Plan, Do, Review… or just planning?

We should all be familiar with the concept of plan, do, review.  Yes?

Certainly from my own experience HR now seems to spend more time planning.  I facilitated the delivery of my first people plan back in 2010 when I was based in Asia as Regional HR COO for a large global bank.  At the time it wasn’t new for the bank but it was certainly new for the HR team in the region, and of surprise to our Business and Finance colleagues!

Since then I’ve facilitated, supported and delivered countless HR/People plans and I know from various discussions with peers in other organisations that HR are planning more frequently.  So that’s all good, right?

Well yes and no…..

Planning is great, but the question is how effective is the plan and in reality how much gets delivered to budget and the expected standards – the Do(ing) bit?  Well research by the Standish Group in their 2015 Chaos Report suggested that 71% of projects fail to deliver against those key criteria.  To be fair, the report is across all projects but if that’s the average, we could assume a similar percentage will apply to HR/People Plans?

So, what goes wrong?

Firstly, we are probably too ambitious with the size of the plan we try to deliver within any given year.  Planning for the year has historically been the norm as most finance teams drive an annual budget cycle, however that shouldn’t stop us thinking about shorter timeframes i.e. focusing on three months at a time and perhaps one or two priority projects?

Secondly, HR/People teams are always busy.  The day job can be time consuming (often because we don’t have the plan, time and/or budget to implement the technology, shared services or outsourcing which could save us time).  Organisational demands also mean we get pulled in multiple directions and when we reprioritise the planning and doing often gets pushed down the To Do List

Recently though I’ve been wondering whether we have the right people accountable/responsible for delivering the plan?  During planning reviews, generally at year end when items on the plan haven’t been delivered, I’ve often heard comments around ‘well that person had the right technical skills to improve our process‘ or ‘we’d been asked to deliver a more innovative policy approach and the person leading it was our policy expert!

Those plans therefore should have been delivered (aside from the issues called out in points 1 and 2 above) so therefore what else could be causing this lack of delivery?  Using  insights gained from The GC Index Ⓒ it may well be that those individuals had the skills, experience and behavioural capability, however they may have been missing the energy required to make an impact?

For example – implementing and driving innovation requires someone to have that ability to pluck a random idea out of nowhere and then having the determination (obsession) to drive it forwards.  The GC Index provides an assessment of either an individual and/or team, which gives HR/People Heads additional insight into who’s a:

  • Game Changer (transforms the future)
  • Strategist (maps the future)
  • Implementor (builds the future)
  • Polisher (creates a future to be proud of)
  • Playmaker (orchestrates the future)

This isn’t a silver bullet for success but having access to quality insight and data on people means better alignment of resources, which should feed into improved outcomes

For more information on ‘Assessing a Team for Successful Delivery of a HR/People plan either click on the link or get in touch

Assessing a Team for Successful Delivery

InFocus HR can also support the building of achievable HR/People plans

Leave a Reply