 |
|
 |
|
|
| CASESTUDY-A
MAJAOR SOFTWARE COMPANY |
|
| Bridging
the Communications Gap at a Multinational
Corporation |
|
|
|
 |
THE
SETTING |
|
| When
the efficiency and profitability
of one of the world’s largest
software and information technologies
companies – a proverbial
“household name” in
the IT sector – becomes
hampered by organizational and
communicative difficulties, the
stakes are high. This is precisely
what took place within the Enterprise
Product Groups (EPG) division
at the X Corporation. Although
consisting of only 12 tenured
senior directors and their direct
reports, this division currently
accounts for approximately 1/3
of the organization’s overall
sales and marketing budget. As
such, the need to cultivate a
streamlined and seamlessly integrated
organizational environment was
absolutely crucial; a responsibility
I accepted with both enthusiasm
and anticipation. |
|
|
|
THE
CHALLENGE |
|
| In
its most basic form, the organization
was experiencing a “disconnect”
between its various project teams
on the one hand, and the recruiting
personnel assigned to their needs
on the other. At the very heart
of the problem was a break down
in effective communications which
ultimately served to undermine
office productivity while also
contributing to an overall climate
ill-suited to efficient team-based
operations and adequate employee
succession. Although not always
apparent at first glance, it was
clear that this communicative
breakdown was hampering departmental
performance and limiting the organizations
profitability. Specifically, the
highly specific (and forever changing)
needs of the individual project
teams were not being adequately
identified, evaluated, and articulated
as efficiently as they should
have been. In addition, the intentions,
motivations, and operational concerns
of each recruiting team were not
transparent enough such that a
seamless communicative relationship
between the two groups could develop.
Instead, the relationship was
replete with misunderstanding,
misdirection, and misinformation.
After a thorough evaluation of
the problem, it became apparent
that the communication breakdown
– and the subsequent losses
in terms of employee productivity
– was less a product of
individual personalities and/or
unfulfilled employment responsibilities,
and more a product of an organizational
structure that required adjustment
in the present and ongoing management
in the future; the problem was
systemic as opposed to episodic.
Above and beyond communication
barriers, the organization lacked
the necessary procedures to adequately
deal with candidate cycles, personal
interviews, employee relocations,
and other integral tasks related
to the hiring process. In short,
numerous organizational protocols
had to be modified and some had
to be created from the ground
up. |
|
|
|
THE
SOLUTION |
|
| The
resolution involved changes above
and beyond a simple clarification
of existing roles and responsibilities.
In particular, it demanded a series
of best practices designed to
effectively bridge the communications
gap between each of the project
teams and their recruiting staff.
This specialized approach worked
to ensure that the needs of all
the teams and their recruiting
colleagues received the attention
they deserved. Moreover, it helped
to ensure that every step of the
recruiting process – from
the initial identification of
team needs to the final introduction
of a new team member – was
properly evaluated and documented
for immediate and future reference.
In its original form, the organizational
structure positioned the recruiting
personnel such that they were
the primary conduits through which
the needs and concerns of the
project teams were channeled and/or
taken into consideration for recruiting
purposes. Unfortunately, the sheer
volume of work required to ensure
that each teams’ needs were
being properly defined, evaluated,
prioritized, and communicated
on a daily, weekly, or monthly
basis was beyond the capacity
of those working in a recruiting
capacity. Moreover, the recruiting
teams did not have the time or
resources to ensure that team
managers were following the proper
procedures for initiating the
recruitment process. These difficulties
seemed to intensify when recruiters
were faced with the enormous task
of filling in excess of 20 positions
per month. Below is a detailed
summary of the best practices
that I immediately set into motion: |
|
|
I attended all project team meetings
in a unified messaging capacity.
This eventually allowed me to
effectively carry out in-depth
evaluations and consultations
with individual team members,
management, and HR generalists
while working to clearly isolate,
define, and record present and
future team needs.
|
| |
|
|
Routine consultations with project
management staff were also necessary
in order to ensure that all documentation
relating to recruitment was being
completed and submitted properly.
|
| |
|
|
I also conducted routine meetings
with recruitment staff in order
to keep them up to date on the
needs and status of each project
team. At the same time, I was
able to identify and record their
concerns and intended courses
of action.
|
| |
|
|
One of the most critical (and
most effective) practices included
conducting systematic follow-up
evaluations after new positions
were filled so as to evaluate
the extent to which needs were
being met. Data gathered from
these evaluations was then compiled
and relayed back to those in charge
of recruiting in a systematic
and efficient fashion. The systematic
relay of this information helped
off-set the disorganization that
followed when internal transfers
generated discontinuity within
recruiting operations.
|
| |
|
|
I also developed and monitored
trends across teams with an eye
toward identifying emergent, broad-based,
recruiting needs. These trends
were then elaborated upon in quarterly
“needs assessment”
reports and were made available
to those working in a managerial
capacity.
|
| |
|
|
In order to ensure that the most
innovative and effective practices
were being put into place, I routinely
networked and evaluated other
successful teams. I then developed
strategies based on these interviews
and applied them accordingly.
This task involved networking
with other recruiting departments
in companies currently operating
in the same or similar fields
and presenting those findings
to management.
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
................. |
| Books
|
| ................. |
|
| |
|
|
 |
................. |
| Articles
|
| ................. |
|
|
|
|
 |
..................... |
| Case
Studies |
| ..................... |
|
|
|
|
 |
................. |
| Press
|
| ................. |
|
| |
|
| |
|
