangelists but effective. A manager sharing his issues openly is considered ineffective, but a manager sharing the issues and also validating his methods with his supervisors and peers is considered to be more proactive and willing to learn. Are our managers willing to learn? If you are saying yes, check 1: Do you have the same problem arising again and again? Check 2: Is the team polarized on your manager?

Sum it up: Managers—What are they doing? Solving issues or trying to be popular?

Hence, fighting the enemy within an organization is all about setting the right goals and linking them to all teams, reviewing them properly, leading through execution excellence, and managing issues well.

Let's stop fighting enemies internally and build a culture to fight the market forces. All the best to all of us, and as HR professionals, hunt for such issues to be escalated and handled properly.

Bala

Hi!

Well, you seemed to have written it with a lot of experience and emotions, but I guess this is right not just within your organization but across industries. If you ask those in the back-end, they would say that the client-facing roles work for the client, not for the organization! I guess it's like a husband and wife tiff - neither can you leave it nor can you live with it! No offense meant. I surely enjoyed reading the article.

All the best, cheers, Suloch

Oops! It's got nothing to do with my organization; it's got to do with the client organization I had worked with. I guess it's right in saying it's like the husband and wife tiff - how well they are committed makes all the difference in making the marriage work. Thanks for your views!

Dear Bala,

😂 😞 😳

I passed through a range of emotions on reading your mail. Most of your observations are spot on. I just have a couple of points to contribute, unfortunately, both are global points.

1) It's all about the metrics!

What are your metrics based on? You can't have your vision, goal, strategy, and all those big words based on a long-term perspective and have the metrics (KRAs) based on a short-term perspective. For example, most organizations have a customer-centered strategy (customer lifetime value maximization) but product-centered metrics (meet monthly targets/billing, etc.). Let's not talk about the metrics of admin/accounts. It's an interesting exercise.

Draw a graph with a long-term perspective on the x-axis and a short-term perspective on the y-axis. Now, plot the actions of the job profiles (sales, marketing, accounts, etc.) on the graph. Let's make this simple, if the action is on the short-term gain perspective, plot that function in the 4th quadrant, close to the y-axis.

Q1 - low short term, low long term
Q2 - low short term, high long term
Q3 - high short term, high long term
Q4 - high short term, low long term

Do the same for metrics (KRA) and for job or function roles.

Your mention of goals set me thinking. Most times, goals are just a set of well-strung words with more attention spent on the beauty of the words rather than on the connecting thread. As somebody once said, a goal is like Einstein's famous equation of E=mc². Everybody knows it, but nobody understands what it means.

Let us take the football analogy. If a goal in football is understood as shooting into a goal post, and the accounts/admin try their level best to put the ball into their own post. Sounds far-fetched, but tell me, what are the metrics on which accounts are measured? Is there any system or company that has an accounting metric related to company growth? By the way, that itself is an oxymoron since accounts are about past performance and a little bit of present performance, whereas growth is about the future.

And the second point:

2) Is HR like the Indian President - no real powers, but the masthead nevertheless. As I said, these are global points. How can you or I make a change? Dunno.

Cheers,

Atropa

Sir,

Good article. :)

My feedbacks,

1. The article is interesting to read. It is also easy, except for CYA. :D

2. I feel that you have given your ideas free of cost. If the HR head of your client company sees it, he may use it without consulting you. It may lead to either a more complex situation if used improperly or would solve the problem if used right. :roll: :roll:

I could think this much. Not above this. :shock:

Sincerely, E.R. Vishanth Ragunanth

dear balaji,

interesting article :lol: took some time for the realities to sink in..... :?: thought would share a story of the six blind men with all..... though we have read the same many times, presenting a new twist to the tale :twisted:

the blind men and the elephant

There are various versions of the story of the blind men and the elephant. The blind men and the elephant is a legend that appears in different cultures - notably China, Africa and India - and the tale dates back thousands of years. Some versions of the story feature three blind men, others five or six, but the message is always the same. Here's a story of the six blind men and the elephant:

Six blind men were discussing exactly what they believed an elephant to be, since each had heard how strange the creature was, yet none had ever seen one before. So the blind men agreed to find an elephant and discover what the animal was really like.

It didn't take the blind men long to find an elephant at a nearby market.

The first blind man approached the beast and felt the animal's firm flat side. "It seems to me that the elephant is just like a wall," he said to his friends.

The second blind man reached out and touched one of the elephant's tusks. "No, this is round and smooth and sharp - the elephant is like a spear."

Intrigued, the third blind man stepped up to the elephant and touched its trunk. "Well, I can't agree with either of you; I feel a squirming writhing thing - surely the elephant is just like a snake."

The fourth blind man was of course by now quite puzzled. So he reached out, and felt the elephant's leg. "You are all talking complete nonsense," he said, "because clearly the elephant is just like a tree."

Utterly confused, the fifth blind man stepped forward and grabbed one of the elephant's ears. "You must all be mad - an elephant is exactly like a fan."

Duly, the sixth man approached, and, holding the beast's tail, disagreed again. "It's nothing like any of your descriptions - the elephant is just like a rope."

And all six blind men continued to argue, based on their own particular experiences, as to what they thought an elephant was like. It was an argument that they were never able to resolve. Each of them was concerned only with their own idea. None of them had the full picture, and none could see any of the other's point of view. Each man saw the elephant as something quite different, and while in part each blind man was right, none was wholly correct.

There is never just one way to look at something - there are always different perspectives, meanings, and perceptions, depending on who is looking.

Well let's now compare the six blind men to the six most importance functions of any organization (functions / departments may change depending upon the industry):

1. Management

2. Marketing

3. Sales

4. Engineering / Development

5. Manufacturing

6. Maintenance / Customer Service

With the Elephant being the customer.

The perception of various departments / functions change according to what they see (how they see / what they are shown) / how they feel (how they are made to feel) / how they hear (what they are made to hear) and meanings are attached to the same, hence the failure to understand the Elephant.

In sharp contrast: A well known story illustrates the point:

A group of US Senators were visiting NASA at the time when funding was under threat. One Senator asked a man cleaning the floor "So what are you doing here?" The man answered, "I'm here putting a man on the Moon!"

Not to say that NASA has not had its share of failures, but have bounced back after each and every failure of theirs because of their people identifying and associating their roles with that of the organizations purpose.

To say the least, the philosophy of NASA is defined by their 5 PILLARS:

PILLAR DEFINITION

STRATEGIC ALIGNEMENT NASA aligns human capital to

support the vision and accomplish the

Agency's mission and goals.

STRATEGIC COMPETENCIES NASA recruits, acquires, and retains a

diverse workforce with world-class

capabilities in strategic competencies

needed for all components of its mission.

LEARNING NASA promotes a knowledge-sharing

culture and a climate of openness,

continuous learning and improvement.

PERFORMANCE CULTURE NASA creates a culture that focuses on

results, motivates employees to

perform, and ensures fairness in the

workplace.

LEADERSHIP NASA ensures it has leaders who are

adaptable; who inspire, motivate, and

guide others towards goals; who mentor

and challenge the workforce; and who

demonstrate high standards of

honesty, integrity, trust, openness,

and respect.

How closely do your people identify and associate their own roles with your organizational purpose?: an answer to this would roll the RED carpet of success for any organization.