19 April Placements that Fail (...soldier...)

[Paul Terlemezian]

Here are Drucker's rules for placements that fail:

 

1. The executive that made the decision to hire must accept the responsibility for the failure.

2. The executive has the responsibility to remove the person from the job they are failing in.

3. This does not mean that the person should be let go. There may be a more suitable job for them.

4. "The executive must make the right people decisions for every job."

5. Newcomers must be assigned to established positions. "New major assignments should mainly go to people.... who have already earned trust and credibility."

 

What would happen if:

 

1. The training organization assumed responsibility for people who failed to effectively apply the training

2. The training organization had the responsibility of whether to allow someone to perform their job (or not) based on their performance during the training

3. The training organization had the ability to recommend an alternate assignment

4. The training organization had to make these decisions for every job.

5. The training organization was part of the hiring decision and could access previous performance and training outcomes for the individuals

 

What type of employees would be attracted to work in the training organization?

How would the training organization be perceived by employees? by line managers?

 

What would it take for this change to occur? Is it desireable for it to occur?

[Paul Terlemezian]

It would be easy and possibly correct that if the training organization did these 5 things that they would be usurping the manager of the individual being trained.

And yet - does the hiring manager do them? Would the hiring manager be able to admit a "mistake" in hiring - or "blame the training?"

An ALO - Accountable Learning Organization must do 1, 2 and 3. It must work towards number 5 and it could evolve to share ownership of item 4.