What do you think about this statement? It stopped me in my tracks. Not an HR activity? I disagree. Is it helpful for businesses to see it this way? Probably yes, actually. It means they own it. But we need an AND in there.
This came from an article about the Insight222 Nine Dimensions for Workforce Planning™. It’s all good sense. Buy why exclude HR? Insight222, are you being provocative or do you actually want to exclude HR?
We do know that HR needs and wants more strategic leverage. Leading future resourcing should be a flagship for that.
A war for talent is expected. Recent uncertainty has increased the appetite for envisioning a strong future.
Can HR turn this into an opportunity to break through?
What would it take?
The article uses data from Gartner, whose article ‘3 Workforce-Planning Imperatives That Drive Business Outcomes’ reveals little confidence in HR’s ability to drive manpower planning:
‘HR struggles to get the input it needs from the business to assess internal evolving business needs.’
Insight222 pinpoint the same issue: ‘when workforce
planning is done poorly, it is “hidden away” in HR, with individuals who don’t have strong business stakeholders engaged.’
So it all comes down the quality of HR’s interaction with the business. Our own research revealed this too. Our 7 HR Enablers and programmes create a path to building the kind of stakeholder relationships that do deliver deep business understanding and the opportunity to create value.
That’s also what my book’s about – ‘Empowering HR‘.
What are your views on where manpower planning should sit in the organisation? Who should own it?
Could this be a tipping point for HR’s future credibility?
I’d welcome your thoughts and a chat if this is something that’s struck a chord.
