Blog | change-effect

Ten things you don’t need to know

Posted on December 16, 2013 by Blog

I described last year as a, “black ice drive“. I didn’t realise then that 2012 was only a warm up act. 2013 has been memorable, I can at least say that.

I could now tell you about the testicular cancer of my dog, my guinea pig’s genital warts, or some other contrived tragedy, in order to make you feel sorry for me. I could plead exceptional circumstances, reach out for the community love. But you know what, as I’ve said before, I’m one of the lucky ones.

Things have happened, things are happening, things will happen. That’s the rub. That’s life

So here are ten things that I’ve learnt in 2013 that you don’t need to know,

1) There are good people out there doing good work, daily. They don’t feel the need (get the space) to tell the world.

2) Winning stuff and being recognised. That’s nice. But not the point.

3) Laugh in the face of adversity. Constantly.

4) The most supportive and helpful people aren’t the ones who talk about how supportive and helpful they are.

5) Until you’ve sat and broken bread with someone, you don’t know whether you’ll really like them.

6) SoMe is full of guff. Period.

7) The real conversation isn’t happening where you think it is, it’s happening where you hope it isn’t.

8) Given a choice, most people would elect for self interest over collective benefit.

9) 90% of debate results is nothing more than intellectual masturbation. Fun, but unproductive.

10) Never listen to a blogger that thinks they can summarise a situation in 10 points.

Happy Christmas one and all.

Neil

PS. That’s me done for 2013. I may be back in the new year, who knows?

SoMe, So Far, So What?

Posted on December 2, 2013 by Blog

Wednesday sees the hosting of the CIPD’s Social Media conference. Cue lot’s of posts about “what social means to me”, “what I’ve gained from social” and of course, “why social makes me a sparklier and better human being than you will ever be”. There is something about the dumb smugness of the Social HR community that sticks in the back of the throat. I’ve written about it before and whilst things got slightly out of hand, the arguments are pertinent and remain.

The fact is, that there are as many malingerers, as many sops and as many charlatans on social channels as there are in any other walk of life. If social was all shiny, then there wouldn’t be trolls. Social channels don’t have a selection process, they don’t discriminate. The democratisation of media places it in the hands of the dull, feckless and boring as often as the interesting and informed. You want evidence? Just look at your Facebook timeline.

In HR we need to be taking the debate beyond the, “I’ve met so many interesting people”, or “we’re a real community” nonsense and start talking about how social tools can be used to better engage with employees, better engage with job seekers and create value within the organisation. We need to be innovating, piloting, experimenting and seeing how we can best harness the technology that is freely being placed in our hands.

Social media policies are potentially limiting and dangerous. Been there, done that and bought the t-shirt. Yet 80% of HR professionals are still busily enforcing theirs within the organisation. Are we there yet? I think not.

If Social HR doesn’t want to eat itself, then it needs to step up and demonstrate value, not talk about social in such whimsical and, frankly eye wateringly nauseating terms. It is time to start to use the technology to transform your organisations, not just tweet cupcakes. It is time to engage internally, not blabber externally. It is time to come of age.

My question is, does Social HR really want to? Or is it just another pink and fluffy example of the profession slowly losing credibility. Only time will tell.

Sack the HR department?

Posted on November 25, 2013 by Blog

Scanning the social media airwaves this weekend, a title immediately grabbed my attention, “Sack the HR department!” the title of a white paper from the “Great Place to Work Institute”. You can read the entire paper here but the summary highlighted a number of reasons why staff don’t have high opinions of the HR department.

HR function outsourced so more remote

HR staff seen as ‘whistleblowers’

HR staff not following their own rules about recruitment and promotion

HR turning a blind eye to managers likewise who don’t play by the rules

Line managers expected to carry out HR role with little or no training

HR seen as out of touch with the rest of staff

I’m not a great fan of “research” papers that are essentially there to sell a service. But the summary points resonated with a number of arguments I’ve made in the past.

I struggle to think of an example of an outsourced HR solution that has added long term value to the organisation and improved the service for employees. I’ve heard the arguments, sure, but the evidence? Last April I wrote a piece about the “Sausage Machine”. The outsourcing process, however, is the sausage machine on steroids, supposed efficiency drives and incentivises the dehumanisation process. It is as simple as that.

Trust is a theme that I’ve come back to time and time again. Most HR departments aren’t trusted and this makes any sort of intervention or improvement in the employee experience almost impossible. If you’re not trusted, your work won’t be trusted. If you can’t deal with confidentiality, you won’t be confided in.

And a lot of this is underpinned by the relentless desire by HR to be seen as “commercial”. Which so many read as, “doing whatever I’m told by the big bosses” and which, of course, in many cases is exactly the opposite. Sometimes saying “no” well is the most commercial thing you can do. If you want evidence just look at the role of HR in most of the corporate failures in the last ten years.

But perhaps the biggest warning light to the profession, is being out of touch. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Most HR departments don’t have a clue what is going on in their organisations. And sadly, most think they’ll solve this by learning to read a P&L. In the same way that there are no answers at the bottom of an empty glass, nor is their organisational insight at the bottom of a balance sheet. Well, certainly not the sort we’re looking for.

So does this tell us anything new? Not really. Does it tell us anything we don’t know? Probably not? Will we pay attention? I guess the good will but the bad won’t.

And that is the fundamental problem with the profession.