THE PARTNERING PARADOX IN JOB DESIGN

If partnering is to become "how things are done around here," it must be baked into every job. It thus must be included as a "job spec," a historically documented criterion in a job description. In some jobs partnering may well turn out to be the overriding job spec, that is, the aspect of the position that creates the greatest value for the enterprise. But this criterion presents a paradox, because partnering is both a job input and a job output. Partnering comprises both a set of behavioral characteristics (an input for which we can interview and hire, as detailed in Chapter 6) and produces the outputs (products and services and strategic alliances) an organization needs to accomplish its purpose. Partnering is thus

PARTNERING ORGANIZATION CASE STUDY: CREATING A WORLD-CLASS SUPPLY-CHAIN ORGANIZATION

Part 1: A Bold Strategy

A midsized global manufacturer with $1 billion-plus annual revenue wanted to create a world-class supply-chain organization—a source of distinct competitive advantage. The president's vision for the organization included the purchasing function becoming the mirror image of the company's sales organization. As he explained:

Our purchasing professionals have the ability to impact the bottom line as much as if not more than our sales people. They must work with our suppliers as closely as our sales people work with our customers to build lasting partnerships. The global contracts that they negotiate for materials and services for our worldwide manufacturing plants have a huge impact on our profits. To be a successful global competitor, we must contain costs. In our case, this is particularly important, since 70 percent of our costs are related to the procurement of materials and services. The only difference between the two groups is that one does the buying and the other does the selling. (emphasis added)

This innovative supply—chain strategy called for a completely different kind of purchasing organization, one staffed with highly skilled negotiators focused on partnering with suppliers worldwide in implementing global procurement strategies. The challenge was that the purchasing group lacked the organizations structure and the internal credibility it needed to drive strategic decisions within the company.

So, the president established a new mission: to build a partnering organization that would create procurement strategies to utilize the company's supplier base as a key resource for distinct competitive advantage. A cross-functional structure team with members from Marketing, Engineering, Manufacturing, and Purchasing was chartered to design the new structure. Facilitated by Jim Krefft, co-author of this book, the structure team was personally charged by the president to think "outside the box" in examining the current organization structure and analyzing customary purchasing processes. Within a week, the group developed a new structural framework for the procurement organization, creating an innovative partnering network and redefining the roles of purchasing professionals.

To date, the company has saved over $400 million in procurement activities as a result of the partnering organization redesign initiative that was driven by the new supply-chain strategy.

• A performance competency—a set of interconnected behaviors

• An accountability—a series of tasks that produces business results

• A relationship output—partnerships, arrays of relationships

All three of these facets of partnering yield two vital organizational assets that can appreciate over time: information and relationships. However, conventional formats for job descriptions—position descriptions, position profiles—are not as a rule configured to incorporate this partnering paradox as a job criterion. Typical formats serve the traditional purpose of job descriptions—to justify job level and compensation, and by extension to control payroll expense—and as such they have served more as a human resources audit document and a head-count management billy club than as a practical management tool for line managers. A partnering organization needs a more flexible tool.

Any enterprise that wishes to tackle the challenge of creating a partnering organization must at some point examine both its current job evaluation system—how it pegs jobs for pay—and the existing templates it uses for writing job descriptions. If you believe that partnering creates immense ongoing value for an organization, then those jobs that are accountable for forging, managing, and growing partnerships must be valued, and the incumbents compensated, accordingly. People generally do what they think they are being paid to do. It is common to "pay for performance." If you want a partnering organization, you had better be willing to "pay for partnering." If you do not, it will not happen. Organizations do not partner, people partner. Let's see how this principle worked in part 2 of the partnering organization case study.

PARTNERING ORGANIZATION CASE STUDY: CREATING A WORLD - CLASS SUPPLY - CHAIN ORGANIZATION

Part 2: Job Design

The partnering network began to fall into place after the structure team conceived of a new kind of position, the supply manager. The authority and responsibility of the new position were to equal those of a sales manager position. Both have managerial responsibilities. Supply managers manage partnerships with vendors, and sales managers manage partnerships with customers. In addition, both have authority over pricing. Supply managers approve vendor prices, while sales managers approve contract prices with customers. This new job design was completely different from the company's traditional purchasing organization philosophy.

The structure team also created another new position, supply service representative, to act as a day-to-day interface between vendors and plants, between plants and sales managers, and among the various supply management teams. Similar to a sales and service organization that has administrative and logistical support from customer service representatives, the structure team concluded that supply managers needed the same kind of professional support: to research vendors and pricing, to expedite paperwork, to troubleshoot procurement bottlenecks, and to keep sales managers up to date on the status of their customers' orders. A supply service representative supports each supply management team.

In creating innovative job designs to drive smart partnering, the main obstacle for leaders is that most job evaluation policies and practices now in place are deeply rooted in a command-and-control philosophy and its corollary, "bigger is better." The biggerer, the betterer. Positions involving greater numbers of customers, higher revenue, larger capital and expense budgets, more people, and greater territory are evaluated at higher levels, whatever job evaluation algorithm (point factor, benchmark, and so on) an organization's compensation gurus choose to employ to "value" jobs. The name of the salary advancement game is to increase the scope of one's job—and everybody knows it. Without question, quantitative scope will continue to remain an indispensable factor in any job evaluation system, but going forward, partnering must also become a major factor in job evaluations. Partnering creates value; people partner; pay for partnering.

Lip service to the value of smart partnering is easy, but making partnering a vital part of how we do business every day is much more difficult. To institutionalize partnering as a job evaluation factor, to make it a "BFOQ," a bona fide occupational qualification in affirmative action compliance lingo, the partnering requirements for a job must be built into the job description for that position. As a mechanism for accomplishing this aim, here are two suggestions: first, incorporate a Partnering Profile as an integral part of the job description for any position for which partnering is a critical enterprise activity; and second, add a Partnering Summary section to the job description for each position in the organization. Of course for bargaining unit positions, leaders may have to negotiate such changes with union members and leaders. Let's elaborate on these two suggestions for institutionalizing partnering in your organization.

Partnering Profile

In addition to "tombstone" data (job title, "reports to," etc.) and signature blocks, a standard job description by and large consists of three sections: a summary (including minimum requirements); a list of accountabilities (responsibilities, outputs, or activities); and selection criteria (competencies, or knowledge, skills, and abilities). Parsing out partnering among these customary sections of a job description would serve only to dilute an organization's emphasis on partnering. Rather than divide the partnering requirements among the summary, accountabilities, and selection criteria sections, add a Partnering Profile as a stand-alone section in the job descriptions for those positions that require substantive partnering skills and results. The Partnering Profile shown in Figure 3 is divided into three parts to mirror the three facets of partnering mentioned earlier: partnerships, partnering accountabilities, and partnering competencies. Keeping the partnering facets together emphasizes their interconnection and their significance for organizational success.

Partnerships: List vital partnerships incumbent must build, maintain, or expand; link partnerships to business goals and objectives.

External:

Internal:

Partnering Accountabilities: List 2–3 key partnering results incumbent must achieve; link partnering results to business targets.

1.

2.

3.

Partnering Competencies: Identify the partnering knowledge, skills, and abilities required to accomplish the partnering accountabilities. Describe each partnering competency as it relates to this position and to the partnerships listed above.

Self-Disclosure and Feedback:

Win-Win Orientation:

Ability to Trust:

Future Orientation:

Comfort with Change:

Comfort with Interdependence:

Figure 3: Partnering Profile

Partnering Summary

For positions that do not require substantive partnering skills and results, we suggest that general partnering requirements be incorporated either as a stand-alone section in a job description (see Figure 4)—perhaps just beneath the position summary—or as a subsection of the position summary section (see Figure 5). In the latter case, use subheads to call special attention to the particularly unique job specifications relating to partnering. Partnering must come to be viewed as part of "my real job."

SECTION X: PARTNERING SUMMARY

Partnering Contributions: Describe in general terms how incumbent must partner day to day, internally and externally; link partnering contributions to strategic goals and to business targets.

Partnering Competencies: Identify briefly in behavioral terms the partnering knowledge, skills, and abilities required to make the partnering contributions listed above; as needed, reference the Six Partnering Attributes™: Self-Disclosure and Feedback, Win-Win Orientation, Ability to Trust, Future Orientation, Comfort with Change, and Comfort with Interdependence.

Figure 4: Partnering Summary As a Stand-Alone Section of Job Description

SECTION X: POSITION SUMMARY

Position Overview: Describe the overall purpose of this position. Include main areas of responsibility and scope (e.g., number of customers, amount of annual revenue, size of capital and expense budgets, office/plant locations, and payroll).

Partnering Summary: Describe in general terms how incumbent must partner day to day; link partnering contributions to business targets. Identify partnering competencies required by referencing the Six Partnering Attributes™: Self-Disclosure and Feedback, Win-Win Orientation, Ability to Trust, Future Orientation, Comfort with Change, and Comfort with Interdependence.

Partnering Contributions:

Partnering Competencies:

Minimum Requirements: List minimum education and experience needed for this job. Include licenses or certifications required.

Figure 5: Partnering Summary As Part of a Position Summary Section of Job Description