HR

We want to be together…..

Posted on by Blog

I’ve written before that the true value of Human Resource Management is in taking a systemic approach to organisational performance. HR is at its strongest when it provides a convincing, cohesive agenda based on organisational understanding and environmental awareness. Understanding the internal and the external environments and delivering seamlessly across the organisation.

HR is at its weakest when it is fragmented, isolated, distant, disconnected and seemingly counter intuitive.

We’ve all seen the models of HRM that show the inter linkages between specialisms and functional capability, but more than that we can use our common sense to understand the importance. If reward strategy is aiming to achieve something different to the performance management approach, which is built on different principles to the learning and development plan and has nothing in common with the resourcing goals. Then we intuitively know that this is one screwed up organisation.

HRM is a broad church, as a profession it accepts people with specialisms, it accepts people transferring in from other professions and it accepts inter dependencies with other areas of business. The skill of the HR leader is to recognise the breadth, diversity and inter connectedness and yet to be able to present it in a cohesive, recognisable and understandable manner. It isn’t always easy, but it is always achievable.

As with any broad church, you’ll also find the conflicts, the tensions, the insecurities and the chips on shoulders. You’ll hear claims for greater seniority, more importance, recognition and responsibility. Learning and Development feels overlooked and not taken seriously enough, Resourcing wants to be seen to be more strategic, Compensation and Benefits doesn’t understand why people can’t be more compliant and Generalists believe they have a God given right to walk on water.

That’s just the way it is.

The role of the HR leader is to manage the tensions, to help build knowledge and understanding of the value of collaboration, cohesion and consistency. To take the view of the employee, the manager, the leader and not to be inward facing and self obsessed. Put simply, nobody cares about the internal relationships other than us, they just get in the way of delivering successful organisations.

We are stronger when we’re together, we’re weaker when we’ve divided. It is as simple as that.

Telling tales is HR’s job

Posted on by Blog

I find it funny that when we mention “telling tales”, we think of mischievous, misinformation and light-hearted deceit. Story telling reminds us of being children and living in a land of make-believe. There is a whimsical, simplicity and a leisurely disdain for the telling of tales or stories. It has nothing to do with the corporate world and business success.

But organisations need to tell stories now, more than ever.

The narrative of corporate life is increasingly complex. Balancing opposing messages, dealing with contending forces. Explaining the paradox of our corporate existence.

Yes, we need to tell stories more than ever.

The environment is increasingly complex, disparate and disjointed. The simple messages of the past, “do this and we will do that”, “be this and you will get that” are no longer true. We can no longer rely on this basic narrative.

Balancing the seemingly conflicting messages of our work life, creating the authentic narrative that reflects the complexity of the working relationship. That is a skill we can all learn better.

HR needs to help tell the organisational tales that connect people, create meaning and purpose. That deal with and accept the contradictions and realities. We need to get better at telling tales. It is one of our most important jobs.

So, if you’re sitting comfortably, I’ll begin……

Why HR should hate change just a little bit more

Posted on by Blog

I often hear HR professionals express how comfortable they are with change, how much they like it. I find this both peculiar and a little bit terrifying. The curse of many a modern business is the almost incessant approach to instigating  change. Initiative after initiative, programme after programme, with never enough time between them to properly evaluate or measure impact.

Normally these initiatives are driven by the leadership team and eagerly pounced on by HR leaders to show how committed they are to delivering the corporate agenda. I figure that’s why so many of them profess to like change; it provides the organisational hard-on of temporary, central importance.

Most of the time, we completely overlook the emotional and psychological impact of change. Success is measured in operational plans, in business cases, on gant charts and in milestones. Success is a tick box exercise.

And of course, as we all know, if the change really was that successful, it would only need to be done once.

Many organisations, many if not most employees, are change fatigued. They’re walking zombie-like waiting for the next initiative to come and fail. In the meantime, trying to do their jobs despite the machinations of their leaders to seemingly make things harder. Don’t believe me? Spend a day in any FTSE100 company or any part of the public sector and speak to the people actually doing the work.

Where is HR in all this? Well certainly not where it needs to be, understanding the impact of the changes on employees, diagnosing real organisational performance issues and challenging the business to fine tune and not continually volt-face like a goldfish in the throws of a drug induced epileptic fit.

I don’t want HR people to like change, I don’t want them to be comfortable with it. I actually want them to hate it a little bit more, to be wary of it. That way, they might take it a bit more seriously and think about the implications on the wider organisations. Not just where they’re going to get the next pat on the head.

Can bad companies do good work?

Posted on by Blog

I was at the Top Employers accreditation dinner this week. I like the idea of these accreditation systems and I particularly like the work that Top Employers are doing around global standards. One of the strong arguments for them is that they’re helpful for those companies that may not be consumer brands or well-known outside of their sector. It sends a message that says, “we are a good place to work, even if you don’t know who we are”.

But should we recognise good employment practice, regardless of the goals of the organisation? Is it good enough to just be seen to treat employees well, or should we be questioning organisational purpose?

Is being seen as a good employer often a tactic to compensate for public perceptions of “moral” acceptability?

I’ve written before about the way in which RBS was heralded for their innovative people management practices, how News International promoted their “culture change programme” and I could go on and provide a myriad of company failures.

But at the same time, we also know that there are societal issues that we need to address: obesity, alcohol consumption and binge drinking, the incidence of smoking in developing countries.

When we recognise employers should we consider what those employers do? Or do we just accept that everything is fair game and let the moral judgments be made elsewhere? Where do we draw the line?

On the podium at this particular event (and I don’t intend to single out Top Employers in any way) were McDonalds, KFC, Heineken, JD Weatherspoons, Molson Coors, British American Tobacco and Phillip Morris International. Not to mention The Co-op Group last week described as “ungovernable” by its own CEO.

Should HR and people practice sit in isolation, or if it is integral to a company culture, ethos and purpose. Should we not take that into account too?