HR

The mutuality of networks

Posted on by Blog

Relationships have to be two-way to be meaningful, otherwise they aren’t a relationship. We need to both give and receive for the connection to be real, for the connection to be purposeful. I’m wary of posting anything that might sound like a diatribe on social media, there other people better qualified in diatribes than I am, but there seems to me to be a disconnect developing between the online and offline approaches to people’s networks.

I’m very lucky to have a close group of neighbours and if one of us is away, another will step in to check the mail, feed an animal or just make sure that everything is ok.  But it is a shared commitment that we all have, unspoken, unrequested, bit critically important to the living breathing community that we have become.  If one neighbour were to constantly be asking for help, but never providing then unless they had some specific reason I’m certain that after a period of time it would become awkward.

Likewise, the business  people who I know in and out of my business also have this mutuality of commitment at the base of their relationships with me.  If I need something, I can call on my network and they will, if they can, come to my assistance.  And of course, I will come to their’s too if it is within my power.  The phrase “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” is often seen in a dim light, but in reality this is at the basis of everything that we do.  It doesn’t have to be now, it doesn’t have to be tomorrow but I’d like to believe that people are there for me.

I had a conversation with Jon Ingham last week about a subject not a million miles away from this.  We don’t hold the same views on influence and connectivity, but we share a lot of overlapping thoughts, opinions and beliefs.  In an online world it is easy to confuse “connections” with connection.  We can have a gazillion followers, or a bazillion “friends” (ok so I made that word up) but the quality of this interface is something that is a lot harder to get at, to measure, to understand. I’m quite happy to connect on LinkedIn with people who I know, know of, or have met.  Likewise I am happy to recommend people who I genuinely WOULD recommend.  Less so those people who wish to do so because I work in HR and they feel that there might be some benefit for them.

But isn’t that a bit…..selfish? If I can help someone, then shouldn’t I try to do so?

Well yes, and no.  I’d like to think that over time, I’ve been helpful to people who I’ve met online. Can I write this? Can I speak at that? Would I have a look at this and tell them what I think? Of course.  The difference is that these people have interacted with me beforehand and I have a belief that if I were to need something in the future, they would reciprocate.  I haven’t “got” anything from them, other than the time of day and a bit of a chat about XY and Z, but the intention in approaching wasn’t about what they could get, that came later.

But giving can be more than acts, it can be content and thought, it can be support and advice.  I’m open to friend requests on Facebook or follower on Twitter (haven’t quite got my head around Google+ yet which seems a bit of a free for all) but at the same time as I hope I contribute to a conversation, I look to others to do so too.  If you follow 11 people and have a thousand followers, you are going to be in transmit mode constantly (I saw a senior Head of Resourcing with this sort of profile the other day and thought…no thank you).

I guess where I’m getting to, what I’m starting to think is that there needs to be some level of value. And value isn’t a number, but more a sense, a feeling an emotion. It isn’t about frequency, I have some great friends and contacts that I speak to only time to time, but I know that should I ever need anything, they would be there.  Networks, relationships, communities are all about mutuality, not just of purpose, but of contribution.

Offline and online should be no different in that respect.

Unconscious immunity

Posted on by Blog

I can remember at some point in my childhood, my brother and I were having a pointless argument over a pointless topic in only the way that loving siblings can. I can’t remember the specifics, there were far too many brotherly tiffs to record them all, but I know that he was teasing me over something that I had tried to do and failed badly at. And my mother said,

“Those who never try, never fail”

Those who never try….never fail.  Ok so this was said as a rebuke to a 9-year-old evil tempered older brother. But some 30 years or so later I was sat in the US thinking about the future of HR and why we seem incapable as a profession of shaking off the shackles of mainstream perception and the words start to take on a separate but equally  valid meaning.

So many of us out there in the profession are seeking some sort of unconscious immunity.  If we say nothing outside of “the box”, then there is no chance that we will be ridiculed.  If we keep our counsel on subjects that are out of the strictly defined “people agenda” then we will never look stupid. If we don’t talk and stay silent, then we might not look stupid and might raise our credibility.

Of course, when you read this – like me – you’ll think this is a nonsense.  It makes no sense right?  Why would not saying something be more likely to improve your credibility than saying something? But then you are reading this from a rational objective and not an emotional one. And the way that we interact in business and express our views is, in my opinion, more based on the latter than the former.

Saying nothing is a seemingly sure bet.  If you say nothing, you will seldom be wrong. The view on the monthly financial report, the question on the marketing plan, the point on the supply chain strategy that just doesn’t sit right.  Raising them…..well you could be totally wrong and make yourself a laughing-stock. But not raising them………?

Don’t get me wrong, I can be guilty of this myself. Sitting in a meeting and thinking “that doesn’t make sense” but saying absolutely nothing. Not always, but sometimes. And I need to challenge myself to break this habit.  You don’t change anything by staying silent, you change by speaking out.

Very little grows in the shadows, it grows in the glare of the midday sun.  You put yourself out there and of course there is the risk that you may just get something wrong. But let he who is without asking a daft question, throw the first stone.  And you never know, once in a while, you might say something that really changes the game.

Are you a hoop creator?

Posted on by Blog

I’m not a fan of Holby City, I’ve spent enough time in hospitals to not need to watch pretend ones. But I am a fan of Luther (why psychopathic cops chasing sociopathic criminals should be more attractive to me than hospitals is anyone’s guess). And it was whilst waiting for the latter that I caught the end of the former and particularly this quote,

“We need to complete this for HR, they like to make us jump through these hoops”

I tweeted it and the rest of the evening was spent messing about with Emma Vernon, Mervyn Dinnen and David Kelham (amongst others) on the topic of #hoopcreation.

We laugh…..but hang on sec….isn’t that what people see as us? And isn’t that because a lot of what we do IS hoop creation?

“We need to create a process for that” – HOOP

“I think we need to review the form” – HOOP

“We need a sign off procedure” – HOOP

Do we REALLY need these things? Or do we need to communicate better, to build relationships and to trust people? Are we covering our inability to influence with a series of hoops?

I’m going to challenge myself….and I challenge you…..next time you’re talking in this way ask yourself this, “is there a legal, regulatory or business critical imperative for doing this? Or am I just indulging in hoopcreation?” And if you’re feeling really brave, go and find some of those hoops you’ve already created and work out ways to throw them away.

I’m telling you, not only will the business thank you, you might actually free up some time to do something that adds real value. How about that for a win win?

We can’t work it out

Posted on by Blog

Another Government, another job creation scheme, another waste of time and money.

Last Friday saw the launch of the latest employment white elephant, “The Work Programme” charmingly described by Employment Minister Chris Grayling as,

“a giant employment dating agency”

The concept is to use private companies to find employment for unemployed people and incentivise them to do so with the payments for success ranging depending on how unemployable the placed people are.  There are a number of serious faults with the scheme, many of which have more than adequately been highlighted by my friends at the Work Foundation:

  • Unemployment has huge regionality – if you’re unemployed in an area of high unemployment then incentives to contractors to find you work are not going to help one iota
  • Unemployment has huge emotional, social and psychological implications. Trying to solve it through a commissioned based system is a recipe for disaster – expect to hear stories of vulnerable people being ill-advised and placed in roles that are unsuitable
  • Private enterprise will focus on where it can achieve a return, not where it can be most socially useful
  • The scheme is focussed on demand side, not supply side

And this last point is the real issue, the real area where this and other job schemes come crashing down.  Employers don’t (generally) create jobs because of Government schemes.  There may be some headline grabbing stories – generally from retailers creating part-time, low paid jobs. But that hardly deals with the issues that are driving the unemployment figures – such as tens of thousands of public sector workers losing their jobs.

If we are serious about creating meaningful sustainable employment, we need investment in the key market sectors that Britain can be strong in. We need to invest in the knowledge economy, in creative industries, in R&D. We need to learn the lessons from the financial crisis and incentivise the development of a mixed economy. But perhaps most importantly we need to understand that the burden of tax on businesses needs to be reduced.  Business creates jobs when they are growing and investing in their future, not when they are holding their own or at worst contracting.

There is no genuine, long-lasting value behind “job creation” schemes or incentives, they don’t lead to a step change in the labour market, they are political window dressing that hide the main issues of economic frailty. Within the UK, if we are serious about solving the current unemployment situation (and we should be as it is a 17 year high) then we  need to create an environment that supports business growth, entrepreneurialism and innovation.

At the same time, we need to address long-term skills shortages, through significant investment in retraining and finally to support business development in those communities that have been devastated through long-term unemployment and public sector cuts.

The “Work Programme” does nothing to tackle the crux of our unemployment problem. It is time to grow up and start discussing the real issues that lie at the heart of the matter, only then will we take any meaningful steps forward.