Disasters and setbacks get a lot of attention and study but it also pays to explore the downside of the good.
For example, a large organization that has high turn-over will immediately set off alarm bells but what about a large organization with almost no turn-over? It is possible that the place has a termination phobia and is keeping employees who should have been terminated.
Another example: an organization that has high selection standards. Are the standards truly related to job performance or is an applicant with a flashy degree automatically regarded as better qualified than one with extensive and relevant experience?
Vigorously examine the "good" and often you'll find that its rationale is fragile.
And be prepared to hear "We've always done it that way."
2 comments:
"For example, a large organization that has high turn-over will immediately set off alarm bells but what about a large organization with almost no turn-over? It is possible that the place has a termination phobia and is keeping employees who should have been terminated."
In the rental real estate business it's recognized that although you want to rent your space, having no or too little space to rent is likely an indication that your rates are too low, and your business is being mismanaged. Similarly in HR too little turnover is likely an indication you're paying your employees at too high a rate for their skills and responsibilities.
Daniel,
Good points.
The best organizations are introspective. That requires time and courage.
Michael
Post a Comment