Developing Resilience - Putting it into Practice

Yesterday's CIPD Resilience Conference was followed up by a workshop today, called 'Building Resilience During Constant Change to Sustain Organisational Performance'. They could both stand independently, but today was a natural follow on, facilitated by Lynne Donaldson (@lindonaldson). I think that whilst yesterday covered the evidence and business case followed by lots of examples of well-being initiatives, today, we did get into the practicality of how resilience can be developed for individuals and for organisations, where VUCA is the new normal, and for occasions where organisations face sudden, unexpected turbulence.

There were about 16 of us there from a really diverse range of organisations, from large, traditional public sector, to commercial household names and medium sized third sector. One of the great things about the day was (as is every facilitator's dream) people's willingness to share experiences and learning in a respectful way. Despite the differences in our backgrounds and organisations, there were many more similarities in what we thought was important to support and develop individual and organisational resilience.

Skilled, effective management and leadership was a recurring theme along with authentic, honest and transparent communication.

To pretty much every  change scenario we examined, leadership and appropriate communication were top of the list when action planning. Common changes we discussed were changes to government policy - some quite sudden, such as the new National Minimum Wage, others concerned changes affecting service users such as housing association tenants and Universal Credit. Pretty much all of us had experienced CEO or leadership changes, bringing new styles or changes in priorities and the uncertainty this can bring for the workforce.

We worked through Lynne's Building Resilience through Capability Model. This is a very useful model, easy to apply, with a checklist for measuring your organisational resilience and another for measuring the gaps. Importantly, this is not new stuff, covering strategy, alignment, agility, planning and foreseeing, governance, metrics, talent development etc. But what I think is a great take away is that these have all been put together here as the essential components of a resilient organisation. It's all stuff we are or should be doing anyway and thus should be 'easy' to work through with colleagues/the leadership team...

In the afternoon, we worked in groups through a developing scenario. Initially, we identified the short and long term people issues for an organisation that has gone through a lot of change and has to deliver in a challenging environment. Our top, broad themes were trust, engagement strategy and brand. The group I was in focussed on trust. Our brief was communication from the perspective of an individual in the organisation when something has gone wrong. I was struck, though I really shouldn't be, again by the similarities of our approaches despite such different organisational backgrounds. Authenticity, honesty, no 'bullshit', consistency, no dodging difficult questions, involving people were all discussed and much more...

Anyway, I won't divulge any more, except to say that the way the scenarios developed felt real and relevant and this sustained a high level of contribution throughout the day.

Resilience Reflections

The CIPD Resilience Conference finished a couple of hours ago. I have lots to reflect upon as I have a quiet evening prior to the workshop tomorrow. Some of this is quite deep and personally resonating, for reasons I might blog about some time in the future. But for now, here are my initial reflections.

I decided to attend from a viewpoint of healthy scepticism. We've done 'stress awareness' training, seen health and well-being initiatives (some quite shiny), and striven for excellence in 'employee engagement'. So is 'resilience' the next big thing? Could increasing employee resilience actually be The Answer - to productivity, to absenteeism, to presenteeism, to harmonious employee relations...? I wasn't so sure, and I certainly did not think it was something that could be taught per se. I was also wondering what kind of work environments we have created that mean that you have to be resilient in order to survive them?

The day started superbly well with definitions, some biology and the evidence from numerous studies laid out for us very clearly by Prof Ivan Robertson. I definitely plan to spend some time exploring www.robsertsoncooper.com  Although towards the end the point was made that some senior leaders are naturally very resilient, see the world through their own lens and therefore simply don't get it, the link between positive employee well-being and productivity seems to be very conclusive. His main take away, other than needing to build a strategic approach was that psychological well-being at work is driven by demand, control, resources and support. Basically a high level of demand on you in your role is a good thing, as long as it is not excessive and you have control over how you do what is required of you, balanced with the resources and support you need.

Then a number of speakers, mainly from large global corporates, shared their examples of employee well-being initiatives and how this impacted positively on business. Many different ideas were presented and I need some time to think their application through. A common thread was the major importance of skilled leadership and management as the most important factor in how employees feel about work. This was probably followed by awareness raising and destigmatisation - we saw some lovely examples of well-being campaigns that have taken off and thereby encouraged much more open dialogue and acceptance that we all struggle sometimes. 

All good stuff - but it seemed to me to be more about well-being, especially psychological and emotional, than resilience? As Prof Robertson said, resilience is about psychological well-being and health AND being behaviourally effective and capable. Speakers did cover how they were measuring the impact of their initiatives, but as some acknowledged, that this needs fine tuning. 

Resilience training, the aspect I was most sceptical about was covered, and several examples given. I think my view on this has taken more shape. I still don't think it can be taught as a skill, especially not on line alone (RobertsonCooper's research found this), but knowledge about what contributes to well-being can be taught, and through effective leadership, coaching, mentoring, and having someone you trust at work or through an EAP who you can talk to, resilience skills can be developed. 

I was also wondering (and lamenting) why work environments have become places where you need to be resilient to cope. Some speakers focused on what they were doing to make places or patterns of work more flexible and employee friendly. The most memorable was from the only small business, Man Bites Dog, which is so small that employees have really shaped their work space (socially) and their roles despite working in the highly commercial and pressured world of PR. I think by the end of this session, many of us wanted to work there, if we like pink and love dogs.

Other speakers acknowledged that there is pressure, and there always will be, so the trick is to recognise this and to find ways to work differently to accommodate this.

Not all of the examples we heard about would require lots of financial investment. In fact we looked at cost free ideas in the interactive Man Bites Dog session. Finally, we heard from the Group HR Director of Servest, a very rapidly expanding facilities management company. I was very interested in her perspectives on what HR are there to do and not to do. I wholeheartedly agree that HR are not there to collect 17000 appraisal summaries, but are there to make connections and offer opportunities. This is not a cash rich world by any means and I know facilities companies often operate very tightly costed contracts, so it was great to hear that they embrace Social Media for example - with employees preferring Twitter to internal Yammer. They had even turned a negative employee tweet about not being paid into a positive, as the CEO saw it, responded to say it would be sorted straightaway, and it was. This was widely retweeted.   

So, as I risk starting to ramble, if I am not already, there was lots to ponder, and examples to follow up, explore, examine and learn from. Developing resilience, with a focus on employee wellbe and its impact on the bottom line, definitely seems to be the way forward. There's a range of approaches and new ideas emerging and evolving all the time, so that something to suit the every  organisation's unique culture and budget should be possible to achieve.  

Learning on a bicycle made for two.

22 years ago, within the first year of marriage, we hired a tandem and cycled round Jersey. The highlight was the waitresses waving us off following a scrumptious cream tea with a great rendition of "Daisy, Daisy". We have laughed about it many times since, but I also recall many moments of terror and panic when I felt I had no control. Yes, in stereotypical gender style, I was on the back, with no brakes, no gears and no way of being in charge of the speed we did downhill. I was fearful... he was a daredevil.

Unsurprisingly, Mr H was a little surprised when I suggested we try using a tandem again, with a view to buying one through his cycle to work scheme. With knee injuries from running, he is now a keen cyclist and already has a rather advanced racing bike that he uses regularly. After a slow half marathon last year, I have also been prone to injury, and now need to avoid high impact exercise such as jogging and running. We are also in a phase of life where our children are now young adults, and we have the freedom to try out new things and and gain new perspectives...

So, we have been borrowing a tandem for 2 weekends now. As we live on a hill, setting off (downhill of course) on our first ride was terrifying. I had to trust him entirely regarding the moment of set off, speed of pedalling, gear resistance, speed round bends and, of course, stopping. Contrary to popular belief, there is no free wheeling on the back, when you are the 'stoker' (I'm getting into cycle lingo already). You have to match the pace (and 'cadence') of the person in front. But the person in front has to listen, take your questions and concerns seriously and communicate their intentions. 'We are turning left at the next junction', 'Power up', 'Get ready to stop' etc. etc.

The young adults mentioned earlier were fearful of what might happen and fully expected ructions on our return home. Wrong. We came home laughing and smiling and after a 20 mile trip, keen to do a longer ride next time. The 2nd trip took place on Saturday, a perfect day, and we did 40 miles including a stop off in the beautiful small city of Wells. This journey included a number of hills. On a tandem, you can't stand up, so you go uphill ridiculously slowly in a very low gear - serious teamwork and effort required to make it to the top, then the momentum back down the other side is phenomenal. I will admit, it was a little fast for my liking, but I felt so much more confident and joyful compared to 22 years ago. It was fun.

I have learnt a lot from trying something out again, something that I had really thought the first time was going to be a one off. How even in an established relationship with very well worn roles, likes and dislikes, it is great to open up your mind, relinquish some of the control you are used to having, and put your trust in a partner. In this case, Mr H as a very experienced road cyclist, is much better equipped to lead than me and also compared to how he was 22 years ago. How, despite the day to day use of shorthand communication common in a lot of relationships, (that can sometimes be 'short' as well) doing something that requires you to work in tandem (couldn't resist) necessitates patient, clear and kind communication. I think there are many comparisons, like these, to make regarding lots of joint activities and endeavours at work and in life generally.

The last, and definitely not least one of these I want to mention here is seeing familiar things through a new lens and at a different pace. We are lucky to live in a gorgeous county, usually seen from a car window, or in Mr H's case from a road bike at speed. The pace of the tandem, close proximity to your partner, no music and no wifi makes conversation easy. This enabled us to notice, appreciate and marvel at a truly wonderful rural sunny day.

Moral(e)

Do you enjoy typos that subtly, or not so subtly change sentence meanings? Sometimes not even typos, but very similar words, where the wrong one has been selected unknowingly, or maybe subconsciously? One of my favourites is ‘morale’ and ‘moral’. I’ve been musing about writing a blog on this for a while, and although what follows is not quite as articulate as I would like, we have yet again in the media, examples of prominent people whose morals allegedly leave much to be desired. I also read this week that banking leaders are about to be audited on their ethics… So here is my case for the close link between morals and morale.

I think they have a very close relationship, so as someone with an interest in the roots, usage of and inherent meanings of words, but who did not study Latin, I looked up both words, expecting to find the same root, but I didn’t.

‘Moral’ is from Middle English from Latin (moralis) and has been in use from the 14^th Century, and relates to the principle of right and wrong, proper conduct and standards of behaviour.

‘Morale’ is from the French word ‘moral’, which in its feminine form is ‘morale’ and has been used from the mid 18^th Century. It relates to the confidence, enthusiasm and discipline of a person but more often a group (unit cohesion) at a particular time. Wikipedia gives examples of its military use - ‘Esprit de Corps’, and in the workplace – job satisfaction and feelings of well being.

Taking 4 aspects of the meaning of ‘morale’ one by one, in the workplace context:

Confidence – What gives us the confidence to achieve and perform in the workplace? The skills, resources and support to do what is required? The right amount of direction balanced with discretion to make our own decisions? Belief and confidence in what we are there to do - what our organisation is there to deliver? All of this, I think, but I wonder if without an explicit moral or ethical dimension (a set of expected values), confidence could be lost, misplaced or misaligned.

Enthusiasm – Quite easy to define; being keen, believing in the organisation’s goals, and wanting to do your bit. Assuming basic needs are met though, don’t most people need  a strong belief in and a close fit with the organisation’s values to maintain this enthusiasm day in, day out? Where does that belief come from? I would say from what is visible about the leadership and day to day symbols of the organisational culture that accord with its espoused values. In other words visible moral and ethical behaviours.

Discipline – Hmm. Well this can have a pejorative meaning in many contexts, but here, we are talking about sticking with things, keeping going when things get tough, when confidence wavers, when enthusiasm wanes… Also, willingly doing what is required to achieve the organisation’s goals within the parameters prescribed, and not doing your own thing.

Unit cohesion – Collective focused efforts reminding me of Aristotle’s ‘The whole is greater than the sum of its parts’ or ‘The whole is other than the sum of its parts’ – the psychologist Koffka’s translation on perceptions that the whole exists in isolation of the parts. Without getting too deeply into philosophy and psychology I am not knowledgeable enough to understand properly, maybe both translations apply in my argument? The first is pretty self explanatory and often used about great teams. The second is interesting as one interpretation could be the huge importance of perception. If the unit cohesion needed to complete the meaning of morale is missing, what is in its place? Or what do people think is in its place? How many different versions or understandings of ‘the whole’ (the organisation) are there? And might unit cohesion be inconsistent or missing because not everyone has the confidence, enthusiasm and discipline that strong morale also requires?

I’m worried that I am starting to ramble a bit, but what I am trying to convey is my strong belief in the impact of consistent and transparent moral behaviour on morale.

As a final thought, maybe ‘moral’ and ‘morale’ are words used less often these days when the focus is on ‘engagement’, ‘employee voice’, ‘wellbeing at work’, the link between happiness and productivity etc. But maybe they should be – after all they have been around for 7 and 3 centuries respectively – whereas some of our current terminology, despite the growing evidence base, sounds too much like ‘management jargon’ and has little meaning to lots of people. Whereas I think most people at work are expert at linking what the organisation says its values are, with their experience and perception of what happens day to day, and could very easily describe the morals in evidence and then state how these make them feel about their work and that of their teams.

Useful distractions

In today's #ldinsight chat, responding to the question of what is the one thing we'd do to make us even better at what we do, I said 'hone ability to distinguish between useful and useless distractions.' Of course, I was then asked to give examples of useful distractions. Whilst the temptation, at the end of the week is to have a lovely rant, in my comfortable space, about useless distractions, throwing in loads of examples we can all recognise and roll our eyes over, I'm having a go at describing useful distractions.

Off the top of my head, I think this depends on:

Personality
How important what we are currently doing is
How we are feeling at the time, and what's going on around us

Firstly, I think a lot depends on our personality. I am a self confessed lover of MBTI, and other similar tools, as long as these are used in the right context, proportionately and in an environment of discovery, challenge and growth - not putting people into boxes. So what follows is the view of someone with extroverted feeling and introverted intuition. As such, I generally quite like distractions, in the form of social interactions - my worst day in the office is sitting by myself writing a document with absolutely no one to talk to or share any ideas with or seek any ideas from. I was recently the subject of an Insights Discovery profile, and my feedback included the tendency to go off at tangents. I showed this to a trusted close former colleague, who roared with laughter, recognising this instantly (and in truth, so did I). I've just done it here, but my point is to demonstrate why it is necessary for me to be able to recognise useful distractions from the other sort... Generally a useful distraction for me will be a social interaction from a trusted, valued and ideally liked person, who ignites me to start making links, connections and patterns which help me to progress my thinking on what needs to be done.

Next, how busy are we? How important is the work? What is the deadline? So, if I am sitting in that darkened room on my own, writing something important for the organisation with a very pressing deadline to meet, maybe even I won't find distractions useful, unless they really do add value to the piece of work in hand.

I also think the usefulness of distractions can depend very much on how we are feeling and the situation around us. Sometimes, when feeling a bit despondent, flat or tired, an unexpected pleasant distraction from the world around me can be just what I need to feel reenergised and enthused. Equally, when feeling enthusiastic and motivated, certain distractions can be useful for me for checks and balances, reframing and maintaining the right level of momentum.

I have also been reflecting on who the 'useful distraction' may benefit. Us personally? Our teams or organisations? Ideally all 3? Also, do we realise at the time, how useful this is:

For personal development, new thoughts and perspectives?
For moving off a negative or mundane track?
For a necessary break from the task in hand, to return to it later, refreshed?

And finally, what kind of useful distraction was a thinking about? Well, I think it's pretty obvious that my musings here are mainly the distractions caused by unplanned or casual social interactions. But I will add to this the delights of distractions that invade the sensations such as catching something interesting going on through the window, or smelling the coffee.

So this has been a bit of a self indulgent look at the positives of useful distractions. What do you think?

Post-script. No pictures because a quick google image search for 'distraction' showed up only the negative aspects of useless distractions...

Sometimes, it just is…

I like blogs that apply and examine learning from ordinary (and extraordinary) situations. I really like blogs about triumph over adversity. I love blogs that really make me think, fill me with curiosity and the desire to learn more. Some blogs have all 3 components, and boy, don’t I wish I had written them?

I like hearing first hand from individuals who faced significant organisational challenges and led their teams/companies to success. I really like interaction, discussion and debate with people who have great ideas, learning and experiences to share. I love to see people’s hard work and success showcased in professional journals, books, celebrated at awards events etc.

So there is plenty out there to inspire us, to help us to find the opportunities in even the worst looking situations and to see how it is our responses to situations that can make all the difference to our well being.

But sometimes….sometimes, it just is. Stuff is happening. Some is within our control, and some isn’t. Via our networks, professional media and interactions both on line and in person we become aware of all of the positive stories above, and may feel mixed emotions. Curiosity and learning on the one hand and on the other, a sense of frustration, and maybe even envy that the situation in which we currently find ourselves is not likely to be something we can change that quickly, write about, or discuss more widely, never mind showcase the outcomes.

I’m not offering a silver bullet I am afraid, if you do find yourself in a ‘just is’ situation. We have probably all experienced these times – they just don’t get communicated that often and openly, unless they are the start of one of those triumph over adversity stories. But I will end by saying that I am absolutely certain that somewhere in this social wealth of stories, experiences and interactions, there is inspiration to be found to help, no matter how long it takes to move from ‘just is’.

How would you evaluate this conference?

To the award winning venue:

·       Directions for a very simple walk from the station, were via a map with road names printed in such tiny text, white on grey, as to render it unreadable. I wasn't the only one to set off in the wrong direction.

·       Your main entrance was closed for building works, but this was not noted on the directions. I had already walked right past the side entrance and missed it completely.

·       The semi-circular tables were too small for 5 delegates each.

·       However, free Wi-Fi was very well sign-posted and fast (you have clearly listened to previous feedback in this respect, at least and read the new Maslow hierarchy of needs…)

To the well-known conference organiser:

·       Nice glossy folders, but 5 people per table meant only 1 or 2 people could open them out.

·       Quite an expensive conference, this was also over-subscribed (to make more profit?) Latecomers had to sit at the back for the whole day, without even one of the inadequate tables for their stuff.

·       A series of one speaker after another, with no opportunity for much interaction, or 'doing' during the sessions, except for some whole-conference audience questions.

·       No breakouts or choice of participative workshops. Felt talked at much of the time.

·       However, good time built in for networking during breaks.

To the speakers:

·       How many of you were last minute bookings?

·       Maybe that was why the glossy pack included so many sheets of lined paper explaining that the presentation had not been received at the time of printing. This was one of those 'speakers include' events...

·       How many of you have been subjected yourselves, to over complex PowerPoint slides NO-ONE can read? Why do so many of you persist in doing this to others?

·       This was made worse by no copies in our pack and variable sound quality - so not always possible to follow everything and pick up all of the points made... OK, so you can't control the AV, but you can speak up and use an appropriate pace....

·       However, one of you was outstanding. The innovation you described so engagingly, using great humour, wit and conviction, with simple pictorial slides, is something I will remember in a fortnight, and beyond, and may even be a catalyst for some local ideas development.

It frustrates me to think that there was almost certainly other good quality content, that could also be useful back at the ranch, but due to the above much of this was, for me, lost in translation.

#mmumtm

My mum taught me:

To aspire for an education and a career. My Grandad was very traditional, of his time, and did not prioritise girls’ education. Mum went to grammar school, but the family moved when she was 15, to Ireland for a year. Not speaking Irish prevented her from doing O Levels. None the less, thanks to prolific reading, intelligence and curiosity, Mum has extensive general knowledge, an OU Degree and has never, to our knowledge, been beaten at Trivial Pursuit. Mum always encouraged me, but never pushed me, and never tried to live her life vicariously through mine.

To pronounce the ‘t’ in expressions such as ‘didn’t it?’ A stickler for speaking clearly, avoiding slang etc, Mum gave the ‘look’, and the ‘tut’ for sloppy language use. I’ll add correct grammar to this item. I am known as a bit of a grammar nerd myself, but Mum can still find things to correct in anything I write and show to her.

To talk about things honestly and openly. Mum and Dad always talked to us. This was often at the dinner table, and often for a long time after the meal was finished. Good and bad. Right and wrong. Grey areas. Actions and consequences. Different perspectives. Putting yourself in other people’s shoes. Thinking things through properly. Going for it.

To clean a bath using Ajax powder and a J-cloth. Thank goodness cleaning products have moved on since then.

To cook. Mum is a fabulous cook. At 19, she went to Nice in the South of France to be an au pair. I grew up thinking this was normal. Now I look back and realise that for a young secretary from a suburban Nottingham family in 1960, this was quite unusual and very brave. She found herself having to cook for the children she cared for using a completely different approach and range of ingredients to my Nana, who was not known for her culinary skills.

To be interested in politics. Mum always read quality newspapers, listened to Radio 4 and had (still has) a very strong social conscience. She has never been afraid of expressing her opinions, often with great humour and irony. I’ve lost count of the times we have put the World to rights.

To love reading. I’ve alluded to this already. As a girl, sometimes Mum visited the library more than once a day. Neither of us is ever without a book to read, and we often discuss what we think about them and recommend books we have read to each other.  Only one of us likes Wolf Hall however, and it’s not me.

To sew using a pattern. Mum made a lot of clothes for herself and for us. She helped me to use patterns and a sewing machine, such that I made my first work suit myself! I’m not that good now, but it is like riding a bike and I am getting back into it. I won’t be making a green flowery print trouser suit however – one of the more memorable outfits she made for me. It was the 1970s…

To appreciate Art and Music. Our local library, which we visited regularly of course, had a picture lending service. Do any libraries still do this? We spent ages looking at the choice available (actually hanging up in a separate room of the library) regularly chose new pictures and renewed those we liked. Mum also played music - pop and jazzy blues music. Possibly the album she played the most and that I still love to this day is Carole King’s Tapestry.

To iron a shirt correctly. I hate ironing, but have been taught to do it properly I suppose. She may still iron sheets and towels, but I only iron when it is absolutely necessary.

To be independent and resilient. Possibly the most important item on this list. Mum was very caring, but not over protective. We were not allowed to have a day off school unless we were really ill. We were not allowed to be bored on Sundays when there was nothing on TV. We only had plasters on grazed knees when it was really bad, as fresh air was the best healer (she was right.) When we finally got a phone in our student flat, she was not the mother who rang every week to check I was OK. But she was always there for me, and luckily, she still is…

Enablement

In HR and L&D, it seems to me that we often spend time reflecting, navel gazing, rejecting labels then thinking up new ones, bemoaning management fads then having to implement them or to teach others about them. Not many of us seem to like the term ‘Human Resources’, and some still use ‘Personnel’ (including our professional body, the CIPD, but maybe there is a long term plan to change the P to ‘People’?) ‘People Development’ is probably better as it incorporates the L&D aspect. But there again, many people still refer to ‘Training and Development’, or just ‘Training’. And as for ‘Organisational Development’, well I have been told more than once that lots of people don’t really know what this is… which I have also seen to be so, but that’s another blog, maybe.

Having spent so many years recently involved in major organisational change, I have had so many discussions about what good HR and L&D do, and indeed the entire corporate function. I have also made a bit of a name for myself with colleagues about my hatred of the term ‘back office’ and blogged about why. Basic needs, security needs and the ‘back office’. During this kind of mega change, I have often experienced a sense that everyone perceives that other departments are safer, better off, more in the know etc. than they are. Especially HR.

Yet, in HR and other corporate functions it is often us doing a lot of the transactional work and due diligence required, yet knowing that, as usual, the main efficiencies will be looked for by streamlining the corporate function.

So, in a way who can blame me, and others for asking why we are there, and indeed why some form of our function should remain in place after the restructure? A word I often use is 'enablement'. Our policies, processes, frameworks, HRIS, L&D offer etc. should all enable the business to be efficient and the ‘front line’ staff to do their jobs skilfully, and ever more innovatively. There is no place for a corporate service that disables delivery.

So I am pondering today, on whether the word ‘enable’ or ‘enablement’ could be used to describe our HR and L&D functions, if not our entire corporate functions. The possibilities are quite promising, and, on a lighter note, great for acronym lovers:

Business Enablement	BE (I quite like this – enable everyone ‘to be’ themselves at work?)
Enablement Team	ET (maybe not, for obvious reasons!)
Business Enablement Team	BET (err, not politically correct re condoning gambling?)
Business Enablement Support Team	BEST (now we are cooking on gas)
Business Enablement Department	BED (no)
People Enablement Team	PET (like the name, but can imagine derogative use of acronym)

Back to some seriousness. I really do think we need to embrace the concept of enablement in wider HR, if we are not already – perhaps many of us are and we use different terminology? It is (in my opinion anyway) one of the essential components of a 'commercial' approach.  Internet searches tell me it is used a lot in sales, and in care and recovery, especially in relation to disability. Why not in how organisations think about and behave in relation to their people?

The five powerful questions

A version of this picture is doing the SoMe rounds as a result of the latest allegations of abuses of power and position by senior MPs.

It strikes me that these are questions all of us in leadership positions, especially if we are leading corporate support functions, should ask ourselves on a regular basis.

What power have I got?

Is it for making decisions, for leading others in implementation, for taking part in the business activity/service provision, for supporting others who do the work? Or maybe it’s for providing specialist advice to influence strategic decisions, or for persuading others think differently about the decisions that need to be made?

Where did I get it from?

Is it legitimate, reward, expert, referent or coercive power? (French and Raven) Yikes, if it’s the latter! But if you were relying on that kind of power, would you be asking these kinds of questions, reflectively, in the first place?

In whose interest am I exercising this power?

Even if you believe your power is legitimate, expert and referent, i.e. you are in a formal role, with the requisite skills and knowledge to carry it out and people want to follow you, is this any good if you have lost sight of what the organisation you work for is there for? If your power is used mainly to make life easier for you and your team, watch out, and move to the next question.

To whom am I accountable?

Great question. Day to day, generally, in the grander scheme of things? Let’s say you are accountable in many ways to many different stakeholders, including yourself, for different reasons, but here I mean your internal customer. I could add what are you accountable for? See the first question. Are you held to account? If so how, and how do you feel about it?

How can they get rid of me?

Imagine if you had to be voted back into your job role regularly in a fair and democratic vote based on how you well you do against the first 4 questions. How would you do if you were interviewed routinely by a similar panel to that of your original interview, only this time, they know about you and your performance already?

I think these could be a pretty sound set of questions for regular reflection for all of us, not just politicians...

The tail wagging the dog?

There’s always lots to read and reflect upon about the place of HR, L&D, OD, People Management etc. in the business. Even more than ever before thanks to social media networks and the rich abundance of shared learning opportunities, leading to even more of a need to be discerning and to think about what matters and what should be happening.

With friends recently, one of whom is a very senior manager in a large dispersed, FTSE100 organisation you will have heard of, the conversation turned, as it so often does, to more examples of poor HR practice at his company. As usual, I sprang to the defence of the HR profession, shaking my head and giving my tuppence worth of how I think things should be in order for HR to be effective, credible and a valued part of the business. So, I would love to know how anyone in HR could defend this short. but spectacularly illuminating example.

This organisation sounds like it has a centralised Shared Service and a Business Partnering approach. They have a scheme for employees who recommend someone who then becomes a successful hire (apologies for using HR speak and turning a verb into a noun here) to receive a fairly modest monetary payment as a thank you. Apparently, this scheme is not well communicated. The payment for anyone in my friend’s sizeable team who does this, would come out of the departmental budget he holds and manages, and really would be a drop in the ocean. Recently a team member was successful in making a recommendation that worked out. Here’s what happened.

My friend to Shared Services – I’d like Joe Bloggs to receive this payment please.

Shared Services – Not possible, as he has not filled in the correct form.

My friend to Joe Bloggs – Here you go, fill this form in retrospectively and I’ll authorise it.

Shared Services to Joe Bloggs and my friend – We can’t make the payment as the form was not filled in in advance of the successful hire he recommended.

My friend to his HR Business Partner – Can you influence this please? It’s ridiculous, I am the budget holder and I am agreeing to this as a legitimate payment that I will sign off.

HR BP – I’ll see what I can do.

HR BP (later) – I’m sorry but Shared Services have said no. So how about you do this an ex gratia payment to the same value?

So many immediate questions.

Here’s just a few I can think of off the top of my head:

How can the HR BP, who is based in operations, possibly gain any credibility in the business when they have no scope for flexibility on such matters and have to defer decisions to Shared Services?

Why is the HR BP being used as a go between?

Why have Shared Services got the power to over-rule a reasonable decision made about something fairly small, by a senior manager?

I say something fairly small, meaning monetary value, but what about the impact on the employee concerned?

How much did this silliness irritate him and affect his motivation and productivity at that time, and possibly for longer if this is just one example of many?

How much of his expensive time did my friend spend trying to sort this out?

As I know that for my friend, this is indeed one example of many, what does he think of his HR support? (I know, and I’m sure you can guess correctly.)

So many wider questions.

For us as HR, OD and L&D professionals:

Can we all put our hands on our hearts and say we have never gone along with a process that adds no value at best, or at worst, hinders business?

Are we sure corporate support services are part of the overall business, working seamlessly with operational colleagues to help our organisations succeed?

Do we have enabling, simple processes, with flexibility balanced just right with the need to protect the business?

How can we ensure we have intelligent influence throughout the business?

Are tails wagging dogs?

How we can support managers to develop their staff - a personal reflection.

I am writing this before I read the L and D Connect Storify on how we support managers to develop staff, which will no doubt, be much more diverse than my reflections, from what I saw of it last Friday morning (#ldinsight)

This is possibly the leadership and learning question that ignites my passion the most. The issue where I would derive the most satisfaction if I could see that my endeavours and influence had made a positive contribution.

When trying to explain what good HR (in its broadest term) looks like, I always say that one of the most critical things is the development of good people managers and the creation of enabling, fair and flexible HR frameworks so that they can get on with it skilfully - to the point where HR departments would no longer be necessary…

Before moving into ‘HR’, well management development actually, I spent 10 years as a mid range general manager. Although I completed the theoretical qualification to be a health service manager, this really didn’t cover anything practical, or anything on how to manage people on a day-to-day basis. (I think the management module covered Taylor, Ford and the Hawthorn Effect, with maybe a bit of McGregor thrown in, but it may as well have been Peter Rabbit’s Mr McGregor for all the use it was. Back then, this was classroom-based provision of theory and facts, with no reflective discussions or diaries, no application to workplace situations and certainly no double loop learning.)

My general management roles also included budgetary management, change management, facilities management (we managers were actually on a rota to do safe food handling training for the annual staff mandatory training), decommissioning services and re-commissioning new ones. I mainly used my common sense and learned a lot about how not to do things from some of the other managers I encountered. The greatest value from this was that I can genuinely empathise with managers trying to juggle lots of different priorities and strands to their work, and feeling frustrated by some of the processes they have to follow. I too have experienced an HR function that was distant and often appeared not to support managers who wanted to take definitive action. I probably only saw them when we needed to have consultation meetings with staff, or on my twice yearly trips to the darkened room of Workforce Planning.

Anyway, fast forward to senior roles in HR and L&D via management and leadership development roles and a MSc dissertation on how top NHS leaders got to where they were. This was mainly through their self determination, drive, early access to stretch targets, involvement in new project teams and most importantly, through having developmental line managers.

I strongly believe that everyone deserves a developmental line manager who has the time, space, skills and desire to be developmental with their whole team. Depending on what the team member wants (and needs – which may not be the same), this can be stretch targets and preparation for promotion, helping them to remain up to date in their current role, facilitating sideways moves, enabling broader access to other teams and leaders etc. The opportunities and combinations possible to achieve this are extensive and diverse.

For many managers, beleaguered by all of their other role demands (as budget managers, performance managers, H&S managers, building managers, customer service managers etc.) that can be a big ask. It can also be a big ask at all levels of the organisation, where so many other priorities and initiatives can get in the way.

This really is a classic case of the urgent getting in the way of the important.

So who should take responsibility for supporting managers to develop their staff?

L&D? HR? Leadership? Line managers themselves? Their staff?

It’s probably all of the above. Taking time, space, skills and desire in turn, I am so tempted to turn this into some sort of grid, but I won’t, as I think I would end up putting a tick in every box. There are probably Venn diagram overlapping possibilities here too…

Time. This is so obvious. All of the above need to make the time, otherwise how can any organisation ever say that people are their biggest asset? 3 or 4 years ago, I set up a series of practical leadership workshops for new or newish middle managers. We combined practical learning about how you manage a change within your team for example – not just the theory (from their interviews for their roles, they had that in abundance from their ILM 5 studies) – but how to consult your staff for example, with practice and action learning sets in between. This was popular and I was planning a new group and another for aspiring managers, when all had to be halted because virtually all of my time and that of my team was required to implement a massive government driven change entailing all hands on deck in HR. So you could say I was guilty of putting the urgent over the important myself. More recently, following the change, we commissioned some specific leadership workshops and action learning sets for a similar group, focussing on retaining a values based approach in a commercial environment. This time, it was many of the middle managers who simply could not find the time due to other demands. A reasonable number did though, and they found the space this gave to think and reflect really useful.

Space. I think I actually mean ‘head space’ here – literally or virtually away from the hurly burly. Not just for workshop attendance, but also for reading, networking, individual reflection and the opportunity to try things out or take some risks in a safe environment. Again a responsibility for all, as line managers are also members of staff themselves. HR and L&D ought to be the professional source of expertise to support the organisation in building this in, but this is much more than that. It is deeply cultural and I believe HR and L&D have to really ‘get’ the business in order to be effective in influencing this.

Skills. Again, so obvious, but how do managers acquire and develop these skills? Are they natural attributes? Are they trainable? (Cue - a whole library of leadership, mentoring and coaching books on this.) I used common sense myself, and it wasn’t until over 10 year later when I completed a Masters in HR Development that so much made sense and fell into place. I don’t think that was good enough. The capability of managers to develop staff was widely varied back then, and in my experience has continued to be so ever since, everywhere I have worked. The great managers tended to be those we barely heard from in HR, and whose staff we barely heard from either, because they were doing such a good job, which was borne out by other measures too (it wasn’t because their teams were suppressed!) A major issue in the sectors in which I have worked has been where fantastic professionals’ only way of being promoted is to become a manager, and as many were commenting on the L and D Insight chat, this is a different skill set. I think organisational leadership needs to be more cognisant of that, in order to allow L&D and HR to design in how managers can gain the required skills, to give time and space for practice and reflection, and a dignified way of moving into something different, if they are just never going to get it.

Desire. I have used this word deliberately, as it indicates a love of developing others, rather than just needing to do this as part of the job. If a line manager of a large or largish team of individuals has no passion (which may need to be ignited) for their team’s development, then they should not be managing people. Simple. But not so simple without the requisite time, the support in making space available and the opportunity for those who desire this, or whose passion is germinating, to learn and practice the skills required.

Image from thedailyquipple.com