Thursday, 26 March 2015

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.





Thursday, 12 March 2015

#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…




Sunday, 1 March 2015

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?





Wednesday, 25 February 2015

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...

Sunday, 22 February 2015

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?


Sunday, 15 February 2015

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

Sunday, 18 January 2015

HR Processes are good/bad when...


I have been involved in a few discussions about HR process recently. I suppose as an HR professional, it's an occupational hazard. So here's what I think:

HR Processes are bad when they:
Are overly complicated
Are there for the sake of it
Enable those using them to absolve themselves of accountability for decisions
Help things to look good and boxes to get ticked
Are rigid
Support the culture of 'we've always done it this way'
Go without regular challenge and review


Piet Mondrian, Broadway Boogie-Woogie, 1942-43

HR Processes are good when they:
Are simple
Are as simple or as detailed as the nature of the issue requires
Enable competent, most immediate-level decision making
Can be flexed according to circumstances
Get the fairness/equal treatment balance right
Lead to proportionate risk decisions
Protect the business appropriately




Piet Mondrian, Tableau No. IV; Lozenge Composition with Red, Gray, Blue, Yellow and Black, c.1924/1925.


This blog is shorter than my usual offerings - maybe related to the need for simplicity.