The past decade plus has seen a mushrooming of new or re-packaged management techniques. Indeed, high profile management consultants have attained near guru fame for their latest innovations from Balanced Scorecard, quality circles, just-in-time, employee empowerment, re-engineering, downsizing, together with an alphabetic stew of new number crunching methods such as EVA, MVA, TSR etc. Apart from the hype and the near religious fervour with which some companies have embraced these new techniques, each has something useful to teach management although results from their implementation do not always live up to vaunted expectations.

Underlying of all these changes is the legitimate desire to increase organizational output with fewer people. Those companies that were successful, for the most part did not put the savings in their pockets but rather reduced prices to capture market share, thereby placing pressure on competitors to make similar changes. The outcome, at least in North America, has been flatter, more cost effective organizations with lower inflation and a better deal for consumers, if not employees.

All this has put stress on employees at all levels to become more productive. The spotlight now focuses on individuals, how their jobs fit together and how they interact as a team. In other words, personnel management has regained importance. Some of you may remember MBOR or management by objectives and results, a management tool that became popular in the late sixties.

At the heart of the method is the job/role description. Today with fewer managers, all employees must have current job descriptions which accurately record what the employee is expected to do, including the relationships with other employees and people outside the company. This document must be current, reviewed annually if not more often and modified as changes are implemented. In addition, all the job/role descriptions of a group of employees or team having common objectives must fit together with little overlap but no gaps. Finally, job/role descriptions must be shared amongst the team to insure that each knows what is expected of the others and to be sensitive to the interlocking aspect of the team.

Not all employees will be able to perform at the same level, nor will they have equal experience or training. Consequently, the manager must have a means of helping the employee to evaluate his or her performance, not to beat them with a stick, but to come to a mutual recognition of areas of high performance and others where improvements are warranted. Managers need a non-confrontational procedure to identify training which may be required.

An employee who consistently under-performs can sense this and if improvements are not possible then a shift in position is a must for both the team and the individual. The so called performance appraisal or contribution assessment process is key to successful personnel management, but the most difficult to perform in such a way as to gain employee confidence and to be seen as a means toward improvement rather than sanction. All too often, managers are not trained, nor are they given the proper tools to carry out this function successfully. No wonder this important element, more often than not, fails to yield the desired results.

Proper job/role descriptions and performance appraisals are only part of the process. These will identify the strengths and weaknesses of the individual and training which may be required. However, what is also needed is a means of assessing the organization as a whole. Organization evaluations or diagnostics will identify where the organization may be strong or weak in carrying out its programs and practices and in satisfying customers. More often than not, these weaknesses can be linked to collective competencies which require improvement. This type of analysis results in an assessment of the training needs of the organization. From this, training programs can be identified that will correct these organization weaknesses. Specific individuals can always benefit from specific training. However, only an organization evaluation can lead to training programs for all implicated employees which will correct collective or organizational weaknesses.

This brings up another key requirement of the modern, flat organization, namely accurate, detailed and timely communication. The sharing of job/role descriptions is only one element to ensure the minimum of overlap. If the team is to attain its objectives in a cost effective manner, each member must be informed of the accomplishments of the others, so as to learn from others and be aware of its timely progress toward the common goal.

In summary, in order to improve the productivity and effectiveness of an organization, its collective competency needs, as identified by an organization evaluation and needs assessment, must be aligned with the training of the individual so that the successful accomplishment of all jobs as identified by each job/role description adds up to the attainment of overall organization objectives as defined by management.