"Whatever you do, please don't mention this to anyone in HR, they will kill it".
That quote
may sound odd but it is real. The ‘it’ being kept secret from HR is an
innovative learning program. I am sure the same thing happens with all sorts of
HR innovations, not just learning. When HR hears about a manager who is doing
things a little bit differently their first reaction is to want to kill it
outright or wrap it in a deadly python of bureaucracy.
The
literature on innovation recognizes the value of small experiments; but even
though HR tends to be aware of this kind fact, they tend to treat experiments
with extreme distaste. There are good
reasons for this, as well as bad ones, and these need to be disentangled before
we can get to the meat of how to improve innovation in HR.
The obvious
bad reason is simply that HR wants to protect its turf; if it’s an HR related
effort they want to control it and any associated budget. This is however linked
to a good reason which is that organizations don’t want managers running off
doing things that are risky or ill-considered.
We often
see the same thing in IT. Managers may have experienced the wrath of IT when
they try to bring in a Mac into an organization that has standardized on PCs.
There are both good and bad reasons for IT’s inflexibility. They need to
prevent any actions that would undermine the security of their system and also
they need to protect themselves from the user demands that can arise when
someone has an incompatible hardware setup. They may also just be difficult for
the sake of being difficult. But the right steps are relatively clear. A good IT department will look at the issue,
assess the risks, see if there are reasonable steps to mitigate the risk, and
if it makes sense then allow the user to go ahead with the non-standard system.
Yet HR does
not seem to have this risk assessment / risk mitigation mindset. There are
several reasons for this. One is that
many HR professionals grow up in a quasi-legal world where their job is all
about ensuring the organization does not fall foul of labor laws. This, along
with their frequent role as the policy police, have led them to get used to
saying “No you can’t do that!” instead of working as a partner to determine the
best thing to do. Another reason is that historically HR has championed
enterprise-wide programs; if there is on-boarding then it will be for everyone,
not just for a critical subset of jobs. If there is a dress code, it applies to
all, even if it’s only needed in customer facing roles. When HR sees an
innovation they immediately think in terms of an enterprise-wide roll out,
which is expensive, risky and time consuming—all in all better put to death
than permitted.
So we need
a radically new mindset in HR. They need to encourage managers to experiment
and simply provide a limited overview to ensure that there are no undue risks.
When the cost of the experiment is less than the cost of the business case they
should cheer on the manager to go ahead and try it out. When experiments don’t
work HR can draw useful lessons. Where experiments do work HR can consider
applying the approach to other areas of the organization. But you don’t get to
learn from failed experiments or build on successful experiments if you kill
experiments before they can begin.
HR often
suffers from a bad reputation. They are seen to get in the way of the business
rather than help it along. HR can go a long way in building rapport with
managers if it encourages them to experiment with things they think might work,
providing only enough support to ensure there are no uncontained risks. This
will lead to rapid learning, happier managers and a better loved HR function.
If you'd like to try a 90 minute experiment with a completely new, group based approach to leadership training, visit us at http://www.CoachingOurselves.com/
This article was co-authored with my friend David Creelman, of Creelman research.
This article was co-authored with my friend David Creelman, of Creelman research.
No comments:
Post a Comment