leadership

In praise of personnel

Posted on by Blog

I started working in the profession in 1996, the year that saw Take That split and the airing of the last episode of the Fresh Prince of Bel Air – although I don’t remember either of these things in much detail, I admit I had to look them up. AOL was also named the most popular website of the year, for the c.20 million people that had access to the Internet, but behind the scenes a little known company called Google was indexing the web – but it wouldn’t have it’s own domain until the following year.

At work, I wrote out memos that were typed by a typing pool and deliver by hand in the internal mail system. And I was called a Personnel Services Officer, worked in Personnel – and I provided services to the personnel.

Nearly 30 years later, the world and the world of work has changed considerably. I’m writing this on technology that I couldn’t envisage would exist, to share on platforms that weren’t in existence. So much has changed and yes the fundamentals of how we come together to get things done – an activity also known as work – hasn’t changed that much at all. These days, whilst I don’t go by the title of Director of Personnel, I have stuck to the HR description and frankly, I’ve got no desire to change it.

A quick search in Linkedin will deliver you a cacophony of job titles for people doing the same and similar jobs. There are trends, counter trends, justification for changes (normally something about being more strategic – but we all know, calling yourself a “thought leader” doesn’t make you one). And all of these tiles and descriptions are on one hand fine, but also beg a fundamental question;

Who is a job title for?

Is it for the individual, so that it represents what they want to be seen as or how they want others to feel about them? Or, is it for everyone else so they understand what that person does, what they’re responsible for and when they might be helpful or when to get them involved?

If our jobs as leaders and people professionals is to make organisations simpler, easier to navigate, more effective and efficient, then using simple and straightforward language might not be a bad place to start. Job titles, department and function names are how people make sense of the organisation, they’re a universally recognised shorthand that help us to get things done. Where do I go, who do I speak to in order to carry out the task that I need to get done?

Marathon bars didn’t get tastier because they were called Snickers, Twitter didn’t become a better place because it was named X, The Independent didn’t get better editorially as The i, and we all know Hermes didn’t stop chucking parcels over hedges with it became Evri. In some ways, names and job titles don’t matter at all but in other ways they absolutely do.

Ok, so maybe Personnel was a little bit dated but people knew what it was and what it did. And sometimes, that has greater value to organisational performance than any rebrand simply to assuage the egos of the job holders. That’s something would could all do with a little bit more.

The big admin blob that drains us all

Posted on by Blog

I was struck the other day by a post that Tim Baker shared on Linkedin suggesting that one in three HR professionals in the UK were considering leaving the profession, with 41% suggesting unnecessary admin as one of the causes. Now, of course, the company behind the research has a solution and….surprise, surprise…that happens to be exactly what they do as a company. But despite my loathing of this kind of “research”, (so much so that I’ll share link above to Tim because he’s worth connecting with, but I won’t share any links to the company, because…it is very average), yes, despite all of this, it did get me thinking.

I wouldn’t mind betting if you asked 100 random employees what they thought of HR in their organisation, one of the things the majority would raise is the unnecessary paperwork, the bureaucracy, the processes that seem both endless and pointless. And I wouldn’t mind betting if you spoke to 100 random HR professionals and asked them what they liked least about their jobs, they’d say the unnecessary paperwork, the bureaucracy and the processes that nobody seems to follow and so are endless and pointless.

So what on earth is going on? Who is responsible and simply, why can’t this all stop? As someone who has raged against process most of my career, to the understandable frustration and eye rolling of my colleagues, and who has (sometimes successfully but mostly unsuccessfully) tried to reduce it, I’ve got a few theories:

  1. The power of one – Every form that’s created or process that is added is only looked at as a singular piece of work, not in the entirety of the experience. So every time something is added, it seems eminently reasonable in isolation. But lumped together with everything else, the whole thing becomes an unmanageable blob.
  2. The lack of measures – I don’t know of any organisations, although they might exist, where there is a firm rule on the amount of admin that any one person is expected to do and therefore a finite limit. Why does this matter? Because if you had a firm rule and you were at the limit, then to add something in, you’d need to take something out.
  3. The fear of lawyers – Well, it isn’t really the lawyers, they’re generally an amiable bunch, it is the over regulation and imposition of onerous burdens of proof on the employment relationship that means that the simplest way to defend against anything is to document it to within an inch of it’s life. Although, I’m told by those on the inside that law companies are the worst for following any kind of process – surely what’s good for the goose is good for the gander?
  4. The calibre of the profession – If you’ve only ever worked in process heavy, admin focused HR functions then how can you be expected to know that anything else is possible? And anyone who suggests it can must be mad, bad or ready for retirement! But where are the creative thinkers coming through the profession who want to shape a completely different future of work? Oh yes, they’re working from home and on Teams meetings all day…adding value.
  5. The belief in a silver bullet – The very average research was carried out by a company that sells tech solutions. As long as I’ve worked in the profession we’ve been told that tech is going to be the answer, most recently AI. Systemising or automating rubbish doesn’t stop it being rubbish, it just makes it expensive rubbish that likely disappoints.

HR teams say they want to be more strategic and less admin focused, yet they are the ones that create the admin in the first place. Businesses say they want their HR teams to be more strategic and less admin focused, but they rarely hold them to the account. Managers say they want to be able to get on with their jobs, but they don’t want to take the responsibility for making decisions. Sometimes it seems to me we all want the same things, but maybe it suits us all better the way that it is.

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.

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.