I need a response to the below Statement:
The author’s primary field of interest is human capital development in organizations. He has worked with both academic, secondary, and university, institutions, and corporate training departments. A primary strategic planning issue lies in moving from the mission, vision, and set goals to translating the plan into specific training plans that develop skills needed for effective operational goals. With high potentials, there are typically better laid out plans for mentoring, coaching, targeted skill development, and more. However, my observation is that significant potential is available within corporate spheres that is untapped because the majority of staff are not aligned with the organizational mission and values, are not matched in the right roles, and they do not understand or are motivated by the way their individual contributions fit into the mission (Daft, 2013).
In the author’s current organization of a high-end secondary school designed to develop the leaders of the country, there is a disconnect between the individual contributors, supervisors, and middle managers and the senior leadership team comprised of the board of directors and a few senior leaders who decide on tactics and strategy. Although the vision and mission are clear and laid out by the entity that owns the school, the board is charged with approving a strategy for implementation. Their approach is to hire a group of outside consultants to come in and define tactics, strategies, intelligence teams, and more. What has lacked consistency is ownership, intelligence integration into strategy revisions, and planning and operational reviews. Two primary factors affect this, one from the top and one from the bottom of the hierarchy. From the bottom of the hierarchy, many staff has low ownership as individual contributors. They were not well screened for engagement or fit for their roles and many are ‘hired guns’ who are experts technically but feel little inclination in human development. From the top, many of the board does not respect the technical experts they have hired and consistently ignores their contributions and advice on improving the strategic execution process. This has alienated the individual contributors and supervisors further resulting in a staff that is often at odds with the management. Disengaged staff with no interest in putting their all into transforming the lives of students is the result.
For starters, part of a solution could begin with pulling representative engaged staff from all levels of the school to provide feedback that was then acted upon by the senior leadership. These recommendations need to be made public and acted upon publicly so that unengaged staff can see a policy change on the part of the senior leadership. Second, low-performing unengaged staff could be given the spring semester to improve the execution of their individual contributions to the organization. Tools and resources could be provided but if there is not an improvement, they should be released at year-end in order to make room for engaging new staff. These new staff should be carefully screened for their roles. An additional purge should take place among senior leaders who are unable to ‘translate the plan’ or ‘plan operations’ in a way that engages staff. Successful strategic planning does not enable team leaders or team members to continue to sabotage objectives year after year. Seek to have them improve, if that can not be done, move them out of leadership.
Daft, R. L. (2013). Management (11th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. ISBN-13: 9781285068657