Author: Blog

The revolution will (not) be sanitised

Posted on by Blog

Last year whilst having lunch with David Goddin, we were discussing the whole “Social HR” thing when one or other of us came up with the phrase, “the cigarette paper of social connection”. The idea that for all we talk about connection and connectivity, social connection online is incredibly thin and superficial.

Fast forward through the Christmas celebrations and I’m in a bar with Sukh Pabial discussing the very same thing. As an output he writes this blog and the response is yawningly predictable. It shouldn’t be a surprise, when I wrote about Social HR last year the same things were said. It is increasingly clear that we have a problem with challenge.

It tickles me when I’m told that people have stopped following me on Twitter because of something that I said that they disagree with. Bless ‘em.

It makes me laugh when we organise, yes ORGANISE, structures to destructure and disrupt and consider ourselves edgy. 

It amazes me when we collect together a bunch of blogs and think that our personal desire for attention and affirmation is in any way changing or influencing anyone.

It entertains me that we dub someone a thought leader or thinker, when all they do is regurgitate and repackage the thoughts of others. And no one calls it out.

It depresses me that we defend this ridiculous status quo and rage against anyone who questions it.

When the medium for disruption, become the establishment, you know that you’re heading for mediocrity and group think. When consensus is valued more highly than difference, you know you’re pushing water up a wall.

The revolution has been sanitised. Time for a rethink.

Demand a little more from recruiters, and yourselves.

Posted on by Blog

I should know by now that attending anything vaguely resembling an “HR roundtable” is only likely to result in my blood pressure going in one direction. The coming together of HR professionals can result in one of two things,

1) Creative thinking, challenging conversations, original solutions.

2) Dumbing down, group think, collective moaning.

You know which one is the predominant outcome, because you’ve been at these sessions too. But that’s not my point. This particular session was discussing recruitment, recruitment providers and the future recruitment market.

As I ate, what was an undeniably good meal, and listened I heard suppliers complain about procurers and procurers complain about suppliers. I heard,

“We want”, “We need”, “We don’t get”, “We expect”.

From both sides.

What I was hearing was the inability of the demand side (HRDs) and supply side (recruiters) to express the value that they wanted and provided. HR generalists are notoriously feckless and lazy when it comes to recruitment. They place vacancies with recruiters (at all levels) because they can’t be bothered to work out what they want, why they want it, or how they might achieve it.

Third party recruiters have, over time, been happy to accept this, make money from it and exploit the relatively soft market. Providing diminishing returns for increasingly unrealistic fees. They accept vacancies without question, see it as income generation and are target orientated.

Where is the definition of value? Can recruiters really define the value add? And do HRDs know the value they want the supplier to provide and demand it from them?

I can’t help thinking that so many of our issues with suppliers are down to our own poor management and laziness. Our inability to reflect, define and demand. Our tendency to act, react and take the path of least resistance.

Successful markets require good supply and demand. We can’t control the supply, but we sure as hell can be more in charge of our demand.

 

A million small things

Posted on by Blog

“It isn’t the [add subject in question], it’s the culture” 

I’ve read this a few times over the past couple of weeks and each time become increasingly more irked. The first time was on the blog of my friend and co-collaborator Rob Jones in a rather lame and cack handed defence of appraisals. Another time was from the enigma that is @fizzywizzy in relation to Lloyd’s bank introduction of quotas for female managers.

Of course, I get the point both are trying to make. But it also reminds me of one of the biggest weaknesses of the profession. The inability to see both the big and the small, to navigate the interconnected nature of everything that we do around people, to wrestle with the simple complexity that is the world of work.

If a culture isn’t made up of the interventions that an organisation has, what is it?

Culture doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Culture doesn’t make itself. Culture isn’t a higher being. Culture is a result of the million small things that we do at work every day. From a Human Resource perspective, culture is defined by every touch point that we offer to anyone in our organisation. The relationship between culture and intervention is multi faceted and multi directional.

The suggestion that somehow “culture” sits outside of the practical and the pragmatic is both dangerous and lazy. Dangerous because it allows us to excuse failure. Lazy because it suggests lack of influence.

If you want to develop your organisational culture, if you want to build and grow your organisation, start with the small. You can make a million small things happen much quicker than you think. And each of those, if correctly designed, thought through and implemented will go much further to developing your culture than big strategic round tables or away days.

The big is made of the small, the small influences the big. Culture is everything that we do.

It isn’t the culture that’s the problem, it’s everything we do.

The end of the manager

Posted on by Blog

Are we seeing the end of the manager? As a specific purpose, as a power?

Have we seen a shift in balance?

Are we seeing people accepting HR management as a profession, not just a skill?

How many times have you heard, “the business won’t like”, or “the business won’t accept”?

Who is the expert? The manager?

Not any more, perhaps.

Management is not a profession, management is not a calling. Management is a hierarchical concept.

An imperfect one.

We need managers, we need management.

But should we be beholden to them?

More and more organisations are realising that you need to bring more to the table than seniority. Clearly they don’t think so.