Just because you have a hammer…

On a recent episode of the sports radio show Mike and Mike, guest Colin Cowherd was addressing the latest developments in Major League Baseball’s issues with players using performance enhancing drugs.  The discussion between Cowherd and hosts Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic turned to 50 game suspensions, 100 game suspensions and being banned for life.  At that point Cowherd expressed the opinion that just because MLB had a hammer, they should be very careful about using it.  He went on to say that corporate America had used the hammer too often recently, leaving employees dejected, fearful and out-of-work.

That conversation made me think.  Often HR is in the position of holding the organizational hammer.  Even if the “hammer” is held elsewhere in your organization, HR is probably involved in the decision to use the hammer versus some other tool.  Which leads me to the question:  How quickly do you use the hammer?

Like me, you may have a line memorized that goes something like:  “We have a progressive employee discipline process that matches the level of discipline to the seriousness of the offense.”  Sounds fair and usually works in an employer’s favor in both internal and legal venues.  But just because you can use a hammer, do you?

I’m not implying that you don’t match the most serious consequences to the most egregious behavior.  I am asking if you had a  process like this one (3 strikes and you’re out):  

1. a verbal warning,

2. a written warning,

3. a decision making leave day, then

4. termination;

would you ever give an employee two verbal warnings before moving to a written warning?  

I understand that some organizations do not permit any discretion in the employee discipline process.  But if your organization does permit some flexibility, do you use it?

I think you should.  I think that helps keep the “human” in human resources.  What do you think?

Return to blogging

I took a break from blogging that started when my daughter’s family came to visit from East Africa.  That pause was planned, but the pause continued in an unplanned fashion when I was caught up in the challenges at work related to a PeopleSoft implementation.  A couple of years and a job change later and here I am.  I almost started writing again several times, but there was always a project at work or home or church that took priority.  Sound familiar?  So here we go and we’ll see how long this lasts.

DANGER, Do NOT love your employer!

It’s a dangerous thing to fall in love with your employer.  I’m not talking about your boss, although that has its own set of risks.  I’m talking about thinking that just because you love working for your employer, your employer is going to love you back. It won’t happen.  I’ve spent much of my career working in higher education, and it’s not unusual to have a young graduate try to find a job with her alma mater.  She may love the college town atmosphere, the sports, the libraries, and the arts, but her university is incapable of returning that affection.  Its not limited to university employment.  I’ve heard many, many others tell me that they just love working for their companies.  They usually go on to list their favorite things about that job:  the benefits, the hours, the short commute, the challenge, the opportunity, etc. But an employer cannot and will not return the loyalty.

So where’s the danger in that?  You set yourself up for a huge emotional crash if you expect an organization to make decisions and act like a person.  Your family should love you unconditionally; but don’t expect your employer to do so, no matter how many raises or awards or accolades you’ve achieved. Just ask Tiger Woods, Mike Leach or Conan O’Brien. When the time comes, your employer will make a cold, dispassionate business decision.  If you expect that from your employer it won’t lessen the surprise or ease the pain when it happens to you; but sometime in the days ahead you’ll realize it wasn’t personal, it was just business. And then you can better pick yourself up and get on with the rest of your life.  So no matter how great your current job is, do not love your employer!

Leading at a Higher Level

Ken Blanchard writes that leaders should focus on four characteristics in uncertain times:

• Be a bearer of hope;
• Be realistic, but don’t listen to the negativity;
• See your people as business partners; and
• Be servant leaders, not self-serving leaders.

It seems to me that that HR leaders should adopt Blanchard’s approach for all times.

• Bearers of hope. There’s nothing worse than a pessimist in HR.  I can take realism (see the point below), sarcasm, and maybe even some cynicism; but those who only focus on the worst possible outcomes drag everyone down.  Too often the pessimist’s message becomes a self-fulfillingprophesy. At the end of the day give me the HR leader who can help put bad news in perspective and point us to the hope that tomorrow will be another chance to improve.
• Realistic, but not negative.  Bad news, especially “breaking” bad news reported by the media is almost always wrong.  The seasoned HR leader will wait for the whole story to emerge and then analyze the situation before speaking.  That way she can be realistic, but not negative. In fact, there may be some good news hidden in with the bad, which would allow her to also be the bearer of hope (see the point above.)
• See employees as partners.  When I see that a colleague has crossed the point beyond which he sees all employees as problems, troublemakers, whiners, etc. it’s time he moved on.  He’s become a pessimist (see the first point above.)  Usually the surest way out of a bad situation is to partner with employees in realistically focusing on the positive, and then acting on it.
• Be servant leaders, not self-serving leaders.  This point has to do with integrity.  If HR is among the first to abandon hope and abandon ship, it will be seen as self-serving.  On the other hand, if HR models the behaviors described in the first three bullet points, other employees will be encouraged to act reasonably and responsibly.

Most employees can handle uncertain times at work.  HR can help in that process by consistently modeling good leadership, in both certain and uncertain times.

The best HR blog post you read in 2009?

What was the best HR blog post you read in 2009?  Leave a comment below with a link to the post, then check back and see what others say.

How the Mighty Fall

Jim Collins’ recent book, How the Mighty Fall: And Why Some Companies Never Give In is interesting for a couple of reasons.  First, he is looking at failed companies rather than great companies, which is a change for the noted management author.  Second, he found that failing companies go through some predictable stages before they disappear.  The stages are:

1. Hubris born of success
2. Undisciplined pursuit of more
3. Denial of risk and peril
4. Grasping for a silver bullet
5. Capitulation to irrelevance or death

It also interesting because Collins claims that if you find your organization at a stage above stage 5, you may be able to reverse the process.  But what’s most interesting to me is that the stages are BEHAVIORS of leaders.  Think about it.  According to Collins, organizations do not fail because of the wrong ERP, old technology or issues related to capital or markets or finance. No, Collins says that organizations fail due to the inappropriate behaviors of their leaders. Sounds like a talent management issue to me.  What do you think?

Research vs. Practice

The November 2009 issue of HR Magazine includes an article by Robert J Grossman about the disconnect between the academic view of HR and the practitioner’s view of HR.  According to Grossman, who’s a professor at Marist College, practitioners:

• Can’t wait for answers
• Care less about science than outcome
• Hate ambiguity
• Want relevant research
• Want understandable results

On the other hand, academics want practitioners to:

• Understand and value research, including its limits
• Apply research principles appropriately
• Be flexible enough to try research they don’t like

Grossman offers a couple of suggestions about bridging the disconnect.  Okay he lists three but I think the last two are really the same and that’s the one I want to emphasize:  reach out to a local HR professor.  (Disclaimer:  I’ve been an adjunct faculty member.)  Here’s what I think you’ll find: Most (the article says 60%) will be happy to engage you in a conversation about what’s important to you in HR.

Offer to meet them on campus for a cup of coffee.  Explain what you’re working on and then listen to their reaction.  Find out if they’ve conducted research in any areas of interest to you.  Those common areas can be the basis for some great collaboration.  The professor may invite you to be a guest speaker in one or more of their HR classes.  If so, you should accept. (Hint:  Don’t give a lecture, engage the class in a conversation.  They’ll have lots of questions.)  Invite the professor to serve on an external advisory committee, or to speak to your team at a lunch and learn, or to speak at your local SHRM chapter meeting (talk to the program chair first).  The point is to start a relationship.  Most professors could use more connections to the “real” world they teach about, and most practitioners can use more face time with academics. It’s a win-win proposition.

What’s next for HR

Over the last two posts I’ve looked at the evidence that the HR profession is dead and I’ve listed some reasons to believe its still alive.

What do I really believe?  HR is not dying, but it is changing. The forces driving the change are complex and because of their complexity the results of the change may be misunderstood. Let’s look at some of the forces driving the change in our profession:

1. Society is changing.  The 500 year period that more or less started with the enlightenment in the western world, and that is referred to as modernity (at least from our perspective) seems to be drawing to an end.  This is a natural, organic shift in thinking and seeing the world, not a cataclysmic end worthy of a blockbuster movie.  Some examples of this shift include the growing number of people who think that “Might does not make right” or “Bigger is not better” or “Science doesn’t have all the answers”…  The point here is not whether you agree with this line of thinking, but rather that a significant (and probably growing) number of  people are thinking in post-modern ways.  HR is recruiting, training and helping managers manage these post-modern employees, and they do not have the same value system as those who are still firmly rooted in modernity.  Society’s changes force HR to change, and I believe these changes are having a profound effect on HR.  However, if we are busy putting out fires, we may be missing the big picture.

2. Our profession is maturing. Beyond HR by Boudreau and Ramstad may be the best summary of this maturation process I’ve seen so far.  Just like accounting matured into the decision science we call finance and sales matured into the decision science we call marketing, HR is maturing into a decision science that these authors call Talentship.  We still have accountants and sales professionals, and we will probably still have professionals working on the issues common to today’s HR.  But we are starting to see a new decision science emerge that has the promise of making tomorrow’s Talentship (or whatever name emerges) a key strategic partner in the post-modern organization.  This is exciting and it’s frightening.  Exciting for those ready to mature with the profession, frightening for those who fear change.

3. At a more personal level we’re finding that changes in technology and the economy are creating fear and resistance to more change. Some of us are just getting comfortable with Windows XP, we’re scared of Vista and now here comes Windows 7.  For such late adapters, talk of integrating Social Media into HR can be paralyzing.  Some of these folk were blissfully ignoring the need to change until the recession forced them to rethink retirement plans.  Now it looks like they will have to adapt to changing technology just to be able to hang on until their personal finances recover.

4. Finally, we face change as a part of everyday business.  Whether its H1N1 or GINA or employee relations issues, change is the normal state for both our employers and our roles as HR pros.   At this level, some of us are better equipped to deal with change than others. Sharlyn Lauby, says that HR has both Rock Stars and dead wood, just like every other profession.  If you’re saddled with a “D” team, then any change looks like a really big deal to you.  On the other hand, if you have an  “A” team of professionals , you can handle change without much fuss. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle.  Want some more proof?  Lance Haun says there are at least three critical functions that a changed HR can best serve: workplace process and productivity improvement, internal ombuds, and employee life cycle manager.  Whatever happened to employment, training and benefits?  Consider Deirdre Honner‘s recent list of HR Rock Star blog posts.  The medium and the content are different than what we could have seen just two years ago.  The point is that change is now part of every day life more than at any time in our careers.

In the face of such radical discontinuous change, what should we do?

I like Charlie Judy’s approach, the first thing we need to do is simplify our approach to life and to our profession.  Like the Curly Washburn character in City Slickers, the secret is “one.”  Here’s my one (at least for today):  People are your organization’s only unique sustainable competitive advantage.  Your competitors can replicate your processes, markets and other advantages, but not your people.  HR is the business function that holds the key to making this unique, sustainable competitive advantage work effectively in a world of radical discontinuous change.  So stop trying to focus on everything and simplify your life.  Right now commit to trying Charlie’s Next Gen HR.  It won’t be easy, but it will be freeing; and that’s a good thing.

HR is NOT dead…yet

In my previous post I looked at the “forensic evidence” supporting the case that HR is dead.  We found that there’s a growing amount of evidence that HR is far down the path to obsolescence.  But that’s not the whole story; so in keeping with our CSI theme, what evidence exists to prove that the HR profession is not dead yet?

1. Most of the Fortune 500 members still have HR departments.  Not all of these are great companies, but most have had some success in the past or they wouldn’t be on the list.  Most of the best have vibrant HR divisions.

2. Most of the “best places to work” winners have HR departments.  I’ve noticed this is true of national, state and local lists of best places to work.  Is there a correlation?  I think there is a strong relationship.

3. Last time I checked, you could still buy recently published HR books. B&N listed 824 items and Amazon listed 51,914 items (all departments) in response to the query “human resource management”  In contrast, B&N lists 6 items for “buggy whips.”  (11/15/2009)

4.  I googled “accounting” and there were about 23,900,000 hits.  I don’t hear anyone arguing that accounting is dead.  I googled “human resources” and got 84,500,000 hits.  By this “metric” HR is almost 4X more alive than accounting (1. We always knew that!  2. For any accountants reading this, item 4 is a lame attempt at humor.)

5. We are having this discussion.  When was the last time you had a passionate discussion about canvas sail makers (or fill in the name of any obsolete profession.)

I could go on, but you get the point. So if HR is not dead, what is going on in the profession?  I’ll give you my opinion in the next post.

CSI determines HR is Dead

Every so often a conversation about the health of our profession makes the rounds.  For example, in 2003 Workforce Management ran an article titled “HR is Dead…Long Live HR.” In late 2007 Fast Company weighed in with “Why We Hate HR,” which got the attention of many in HR and fueled more speculation that we were seeing the last days of our profession.  In the last 60 days or so the topic has come up again in HR-related blogs and tweets.  Here are some links you may want to check to get a feel for the conversation:  Punk Rock HR, Human Race Horses, HR Ringleader, Rehaul, and HR Bartender.  I”ll use the next few posts to look at the evidence both pro and con.  Before we consider the “CSI” forensic evidence surrounding the “corpse”, let’s consider how a profession dies.  A profession dies when it become obsolete.

1.  Death by obsolescence may be the result of technological change.  It is hard to find a buggy-whip maker today, largely due to the success of Ford’s model-T.  I can remember as a child when you could go to People’s Drug Store to test the vacuum tubes from your black and white TV.  Those tubes and the testing machine are gone, along with the jobs required to create them. At the pace of technological change today, almost everyone can think of an example of a technology shift that changed an industry and killed a profession.

2. Obsolescence may occur due to shifts in market demand.  As tastes change and the demand for products change, the professions that create/grow/manufacture those products will change as well.  Before 7-11, the milkman delivered to our front porch. Another childhood memory is our neighbor who built a two story air conditioned garage to house his chinchilla ranch.  Fortunately, he kept his day job.

3. Obsolescence can result from outsourcing.  I’ve seen examples of this in the timber and defense industries as well as in HR.  Depending on the location of the outsourcing, some of the displaced employees may find jobs with the new provider of the services, and a very small number may be able to become consultants.

4. Obsolescence can occur due to off-shoring.  We’ve seen this in the shoe, steel and textile industries.  When these jobs move off-shore almost everyone affected has to find a new profession.

5. Most often, obsolescence occurs due to some combination of the first four changes.  The layoffs facing the print and network news organizations seem to be in part due to technology and in part due to shifts in markets.  Technology has created new web-based media, and we like it!

So what about the forensic evidence surrounding HR’s body on the floor in the office?

As we look for clues, we see that HR has been subject to a lot of technological change. Many manual transactions in payroll and benefits have been replaced by automated functions.  Employee and manager self-service has also contributed to the demise of HR, as the need for a local office has been reduced.  Over there we see some evidence of market demand shift, right beside what looks like some pretty heavy outsourcing.  It’s hard to tell which came first, so we’ll have to take this evidence back to the lab to re-create the time-line. Over here we see some traces of off-shoring; but that will have to be confirmed back at the lab.

Our preliminary conclusion?  At this point it certainly looks like HR is dead, a victim of obsolescence.  With fingers tightly gripped around manual processes, HR tripped over a huge pile of policy binders.  His cries for help would not be heard by those co-workers who were no longer in the office.  They’d been set free by technology and were out serving customers or working from home.  He even tried to send an email, but they were on Facebook and Twitter.  Too little change, too late in the game.  Now that you’ve seen the clues, what do you think?