Organisation

Fast news is bad business

Posted on by Blog

When I was starting off in business, we didn’t know a lot about what other organisations were doing. Of course there were newspapers, there were magazines and there were conferences, but the speed at which we learnt what was going on was…slow. You might get the odd piece about the biggest brands of the day (at the time in HR management that was Marks and Spencer), but for most organisations in most sectors, in order to understand what someone else was doing, you had to give them a call.

Fast news and the impact of the internet and social channels on our personal attitudes and opinions is well researched and it would be surprising if this didn’t replicate itself in the world of business as well. Of course, the widespread access to data and information has many benefits as business leaders, we have more evidence available to us at the touch of a button than ever before. But at the same time, I wonder whether it can be a driver of poor corporate decision making and ultimately bad business too? Does the fast spread of corporate news and opinions lead to pressure in the boardroom to make decisions that previously we would have taken much longer to make?

There are two examples that spring to mind, the first relates to the corporate response to the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020. The world was rightly shocked by the events and many people felt personally compelled to make statements, take action and show support. Almost overnight companies replicated those personal actions, but the speed at which they did that led to many being called out for hypocrisy. How much of this was due to the speed of decision making, the need to respond publicly as other brands took to the world stage with their positions? What actions would the organisations have taken if social media didn’t exist and they could have taken the time to reflect on the right course of action based on their organisation?

The second example comes on the back of the pandemic and the almost exhausting debate about whether office based workers should return to their places of work. Corporate after corporate came out in 2020 and 2021 with big bold statements about “working from anywhere”, that this was all about “trusting their workforces” and that this was the “future of work”. In order to get cut through in the noisy post pandemic debate, proclamations became bigger and bolder each time (whilst they sold off real estate or withdrew from leases – but that’s another story) in a reflection of the “war for talent”. They hadn’t conducted any analysis or research, they just parroted what others were doing in the corporate panic. That so many of them are now going back on the original stated position tells you all you need to know about the way in which this decision was made.

Of course, the internet, social media and fast news aren’t going away so what does that mean for the leadership of organisations? It means we need to have a clearer North Star for our organisational culture, it means those of us in HR need to be stronger in ensuring that decisions (no matter what the external pressure) are aligned with that North Star and it means we need to go slower on things that will be harder to unravel if they go wrong – just like any other major business decision. Fast news can be really bad business, sometimes we need to close our eyes and our ears and ask ourselves what we think is the right answer, instead of asking what others are doing. Sure we might not be first, but we need to ask whether we’d rather be slow and right or repent at leisure.

D&I isn’t dead, it just smells funny

Posted on by Blog

The desire to make workplaces more diverse and inclusive has been going on for at least as long as I’ve been in a job. As a Personnel Officer, one of my early tasks was completing diversity returns to the Government, I’m not sure they ever achieved anything but the intention was there. I remember the IPM (as it was then) snowflake campaign, remember that? And I’ve seen the law change, develop and progress over the years. Are things better now than when I started in work? Yes. Are they as good as they need to be? No.

And throughout the majority of my career it is fair to say the broad consensus, in the UK at least, has been that fairer, more equal workplaces are a good thing. I think that still remains the case to this very day. If you asked ten people whether they thought selection, progression, and promotion should be based on ability and past performance, or whether it should be based on gender, race or some other characteristic I’m pretty certain they’d all say the former. And yet over recent years it has sometimes felt like one of the most divisive debates in the world of work. So divisive, that most people don’t want to write or talk about it.

Look across the pond and you can see this playing out in the proclamations being made by the incoming administration. Is this really one of the most important issues for the leader of any nation to address? Probably not, but then it really isn’t about that it is about throwing some proverbial red meat to supporters in the artificial culture wars. But on the other side of this argument, in the opposition trenches, there are people equally to blame; people making similarly ridiculous proclamations but without the established power. The people that declare that your personal behaviours and beliefs are not enough, the people that have denied large sections of the population a voice in the name of redressing historical unfairness, the people that make others feel scared to think, feel something different or to ask questions, the people who actively seek to divide rather than to unite.

And this is the nonsense that detracts from the real work that is happening in the vast majority of organisations across the UK, where people are still trying to create better, more inclusive and diverse workplaces because it makes good business sense and because it is the right thing to do for our communities. These are the hard yards that make a bigger difference than the soundbites or statements, the icons or the indices. Whatever the campaigners on either side say, do you think it will result in fewer women being employed or promoted? That it will setback our understanding of supporting neurodiversity in the workplace? That it will mean that we see fewer black and asian executives?

D&I isn’t dead, although there are parts of the current approach that definitely do smell funny. And that happens when the agenda steps into social engineering and unfocused activism rather than being about driving better business outcomes, driving organisational performance and customer satisfaction and moving slowly, but steadily closer to a meritocracy for all.

Sometimes things change

Posted on by Blog

One of the very few things that GPs and HRDs have in common, is that people tell us their personal woes. Actually, I suspect the other thing we might have in common is that people complain about the service they get from our profession, but that’s a whole other post for a whole other day. And whilst it isn’t physical ailments that people talk to HR professionals about, at least not in my experience, what they do share gives you an insight into what is going on and going wrong in the world of work.

In the 30 years I’ve been doing this, I’ve spoken to hundreds of people from outside of my organisation, normally the conversations start with a, “they can’t do that can they?” or a “what are my rights in x situation?”. And the honest answer is normally, “yes” and “very few”. Of course there are a number of cases where organisations, or more commonly individual managers, have behaved very badly. But in the vast majority of the cases the issue is simply that the organisation and the employee want to go in different directions.

You can, and I would, make an argument that organisations are bad are taking their workforces on a journey of change. So often, management spend lots of time thinking and planning change and then communicate it and expect people to come along in a matter of days. I’ve written about that previously and the disconnect between the psychological preparedness of leadership and that of their workforces. But the whole responsibility doesn’t lie with just the organisation it lies with individuals as well.

Sometimes we have to recognise that the organisation is going in a direction that we don’t want our own careers to go in, and we have to take the only action available to us – to leave. It doesn’t need to be an acrimonious split, it is a simple, grown up, thought through recognition that the things that we want are not in alignment with the things on offer from the organisation. Think about it in terms of your favourite restaurant or bar changing owner, or changing its offering to something you don’t enjoy – would you still go along and give them your money?

Of course, sometimes there are economic arguments in favour of staying and it goes without saying that there are different degrees of choice for different groups of workers. But quite often the one’s that I hear from who have the biggest issues are those with more choice. So what makes them stay? Personally, I think it comes down to a lack of ownership, an unwillingness to take responsibility for choices, and not being open to the recognition that sometimes things change in a way that doesn’t suit you.

But if you can do these things, if you can flip them on their head then acceptance and embracing a different direction is simply part of taking care of yourself and your health and wellbeing. Come to think of it, maybe that’s another thing we share with GPs.

Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should

Posted on by Blog

There’s no doubt that the pandemic taught as a lot about how we can organise ourselves differently at speed to continue to deliver for our stakeholders – whoever they may be. The pace at which organisations, especially the likes of essential services, retail, distribution and warehousing, adapted to the circumstances was a real lesson in agility. And of course, more widely across business and society changes were made to accommodate the restrictions and risks that were at large.

But just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should and one of the overhangs from the pandemic are a whole range of practices that might have been appropriate at the time, but now just look like organisations, teams and individuals trying to have an easier life. A great example last week was the non-story that KPMG and Deloitte would once again be recruiting in person. It goes without saying that this is a good move for them and for the candidates, however, the fact that it is a story and that it has taken them this long to get there is a bit of a head scratch. I’m not proposing that technology has no part to play in the selection process, but as someone who has interviewed and been interviewed via video, it really isn’t the answer.

Similarly, organisations that moved to “virtual work experience” need to start complementing these with their previous in person work experience programmes to ensure that those people that benefit the most get real and proper access to those opportunities. Easy to deliver, yes. As beneficial to the participants? I’m not convinced in the slightest. And at the end of the day, something being easy was never a measure of success no matter how many happy sheet, participant outcomes you use to defend it.

It would be remiss of me to write a post like this and not mention remote working. How does that one play out? Well it is probably the biggest workplace experiment of our time and the reality is no-one knows. But clinging on to practices as a point of principle is never a good look and those people that have got themselves so dug into the “future of work” rhetoric are already starting to detune and those that don’t are going to look pretty silly if the experiment has a different outcome. That doesn’t make it right or wrong, one of the joys about having a hypothesis is you always have a null hypothesis too, it only makes it stupid if you don’t follow the data.