Category Archives: Talent

Regulatory Damnation 35: Health and Safety

Health and Safety, generally referred to as Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) or Workplace Health and Safety (WHS) in North America, refers to regulations and regulatory management concerned with the safety, health, and welfare of employees, be they full time, part time, contingent, day labourer, or unpaid intern. In an advanced organization, it’s a key component of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) as the health and welfare of any person doing any task for the organization is a key concern of any responsible organization.

So why is this a damnation? Is this not only the right thing to do but something you want to do as an injured or unwell employee is not productive? It’s a damnation because in some countries of the world, it’s becoming a regulatory nightmare. And not only is failure to comply with the regulations, some of which may go beyond common sense, a huge fine, but if someone gets injured and your organization failed to comply with the regulations, in some countries (and the United States in particular) that’s a million-plus lawsuit waiting to happen.

It’s a massive risk management activity that often adds very little value to the organization.

First, you need to either have your lawyer spend cycles researching all relevant OSH laws to your business at the municipal, state, and federal levels and make sure you are fully compliant, or shell out thousands upon thousands (upon thousands) of dollars to an expert OSH law firm that will provide you a list of all regulations you need to adhere to, minimum requirements, and example programs.

Then you need to identify all hazards of the

  • physical and mechanical variety
    and make sure all personnel have the appropriate safety gear and safety training and supervision if they are new to the task
  • biological and chemical variety
    and make sure all personnel have the appropriate safety gear, training, and supervision and make sure that the risk of exposure is minimized as much as it can be (and only qualified, certified personnel are allowed in the lab where the deadly virii are kept)
  • psychosocial variety
    and make sure all personnel are kept as far away from them as possible (which may mean keeping the CEO away from general assemblies, as he* is likely a psychopath)

Then you need to document your research, your policies, your training methods, your enforcement methods, and your regular review activities in case the OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) or its equivalent comes knocking at your door (as the result of complaints, injury, and/or lawsuits).

And if you’re in Procurement, not only do you have to worry about the safety and health of your employees (who might have to travel to dangerous regions for site visits of what could be danger-ridden factories), but of your supplier’s employees as well. If their practices aren’t up to par and a major disaster happens at one of their facilities, it’s your corporate brand that is going to take the hit when the dust settles and multiple worker’s rights group are quick to point out the failings in your supply chain.

It’s yet another time-sucking task that should be easy and obvious but isn’t thanks to mountains of legislation and suppliers who care more about money than people.

* Most CEOs are men. It’s probably because (considerably) more men than women have been diagnosed as psychopaths. (If most CEOs are psychopaths and most psychopaths are men, then we have a logical explanation for why most CEOs are men outside of sexism.)

Sourcing Innovation is all for Rank and Yank in Procurement!

In particular, SI is all for yanking anyone who suggests that the right way to manage talent is to yank out the worst performers in your organization on an annual basis.

This is another prime example of a consulting cock-up from the Big 5/6 who also brought us (often courtesy of the Board of Directors, as per yesterday’s Procurement Damnation post) baseless outsourcing, unnecessary asset liquidation, and the contingent conversion.

While the doctor is all for the reassignment, or, if necessary, the removal of labour that’s not cutting it, arbitrarily hacking the bottom 10% is the dumbest move you can make. Not only does it ruin your reputation (which is why, on Glassdoor, only 62% of current and former employees would recommend Amazon.ca, which employs the rank and yank strategy, as opposed to Google which is recommended by a whopping 92% of current and former employees), but it ruins your future results.

For example, let’s say a new CPO comes in, does a deep performance review across the talent base and removes the non-performers from the organization (either by having them reassigned to another department or retiring them). If everyone who is left is a performer, arbitrarily removing the 10% of the lowest performers in the following year is equivalent to hammering a nail in her coffin with her in it.

To clarify this, let’s say the department has ten employees including three senior buyers, two intermediate buyers, two junior buyers, one full time spend analyst, one full time relationship manager, and one full time contract and compliance manager. If the performance measurement is geared towards identified savings, because the directors are dictating savings, after two years, the relationship and the contract and compliance manager will likely be gone because, doing their jobs properly, they are not identifying savings but ensuring savings identified by the buyers or analyst is realized. In fact, even if each role has its own scorecard, due to the fuzzy nature of what a relationship and compliance manager will due, it’s still quite likely that whoever fills these rolls will rank quite low and be at risk of getting the axe.

But if they don’t get the axe, then, chances are the junior buyers will because the intermediate and senior buyers, who will be more educated and experienced, will able to skew their projects and results to the performance metrics they are measured against. And that’s equivalent to the CPO nailing her coffin while she is in it because, at some point, the senior buyers are going to retire and need to be replaced by the intermediate buyers who will need to be replaced by the junior buyers, who will need a few years to become intermediate — which means that the organization will never see any junior buyers advance. (As it will be cycling a new junior buyer in every year as it cycles one out every year.) As a result, in the long term, the organization will slowly run out of intermediate, and then senior, buyers and results will diminish rapidly — to the point where all employees are equally poor, returns are dismal, and there will be no difference between cutting the bottom 10% and cutting everyone.

Get the picture?

So the next time someone suggests that the organization employ a rank and yank strategy to get better results from its talent, SI strongly recommends that you jump up and say “that’s a great idea, how about we start with you” as you hold open the door!

Sourcing Your Salary: What Should You Be Paid?

This is a good question. Not only are salaries in the Procurement profession all over the map, but so are the salary surveys and reports produced by different organizations, including the ISM, CAPS, and the APS. However, these can sometimes be hard to get, and, with the exception of the ISM, not regularly produced.

But there is an alternative, and now that it is in its fifth year, it is becoming a very reliable one. That alternative is the Next Level Purchasing Association Annual Salary Survey, and it is a survey you should be familiar with. This survey, which collected data from over 1,300 participants, provides very reliable salary data for North America (39.6%), Africa (24.9%), Asia (22.9%), and Europe (7.1%) and starting data points for South America (3.2%) and Australia (2.3%).

As expected, the highest salaries are in North America, followed by Europe, Asia, and Africa; the average supervisory salary in North America is almost 50% more than the average salary, compared with 30% more outside North America; and salaries increase according to position title. And, despite the proliferation of equal opportunity employment advertisements, we should not be that surprised (especially given the number of women in corporate board rooms), that male procurement professionals not only make more money than their female counterparts, but they also get more higher-level opportunities. And, as those of us who have both climbed the ladder and jumped ship know, Procurement professionals who are recruited from the outside make more than those who are promoted from within. Once you’re inside, you’re on a standard progression track with a small raise tied to each progression. But if another organization is desperate enough, you can get the high end of market value, even if it’s 30% more than you are currently making, and a signing bonus.

However, not all of the results are as one might expect. Two findings in particular that stick out are the facts that

  • Buyers of indirect goods and services make more than those who buy direct goods and services
  • The use and size of bonuses in procurement is trending steeply upward

While a decent amount of market intelligence and negotiating capability is often required to identify and seize the opportunity in an indirect (services) category, the expertise required to properly should-cost model a direct materials category such as custom hardware or aircraft engines is staggering. For any modern piece of electronic or engineered equipment, you often need an advanced university degree just to understand what you are buying on top of the knowledge required to do a great purchasing job, which will likely require a background in operations management as well. Given the average level of education and skill required for direct vs. indirect, one would expect direct buyers to be paid more.

And while the doctor has been promoting performance-based compensation in Procurement for years, because the right incentives can often produce absolutely amazing results (just like appropriately incentivized sales people can lead to incredible growth), it was not something he expected to see. The average (laggard) organization believes that a Procurement professional’s job is to save money, that she should do the best job possible (even if she has to work 60 hours a week), and that her only reward for going above and beyond and identifying hidden millions in savings should be knowledge of a job well done.

the doctor strongly encourages you to check out the Purchasing & Supply Management Salaries in 2015 (Login required) report. A Basic Next Level Purchasing Association (NLPA) Membership is required, but basic membership is fee and Sign Up is simple.

Time to see how you stack up.

Where is Procurement Headed?

Will Procurement ever graduate from the status of misfit toy to that of
one eyed one horned flying purple people eater?

Procurement is still the back room function in many organizations. The early achievers adopted new technology and new processes in the early to mid noughts. The leaders adopted new technology and new processes from the late noughts to the early teens. But the laggards are still on the fence. And not just because they are laggards — but because their organizations are laggards and not giving them the respect and support they deserve.

Let’s face it, with the vast majority of Procurement organizations not having a seat at the table, they are still being treated as a misfit toy. Graduating to the status of one eyed one horned flying purple people eater would be a grand accomplishment — if they could get there.

But first they need to be a rockin’ band. But in order to rock, they need instruments. Technology, which they don’t get budget for, processes, that they haven’t been trained on, and knowledge, that they don’t even know they need. And even if they could get the tools, processes, and knowledge that they needed, they still need to learn how to play in sync.

We’ll start with the second issue first. In order to learn to play in sync, they need training. Training that they never got, even when training was a top procurement survey issue for almost five years in a row. But this is not only hurting Procurement, it’s hurting the organization. Because if Procurement had the training, they would not only know how to play in sync, but they would have the knowledge. In particular, the knowledge they need to not only obtain great savings, and value, for the organization, but the knowledge they need to institute better processes, identify better technology, and convince the organization of the proper steps to achieve savings success.

Good training not only provides knowledge to execute, but knowledge to educate, and knowledge to entice the rest of the organization to follow your lead.

So if your Procurement organization wants to excel, it has to get training. If it can’t get it by hook (by getting it in the budget), then it has to get it by crook (PO now and take the consequences when the invoice come in later), or if there are no other options, with the personal check book (and replace the funds with the bonus you’ll get when the savings materialize). And only then will Procurement be a band of one eyed one horned flying purple people eaters.

We Don’t Need Licenses, We Need Knowledge!

There comes a time in every profession where someone goes beyond screaming the need for certification and starts screaming the need for licenses and self regulation, like Engineers, Lawyers, and Doctor’s have. It doesn’t always happen (and CIPS, no, not CIPS, CIPS failed when it tried to get ISP, no, not your ISP, the ISP certification a regulatory standard in Canada), but some people (either because they like the attention or, more commonly, want the dollars that will come their way as they already offer the certification that they want to see as the foundation for licensing) try anyway.

And while the dialogue is sometimes useful, because it usually results from a lack of appropriately skilled individuals to fill industry need, sometimes it isn’t. Where Procurement is concerned, it isn’t. The problem isn’t lack of regulation, it’s lack of knowledge. As implied by SI’s recent repost on Why Your Organization Can’t Find Top Supply Management Talent, it’s because there just aren’t enough talented individuals out there. And the reason, they just don’t know everything they need to know.

Why?

First of all, most people still see Global Supply Management as backroom Procurement, a function that is so unsexy that the only place in the organization that is worse is the mailroom. As a result, they don’t study Procurement or anything seen as related to it in College.

Secondly, even if they decide to retrain, they are looking at what they can train for quickly, easily through a plethora of courses, and be pretty much guaranteed of getting a placement. Most private colleges focussed on getting people to work quickly with 4 to 8 month programs focus on traditional accounting, IT support, medical transcription, physician / dentist office manager, etc. Procurement isn’t even on their radar. As a result, the (re)training (& certification) offerings are, with only a couple of exceptions, limited to the professional associations, which the average non-Procurement individual isn’t going to know about.

But third, and most critically, you don’t train your people! (And neither do your peers!) Year after year after year your organization will rank lack of talent as one of the three most critical Procurement issues, but year after year you will slash the training budget. If you want talented people, you need to start with knowledgeable people. And if you want the people to have the knowledge they need, you need to give it to them, because they’re not going to get it anywhere else.

And once they have the knowledge they need, they’ll have a much better chance at reaching the level of success you expect. So forget about licensing when the average individual doesn’t even have the knowledge to pass the most basic of certifications, and just give them the knowledge they need. And do it for free if you really want to effect a wide-spread change.