Strategic HRD for the State Sector

By Pradeepa Kekulawala

In these columns a vast amount of discussion and idea generation has taken place on a plethora of subject matters related to human resource development and talent engagement.

The topics discussed have been generic and organisation centric in nature, thus being adoptable to or usable by any type of organisation whether in private enterprise, state sector or any other. However the writer is of the opinion that it is topical to relate some strategic HRD issues focusing on the state run organisations, semi government, public private partnership institutions and ministries as the Sri Lankan economy is in the threshold of a revival and the state sector has very much a prominent role to play, if not the leading role, in accelerating growth towards a boom.

The need for discussion arises from the fact that many state institutions have not considered human resource development, let alone strategic HRD as a priority. There are a handful of very dynamic state institutions, semi government institutions, public private partnerships which have embarked on and benefitted from ambitious and progressive HRD initiatives. They deserve our accolades. But no planned initiatives and/or investments have been done in this area at all by many state institutions and government owned business undertakings by and large and the absence of a “national HRD roadmap” based on globally accepted norms (localised accordingly of course) focused on productivity, profitability and other bottom-line achievements is a void that is felt.

With a host of professionals, academics and qualified think tanks in the state and private sectors being involved and chipping into help with the “economic resurrection” planned, one is hopeful that this void will be soon filled. This paper is an attempt and a contribution by the writer as a HR professional to introduce some key concepts and initiatives which can be launched in the state run institutions without major policy or procedural changes; and just by progressive leadership.

I’d like to introduce the following concepts in the order that they are presented based on what I see as a pragmatic approach from least complicated to the complicated considering the natural phenomenon of resistance to change and other realities of governance

1.Participatory Culture/shared decision making

2.Stakeholder driven work ethic

3.Variable pay philosophy and performance driven incentive approach

4.Training and Development and attitude building

5.Job role identification, people specification and establishment of Key Result Areas

6.Productivity oriented culture and initiatives

7.Cadre planning/budgeting by objectives

Let us examine the practical aspects and the “can and must do s” of each of the above

Participatory Culture and shared decision making

Every human being likes to be recognised as an important “cog” or a part of the organisation that he serves and belongs to. In the private sector this need is addressed by various mechanisms where the involvement and active participation of employees is obtained for corporate decision making thus obtaining their full commitment to the process and what follows. In the state sector the reality of clearly defined authority and decision making channels cannot be ignored and must exist. Decisions will have to be made by those designated to do so. However nothing prevents the administration or leadership from obtaining views and ideas of employees regarding new initiatives, plans and programmes and decisions which have to be made for the progress of the organisation which in turn will benefit its people. I am suggesting a much more result oriented approach than mere “suggestion boxes”! State institutions must introduce “think tanks of employees” to address issues of importance and generate ideas amongst the people on given issues and matters. Establishing quality circles and “5 S” teams can be seen in the state sector; but these have to be strengthened and given teeth to implement and sustain the initiatives. Kaizen or continuous improvement ideas have to be encouraged and generated from the bottom – most levels of employees. “Across the board” functional “task teams” consisting of different levels of employees can be established to tackle problems, address issues or develop programmes. These “teams” can contribute ideas, effort and initiatives for the regular mechanism to drive and implement what is needed without contravening the AR or administrative regulations of state.

Stakeholder driven work ethic

There is a misconception amongst many state employees especially in the middle and lower rungs in the hierarchy that they are superior to the common man or the general public. The service they are bound to perform is seen as more of a “favour at will” rather than an obligatory and honorary task. Therefore it is a paramount need to create awareness in the state employees that like any other sphere or sector in state run institutions too there are a chain of stakeholders with specific needs who have to be satisfied.The employer (or the government) whose national service objectives, revenue/profit plus other bottom-line objectives which have to be delivered to justify the existence of the institution. Then the needs and expectations of the public or those who seek the services of the institution have to be met to assure the sustenance and progress of the organisation. Most importantly the needs, expectations and benefits of those employed in the institution have to be met – as their livelihood is through the institution, its benefit and development alone will ensure the welfare of its people. This is a very good philosophy to start the campaign. “You work for your benefit”. Then of course there are expectations of and obligations towards other partner and connected organisations with whom the institution has to co-exist such as financial institutions, utility providers etc. People have to be made aware that only if you meet the expectations of all other stakeholders that their expectations will realise; thus bringing about a stakeholder driven culture – which can already be seen in some organisations.

Variable pay philosophy and performance driven incentive approach

Pay and more pay is a cry which comes from both the state and private sectors employees. More so from the state sector. The request and grievances are mostly justified and reasonable; of course keeping in mind that man’s needs never end and people are never satisfied with what they get. The government has time and again given pay hikes and continues to do so. There can be many disparities and issues in the pay structure etc. which is not the mandate or the focus of this article. However what is clear is that the state sector will never be able to sustain itself by just giving into pay hike demands all the time or just by increasing salaries on an adhoc basis. Simply there won’t be resources to do so. At the same time people would cry out for their pound of flesh as well.

Therefore it is time that we change the entire pay philosophy of the state sector from fixed salary and incentive method to variable pay philosophy. There are many mechanisms of this. However the principle rule is that apart from basic or base salary and fixed allowances you introduce other revenue earning avenues to people tied up to their productivity. These can vary from “commissions for revenue generated” to “incentives for output over and above the daily specified quota”, “cash or other incentives or rewards for special achievements and contribution to the organisation” and even “promotions and level upgrading for exceptional performance”. A perception change is necessary that legitimate earning capacity can be limitless provided that the required output is given and that “everything cannot be given for nothing”. Therefore a win-win culture has to be introduced which to my knowledge can be effected with minimum policy changes.

Training & Development and attitude building

There is very little training and development and attitude building sessions carried out by state organisations. Training involves mainly making a person more skilled and competent to perform the current job whilst development efforts focus on grooming a person and imparting knowledge to take up higher responsibilities. Attitude building becomes an integral part of both. Generally training and development needs are identified through a strategic HRD plan which will call for TNA or training need analysis followed by a training plan/calendar and budget. However for practical and in house managing purposes I suggest that T & D activities be carried out based on an internal TNA carried out based on each person’s Job description, the key result areas expected from the person and analysing what his/her level of engagement is. This is a matter a head of a department can do in tandem with a HR professional or under guidance with the employees being evaluated becoming an essential part of the determination process. At line ministry or administrative regulatory level a budgetary provision for T&D will have to be made. Finding resources will be the least problem as there is a host of qualified people in the state sector itself who can facilitate the T&D and learning; keeping costs or investment manageable.

Job role definition, people specifications and identifying Key Result Areas

The need for training and development planning and the need to incentivise people under the variable pay philosophy discussed above calls for specific identification of the  job roles existent in an organisation, the key result areas of each job function and ideal person in terms of – education, professional attainments, experience etc. who should be recruited for the job. Most of the times we find stringent person or job specifications describing people for job functions – being advertised and in existence in the state sector; and often you have people of high calibre in the country who would match those specifications. But what is lacking is the most needed. Job descriptions and key result areas! Job descriptions would give an overall duty list to be performed – which also is existent in the state sector in most organisations – whilst the Key Result Areas and yardstick of measurement is absent! They say what is measured gets done! Due to the absence of KRAs and set measurements people’s output or productivity cannot be measured and rewarded. This requires a total look at the functions of state organisations, their deliverables and a service/task plan trickling down to people’s responsibilities, job functions and KRAs. Policy level intervention and guidance will be needed.

Productivity audits

Now we come to more challenging areas. It is given that many state organisations are not achieving optimum productivity/output levels from people it has employed. This is mostly due to overstaffing and the absence of a mechanism to monitor productivity. No person likes to be called or identified as unproductive or redundant. Therefore there will be stiff resistance to this exercise. However it is a must do. State run organisations have to carry out audits or measurements of the output of their people. This will enable the organisation determine the optimum levels of people it should have in the cadre. If you are really objective you can assign “multi tasks” and also “enlarge jobs” of people with accompanying rewards. It has to be stressed and communicated too that this in no way will put in danger or threaten the stability of those identified as “excess” or redundant. In this developing economy there will be and there are many areas where human resources have to be re-assigned, deployed and made productive use of. Contrary to the popular belief of losing jobs, this in fact will give better opportunities for people to grow and earn more and be recognised.

Cadre planning & HR budgeting

This is an inherently disliked and taboo term in many instances, but a critical need. At national level in all state run organisations a fixed cadre budget has to exist. This will have to emanate from the future plans and strategies of each institution. We do have to depart from adhoc “head filling exercises however challenging it may be. Instead of creating or filling organisations we have to focus on “creating new opportunities for people. One good option is to look at more public private partnerships. Furthermore a comprehensive national HRD and people engagement strategy will need to address the deployment of labour and people’s productivity to meet national needs. Well then realise that there is a dearth of people to fill jobs. A long term plan nevertheless critical in nature.

Getting started

One may argue that although the above ideas look good on paper it is easier said than done. I disagree. What we need is leadership initiative and will coupled with very strong communication efforts to change perceptions of people. Here a concentrated strategy has to be put in place utilising the resources and wisdom plus the competencies of all the professionals in the country, the political leadership, employee unions and organisations. The key word should be “this is for us – for our benefit – and for the future of our children” Singapore achieved it. Japan did the same. Fifty years ago SL had over 10 times the per capita income of these two countries. Fifty years on they have increased the per capita by many folds – 500% or more. The reason for their success has been shared vision and collective sense of ownership through communication and value building.

Like the NASA janitor who said, when asked what his job role was “I am helping those guys upstairs to go to the moon!” the day we establish dignity of labour and nation building ownership amongst people, ours would truly be a “paradise isle and a land like no other!”