HR is business
After decades of being a Human Resources person in a variety of organisations in different sectors and geographies, I find my self irritated by the drum beat of the exhortations for HR to be a business partner that have been around for more than a decade. This refrain ranges from a soft but persistent drone in the background to a cacophonous diatribe in a self defeating and meaningless way. The more recent variants of this have been "Has HR lost its Human touch?" etc which in an extreme way reflect the smoke and mirrors of innocent / devious (depending on which side of the bed you got up today!) minds seeking to propagate the underlying myths of the "business partner" paradigm.
Why is this an issue ? Essentially, it seems so self evident that when framed in this manner, HR is defined as an outsider which needs to have "partner" relationship with what's inside the business? Be that as it may, let me state my proposition rather than spend time and space rubbishing the "business partner" paradigm.
Why is HR - the business? Two very simple things - organisational design ( whether you like it or not !) puts HR inside the business and secondly, HR , which is the"people side" of the organisation irrespective of whether there is a credible HR team which can play the role the organisational architecture requires or not.
Organisational design in classical terms goes back to Jay Galbraith's work. The thinking about the "people side" of the organisation as integral to the way systems, strategy, structure, values, culture, behaviour, capabilities are interwoven to deliver the purpose of the organisation. The way strategy is conceived, the way people practices are crafted, the way choices are made an by whom with which compass, are clear indicators of the integration of the people perspective. The design of these elements and their interplay is characterised by an alignment that reviewed and modified from time to time as appropriate with the changes in the environment and the choices that leaders make.
The other aspect is (bluntly put!) people issues are always on the table and choices are made - irrespective of the presence, contribution and input of the HR function! The real question is whether "HR People" are at the table or not? This has two dimensions - one do HR people feel they march to a different drummer or do they march with the Leadership Team to the drummer of Business? Secondly, and equally important - are they "legitimised" by the responses and demands made on them at that table? Far too long has HR been treated as a "Hand Maiden" / "Page Boy" ( to avoid sounding gender biased!) by the "guys who make money and call the shots". So insidious and prevalent is this intellectual subservience to the dominant paradigm that HR has internalised it deeply !
Business is fundamentally about making sustainable profitable growth happen through the efforts of people in an organised manner. Is this really such a difficult concept to grasp ? In the post truth age, in a world of alternative facts and analytics and the huge array of vested interests- these are truly muddied waters. The lack of recognition of Human Sciences as a Science, imprecise by definition , yet a science, is compounded by the world view of the dominant thinking of people who have grown, been educated and are steeped in the "machine / physical science" metaphors of the how the world exists and moves. ( read in this my abundant affection for the dominant mindset of engineers, accountants and subspecies of similar ilk!) This is further compounded by self acclaimed "thought leaders" especially consultants vying for CEO attention and billing , who seek to gain entry by endearing themselves to CEOs by whittling away at internal HR credibility; and the incompetence of internal HR folks and seeking to build a "dependant capability" on themselves ,which can only happen if they subtly or crudely rubbish HR people within the organisation. The tragedy is that HR people themselves collude with such processes and then end up lamenting its outcome!
Imagine this - CEOs, Leadership Teams, Board members Influential stakeholders are often avid readers. One of us reads a blurb or even an article on the back page of a fashion magazine on a flight; or these days - a Youtube snippet with a cute turn of phrase or a idea that appeals to them - it gets immediate attention and demands for its immediate implementation ! The hunger for "benchmarking" ( an eternal prescription for mediocrity - copy others , follow others rather than lead by creating the next practice) The inability to decode insights rather than merely copy a practice that is waved in our face as the basis of some organisations /leaders greatness , becomes the Holy Grail. The place of Strategic thinking has given way to the legends and myths of "Start ups", misunderstood meaning of "flexibility, fast-flat, eternally changing" organisations . The lack of deeply thought through ( confused with analysis / Paralysis) Leadership responsibility to deliver the present while creating the future, is palpable. This also liberates leadership from the accountability of cause-effect integrity in thinking and predictive validation of if/then scenarios. Mis-attribution of business outcomes to fashion statements is rampant and the basis of many billion dollar sub industries ( Competencies, ESOPs, Mentoring, Coaching, etc) This not to say that any of these is useless but to emphasise the fact that each of these are tools that need to be used in alignment and relevance to the context of the organisation and not administered as "broad spectrum antibiotics" to all and any organisation as "good" for all because it the way XYZ company or Leader has done it!!
The other aspect is (bluntly put!) people issues are always on the table and choices are made - irrespective of the presence, contribution and input of the HR function! The real question is whether "HR People" are at the table or not? This has two dimensions - one do HR people feel they march to a different drummer or do they march with the Leadership Team to the drummer of Business? Secondly, and equally important - are they "legitimised" by the responses and demands made on them at that table? Far too long has HR been treated as a "Hand Maiden" / "Page Boy" ( to avoid sounding gender biased!) by the "guys who make money and call the shots". So insidious and prevalent is this intellectual subservience to the dominant paradigm that HR has internalised it deeply !
Business is fundamentally about making sustainable profitable growth happen through the efforts of people in an organised manner. Is this really such a difficult concept to grasp ? In the post truth age, in a world of alternative facts and analytics and the huge array of vested interests- these are truly muddied waters. The lack of recognition of Human Sciences as a Science, imprecise by definition , yet a science, is compounded by the world view of the dominant thinking of people who have grown, been educated and are steeped in the "machine / physical science" metaphors of the how the world exists and moves. ( read in this my abundant affection for the dominant mindset of engineers, accountants and subspecies of similar ilk!) This is further compounded by self acclaimed "thought leaders" especially consultants vying for CEO attention and billing , who seek to gain entry by endearing themselves to CEOs by whittling away at internal HR credibility; and the incompetence of internal HR folks and seeking to build a "dependant capability" on themselves ,which can only happen if they subtly or crudely rubbish HR people within the organisation. The tragedy is that HR people themselves collude with such processes and then end up lamenting its outcome!
Imagine this - CEOs, Leadership Teams, Board members Influential stakeholders are often avid readers. One of us reads a blurb or even an article on the back page of a fashion magazine on a flight; or these days - a Youtube snippet with a cute turn of phrase or a idea that appeals to them - it gets immediate attention and demands for its immediate implementation ! The hunger for "benchmarking" ( an eternal prescription for mediocrity - copy others , follow others rather than lead by creating the next practice) The inability to decode insights rather than merely copy a practice that is waved in our face as the basis of some organisations /leaders greatness , becomes the Holy Grail. The place of Strategic thinking has given way to the legends and myths of "Start ups", misunderstood meaning of "flexibility, fast-flat, eternally changing" organisations . The lack of deeply thought through ( confused with analysis / Paralysis) Leadership responsibility to deliver the present while creating the future, is palpable. This also liberates leadership from the accountability of cause-effect integrity in thinking and predictive validation of if/then scenarios. Mis-attribution of business outcomes to fashion statements is rampant and the basis of many billion dollar sub industries ( Competencies, ESOPs, Mentoring, Coaching, etc) This not to say that any of these is useless but to emphasise the fact that each of these are tools that need to be used in alignment and relevance to the context of the organisation and not administered as "broad spectrum antibiotics" to all and any organisation as "good" for all because it the way XYZ company or Leader has done it!!
The heart of this has two challenges - one the capacity for pattern making or lack thereof and the second is capacity for multiple pattern-making.
Pattern making and pattern recognition are inherent capacities of all species especially humans. one of the psuedo scientific developments in the bridge of multidisciplinary studies that has overtaken us is the Information Processing framework applied to the human brain. ( Ref The Brain is empty https://aeon.co/.../you) The sense making and pattern making ability is anchored in the Amagdyla
( the emotive clearing house of the brain). This implies a different insight into how we make patterns. We
naturally see multiple realities and in overlays of patterns. These are dynamic and respond to the sense of
the world we experience. The ability to understand and leverage these to imagine the reality that can be
and what cause will ( likely) create what effect is innate in us and can be leveraged , enhanced or distorted
by the interplay of an inorganic logic. ( more of this in the next piece)!
Suffice it to say that, the following three principles are key to effective organisations:
1) Design and architecture of Organisations is a scientific discipline and Multi-dimensional ( interrelated - Structure, culture, Capabilities, Accountabilities, Systems, Processes, Leadership and behaviour)
2) Watch out for misattribution of "cause-effect " relationships of actions we take and outcomes that created.
3) Strategy by definition is about delivering today's results and delivery of tomorrow's outcomes.
Things to watch out for - Minefield!
1) Words and phrases that are cute and attractive but not understood or studied in depth (e.g. "We must have a Fastflat organisation")
2) Contradictions of actions planned/ undertaken and outcomes expected ( if we pray it will rain)
3) Invalid science or insights ( Jack Welsh did a "neutron Jack" and created a new improved GE - so we must Neutron our company ! Or Mentoring everyone will create success / higher profits !)
4) Activities and outcomes are the same !!
5) Unanimity , and consensus are a must for a good strategy - REALLY?
The good news is that there a few really thoughtful organisations and HR Leaders who are quietly and tenaciously ploughing a furrow that is leading their organisations forward. These are often "unsung heroes and heroines" - by definition! It is their mindfulness and thinking that needs to be the insight we seek to learn from rather than satisfy our hunger for "icons" and objects of imitation.
No comments:
Post a Comment