Turn HR’s Value Proposition Upside Down

The Question:  How does HR sell our services to our internal clients?

The Answer:  We don’t.

For a couple decades now, we have been told that HR needs to become more business oriented, focusing on aligning HR practices to the needs of the business and the work of HR to the bottom line.

We know this because research has shown that key HR processes – training, talent management, incentives – all have been well documented to help the business perform better.

Unfortunately, research can only be generalized to a larger sample if the variables are identical and there is nothing about an organization that is identical, from the people, to the culture, to the processes, to the leaders.

Researchers like Jac Fitz-Enz, who pioneered measurement in the HR profession and Gallup, who first tied engagement to business performance, have given helpful tools to HR to “talk” the language of business with their operational counterparts.  And that’s a good thing, because, as an operational leader once told me, “Businesspeople don’t want to hear about the fluffy stuff.”

So, after a couple decades of trying to sell our services, how has that been working for us?  From my research and experience, it’s not working very well.  While some businesspeople have embraced the idea doing what’s necessary to improve engagement and develop talent, many operational leaders just don’t “buy into” the direction in which HR is trying to lead them.  What we end up with is engagement through compliance rather than commitment.

I have come to believe we are looking at this all wrong.  The assumption we have been going by is that HR needs to become more business savvy, Once they do, as this line of logic goes, they will then be able to influence the operational leaders to do a really good job with things like performance management and employee relations simply because the operational leader is clear that their actions benefits their department’s performance, right?

That’s a pretty bold assumption and I think it is wrong.  It assumes that operational leaders a.) know how to do these things well and b.) want to.  It has been my experience that few operational leaders really get what they need to do to truly drive engagement and develop talent.  And if they do, they have thousands of other tasks getting in their way.

Let’s turn our assumption upside down

Instead of preaching HR’s impact on business results, let’s preach leadership behavior’s impact on employee commitment.

First, we must debunk a myth.  HR’s role isn’t to make business or employee decisions. Period. Those decisions are the responsibility of leaders. HR can provide data, advice and coaching but ultimately, the decision must be leaders’, otherwise they cannot behave authentically with their employees.  When the answer is “HR said,” the leader looks powerless – not a good look for anyone trying to generate trust.

Leaders are the linchpin to employee commitment. Rather than focusing on how well HR programs can drive business success, let’s acknowledge that leadership is “fluffy” and help leaders be more comfortable with those behaviors that, in fact, do engage their people.

Leadership Behavior is a Leadership Decision, Not an HR Decision

HR programs and processes are guidelines, nothing more.  They cannot be mandates because HR does not have the authority to mandate. The very best HR can do is build a compelling case for specific behavior, build programs and processes that influence that behavior, and monitor activity.  Holding leaders accountable for those behaviors is the job of leadership and if they don’t a.) see the point, b.) know how or c.) don’t want to, then the outcome is hit or miss.

Change up the “Why”

Remind leaders about humanity, about how employees are people with strengths and vulnerabilities, with flaws and with feelings.  Let them know that their behavior directly influences how their employees feel.

It doesn’t take years of research to recognize that people perform better when they feel better.

Today’s workplace is stressed to the max.  Back in 2006, EAP provider ComPsych reported 74% of workers’ stress came from people interactions (28%) and workload (46%).  In late 2017, Korn Ferry reports that employee stress levels have risen nearly 20% in three decades.

Leaders who contribute to employees’ stress increase their own.  HR can help leaders reduce their own and their employees’ stress by changing their leadership behavior.

Take them back to their personal experience as an employee

Remind operational leaders that they were once just “an employee” and probably had the same experiences their employees now have. HR is in the perfect coaching and advisory role to remind everyone about how they would like to be treated and how much of an impact a leader’s behavior can make on employees. It might sound too fluffy, but it works.

Get leaders to “feel” the importance of treating people well.

Teach them how to build good leader/employee relationships

The growth of regulatory environment in HR has paralyzed leaders, and too often HR uses compliance rather than commitment to encourage leadership behavior. Remember the initial management training where HR introduced the “alphabet soup” of compliance (FLSA, EEO, FMLA, ADA)?  Detailing everything a leader “can’t do” instills paranoia.  Helping a leader recognize that it all boils down to fairness, consistency and authenticity generates a positive sense of how to build a good leader/employee relationship. Remind them that as employee engagement grows, the need to manage by compliance diminishes and “following the rules” simply becomes the routine of the day.

Give the decisions back

Don’t let leaders get away with an “if you say so” attitude toward their leadership responsibilities. Give them the pros and cons, and make sure they clearly understand the consequences of a “wrong” decision.  But make sure they are clear that the decision is theirs.

Don’t keep doing what isn’t working

I am not saying ignore the business impact of HR on the bottom line.  I am saying that may not be enough to influence behavior change.

By connecting leaders to their own experience and humanity and by coaching them to fully embrace their leadership responsibility by building the trust and commitment of their employees, HR is giving them the tools to lead, build trust and motivate performance.

Selling is all about making the buyers believe they want it.

 

Photo credit:Yeshi Kangrang on Unsplash

Are you ready for artificial intelligence in HR?

It’s coming, whether we like it or not. Look at the topics and exhibitors at any HR conference. It’s coming.

Artificial intelligence has the potential to relieve overburdened HR team from decisions that can be made more easily and more scientifically through decision science.

When you think about filling a job, you are solving an equation. On one side are the requirements of the job. On the other side are the skills, knowledge and traits of the employees who fill or may fill the job. The decision to hire is a gap analysis between the two points – demand and supply.

That’s what technology does to enable more qualified candidates for jobs; matches the need to the supply of candidates. It works in a similar manner to provide employee directed growth and learning opportunities as well.

But, before we can use AI to make strategic decisions we must ensure that the data is accurate. Bad data wastes time and may lead to poor decisions. Technology doesn’t really know the data is bad; it solves for the match you asked it to solve. Now is the time to make sure that future technology has credible, timely and accurate data so that it really can help make good decisions.

The “Job” side of the equation

Take a collective look at the information about jobs that the HR team maintains. By information, I mean the knowledge, skills and abilities that have been defined. Review job descriptions, job postings, competencies used in performance management and learning paths.

By collective look, I mean working together as an HR team to review all of the job data, produced by each team, for each purpose. Ask these questions:

-Do the job requirements match across all HR platforms? If not, should they?

-Do the job requirements actually describe the skills, knowledge and abilities specifically enough, or have the jobs been clustered and combined for simplicity so that they are too generic to really explain the job?”

-Is the data accurate? How do you know, and who is responsible for timely maintenance?

The “Employee” side of the equation

Employee and manager self service takes a huge administrative burden off HR, but places it in the hands of people who don’t understand the consequences of inaccurate and untimely data.

Now is the time to educate those who enter the data on the importance of accuracy, and to implement audit trails to catch and resolve outliers.

Employee and manager self service offers a menu of choices, allowing a data field to be completed with pre-defined data. Are those choices clear and well-defined? Job codes are a key element of matching an employee to a job; are managers too hurried to use the right code?

Termination codes are important to understand retention efforts. Do you offer so many choices that the hurried manager gives up and grabs the first code that seems to fit?

Now is also a great time to make sure that the data codes you use are current, and exactly what you need. If you put 100 codes out there just in case you might need them, that’s 99 possible errors a manager can make.

Conferences and vendors paint a rosy picture of capabilities we haven’t even thought of. Let’s be ready.

The Strategic Part of HR Data

Forty years of staff meetings. What kind of emotion does that invoke? Panic attacks?  Intense boredom? Subtle multi-tasking? All of the above?

Perhaps it can be said that staff meetings are a necessary evil. It is important for teams to communicate, and a well-designed staff meeting can foster that communication. In my experience, staff meetings are rarely well-designed, and in fact, consist of going around the table and everyone saying what they’re doing. Maybe there’s a little interaction, but no one wants to prolong the agony, except that one person. The conversation becomes a deep dive between the speaker and the questioner, and everyone else turns to their electronic devices. (more…)