Of course it would be wrong to paint all HR departments with the same brush ~ I have seen some fantastic strategic changes in some clients where the HR role is integrated and critical to the overall business strategy – the CHRO is recognised as a real business agent. But in other (and sadly most companies) they are still little more that payroll/personnel departments. This is not to say that all HR departments should be strategic – in many organisations its not needed and there is no executive desire for a strategic role. The issue really is when HR tries and wants to be strategic, but just cannot get there. Often this is due to an incorrect level of HR Maturity, wrong HR leadership or an executive that needs education.

Enjoy the slides and let me know how you rate your HR department against the 10 focus areas.

Follow @robscottinsyd

My recent slides from the presentation I did at the Mastering SAP HR Conference in Sydney. The focus was on the future of HR systems, but rather than focus on the future features of such systems, I took a look at how the rise of personal measurement, and in particular health measurement, will impact the HR and broader work environment.

Creating Value in Human Resources | Presence of IT.

Amazingly I’m not on Holiday either – but have a few hours to waste before heading off to the airport for my 15 hour flight back to Sydney. All of this got me thinking about the importance of the work environment – Here I am being highly productive (done 2 presentations, answered some mails, reviewed a client document and managed to write this blog), spurred on by something that is causing me to feel almost euphoric . Would I have got so much done at the office? – Definitely not- too many distractions and people. Would I have done as much sitting at my home office – More than the work office probably, but still would not have felt as relaxed and keen to do more as I am at the moment.

If I were a Talent director, considering my Employee Value Proposition, then recreating this relaxing influence (note I said influence, not environment) would be a real winner. Imagine having staff feeling so relaxed and highly productive – the creativity and energy would be mind boggling.

We’ve all heard about the Google work environment – is this an example of a relaxing influence (which is what I am experiencing) or a relaxed environment (spatially inviting and culturally aligned to a sense of freedom). I think the two (influence and environment) are different, although I concede that the immediate environment has an important role. Knowing a few people who work at Google – they love their work environment, but after the mystique fades, they are not significantly less stressed or more productive that people I know who work in highly structured and rigid organisations.

Perhaps this has been a moment in my life that “The Planets all Aligned”; I hope this is not the case, because I would love to have this happen to me every day. I don’t know the whole answer, but perhaps it has something to do with me being able to create an experience that suited me – maybe organisations need to provide a framework for operating that allows people to create their own experience. Food for thought – I do know that next time I’m in Kuwait – I’ll be back under my tent with my laptop.

For many organisations hiring new staff – they have the proverbial forms that they ask to be filled out, but I would guess they tend to get far less information that they would like – often because the new hire can’t remember all the detail or couldn’t be bothered or the HR department has a policy to start from scratch. With web2.0 applications and cloud computing coming of age, there is no reason to source data from the new employees “Personal HR Database or Cloud” and likewise as information is updated on the in-house HR information system, a copy of that record can be provided back to the individuals cloud.

Even though most organisations are recovering from an economic downturn, we should not take our eye off the ball when it comes to effective talent strategies ~ the information that the employee does not provide because its not available or he forgot, could negatively influence your workforce planning, particularly as that sector of technology is making huge strides in the development of predictive modelling tools. Critical skills, or other skills and attributes  that an individual has acquired over the years are not know and organisations don’t leverage these strengths for the benefit of the employer and employee.

From an Employee Value Proposition, what a great attractor it will be for potential employees to know that you will automatically update their personal database with relevant HR information. Although I have no proof or seen any relevant research, I am almost  certain that most people will keep their personal HR database regularly updated more that they will inform their HR department of changes ~ especially if its linked to a popular social network. As people remember things or find old data whilst cleaning out a drawer, they will be more inclined to update their personal HR database because they are frequently interacting with their web 2.0 tool anyway.

How would these personal cloud databases operate. Well firstly, I think this would be a simple addition of services for the likes of Linkedin or Facebook – Account holders will simply update the pages with relevant personal information and have options to allow it to be downloaded by an employer or not. The pages will be flexible enough to receive “flat file” information from most HR systems that will  automatically be provided to the employee personal URL and the employee is then notified every time an update is made from his employers HRIS or the employer pulls information from the personal HR Database or cloud.

In the longer run, I can see Personal HR information systems being embedded into these personal cloud tool, that will allow peoples to do typical HR analytics on their own data eg. How marketable am I in the Financial industry? or do an  online gap analysis with a future employer prior to submitting a resume or application. How has my salary trended with similar jobs…

The creation of personal  HR databases will need some discipline from users – we have seen a number of horror stories with people being “too free” with their personal data and this leading to work related issues. But with the growth of web 2.0 there is a natural tendency to be more perceptive about control of your own data.

If this becomes a trend, then what will be the future for in-house HR systems and tools like Employee Self Service or workflow. What I have observed is that web 2.0 is providing people with power and ownership ~ thats not necessarily what current in-house HR Systems provide! -  let me know you thoughts and watch this space for some views on this soon.

Yet, time and time again, I hear some HR folk saying their HR system is useless or too complicated to use. I hear statements that “The payroll is OK, but the rest just does not cut it !” ~ why is this, when the general principles around typical HR offerings such as performance management, compensation management, learning, talent etc. have not fundamentally changed over the last decade.

I’ve put together a list of 7 key  items that I believe need to be adequately addressed in organisations to ensure value can be derived from  HR systems:

1. The Maturity of HR : An HR department that has a low level of HR maturity (nothing to do with competency of people, but rather the level of importance of the function displayed by senior and executive management) will find it difficult to use HR systems beyond basic employee bio-graphics and payroll. There will be inherently little support for the use of the other functions, and HR tends to then blame the tool when they are not used. [ACTION: determine your current level of HR maturity and build a road-map to improve this.]
2. Alignment to Business Goals: Still a misunderstood area in many HR departments. All to often, HR implements HR tools and solutions without understanding how they will support a business goal. The lack of alignment distracts the organisation and is seen as time wasting and non value adding. HR often use the tool usage  or non-usage as a measure of its own success, rather than business success. [ACTION: Ensure that every HR solution can be measured back to a business goal, else seriously question its value.]
3. HR Operations & Strategy Split: The inability of many HR departments to create a definite split in the way they deal with operational and strategic activities creates confusion at the HR technology layer. Some of my leading clients have come to realise that the split in focus allowed for better understanding of the respective HR solution requirements [ACTION: Ensure you HR operational activity is managed/housed separately. Your HR org design should reflect this]
4. HR Systems are a Mirror: A difficult one to sometimes swallow, but its true. HR technology solutions cannot be your saviour. If your HR operation is poor, then you will have a poor HR system – no debate! [ACTION: Be bold enough to assess your HR competency and take action where required.]
5. Dedicated Technology Ownership: Although it’s improving, most HR people tend to see technology at the opposite end of their psychology framed minds. Although I don’t agree with the sentiment, it is a strong reality. This sometimes manifests itself as “techno-phobic” behavior.  HR also need to own their system implementations, rather that leaving it in the hands of the IT department. [ACTION: Hire people into HR that love technology and HR (they are around) and give them accountability to ensure the technology integrated into everything HR does]
6. Think Solutions! : Performance management, recruitment, on-boarding, compensation, learning etc. are not business solutions – they are HR tools. Organisations needs HR solutions that combine effectively to provide positive outcomes for their business goals. [ACTION: Define HR business solutions and build your HR structure to support this eg. If your organisation is big on Acquisitions, then your HR CoE's should align to this eg. an HR CoE focused on "Merger's and Acquisitions" and not for example the traditional "Comp & Benefit" CoE.]
7. Change of Attitude: Most HR software solutions will never be a 100% fit for your requirements. If you have between a 70-80% then that is good enough! – HR often nitpicks and uses the lack of 100% suitable as an excuse to not change. HR has got loads of room to change and improve as they align to a more business oriented way of servicing their organisations. [ACTION: Be prepared to change they way things are done in HR. This becomes apparent when implementing a real HR Business partner role]

Dealing with these 7 issues can be a challenge and somewhat painful to get through, but it is a journey that is necessary if you want to get real value out of your HR solutions.

Your views?

Nobody doubts that technology will become more and more powerful over time, but we are getting to a stage that some of the top brains are predicting the next big step-up in technology ie. the ability for technology to think and develop itself is closer than we may be aware. The announcement of the establishment of Singularity University with Dr. Ray Kurzweil at its head is a reality shock for many in that organisations like NASA and Google are prepared to put their money into this establishment that in essence will help scientist understand how to deal with technologies more powerful than the human brain and the human species – think about it for a moment….

A second article caught my eye in the last week. A Japanese company has announced that they will have a robot nurse in hospitals within the next 5 years because of severe talent shortages in this space. I’m OK with a “machine” monitoring my pulse or heart, but images of a robot trying to inject me or put up an intravenous drip is a bit more scary.

A little bit closer, is the development of Avatars in places like “Second Life” that actually do work on behalf of real people. I was at an HR technology conference in Orlando late last year and saw how a recruitment company had created a business in Second life using non-real people. 

So the question is how will HR systems deal with robots and non-real people doing work that was previously done by real people. There is a funny side to this if you think about it. What will you do with the robot nurse who makes a mistake – can you performance manage this event through a software upgrade. Will the HR system need to record the software version as a competency?. What about your recruitment avatar who needs to be “taken down” for modifications – will this be a form of leave request. And will real employees scream discrimination and call in the union because the organization provides power (food) to these non-real “employees” and not to real life employees?

Funny as it may sound, there are some serious considerations for HR software developers of the future. How will HR tools accommodate non-real life employees. Of course the first question is if they should just be treated as machines under the asset register and the maintenance department will put them onto a planned maintenance schedule, but then thinking about Singularity University,  I can foresee the need for intelligent machines to be treated in a non mechanical way.

I don’t have all the answers and I guess we need to let this area brew a bit more, but what I am clear on, is that there are some serious people out there with intentions to take technology into the human zone. 

Food for thought indeed! – what do you think?

How confident are Human Capital consulting companies or internal HR consultants of the services they offer, and would they be prepared to only get paid for their services or receive their salary according to how  their clients or internal customers felt they had received value adding and high quality services?

Its an interesting question because I think many Human Capital service providers and internal consultants think they are adding value, but I’m not sure they would be prepared to put it to the ultimate test of letting the recipients of the service decide that. Is it because they lack confidence in their offerings or believe that non-HR folk don’t understand the real value of the service, offering or tool? Perhaps there is low levels of trust in HR to really make a difference beyond process efficiency ?

Back to the restaurant.. the chef may technically cook a meal to perfection, but that does not mean the patrons will like the food ~ a good chef is not only technically good, but understands what customers want. He blends technical perfection with client needs, in other words he accepts that the client might not recognise the value in being technically perfect, but adjusts to suite the need. In short he is in tune with the client.

To much HC work and consulting is done “out of tune” with the business requirements and if HR was the London restaurant, it would go out of business and the “HR Chefs” would not understand why.

Is anyone ready to take up the challenge of a “pay-for-value-perceived” HR consultancy or service provider?

Likewise Human Resources should also be partly accountable for not achieving the organisational goals ~ you can’t be a strategic player, then in the bad times absolve yourself of your obligations to help achieve the company goals and return to being the “shoulder to cry on” for all the retrenched employees. If companies are retrenching because of the economic downturn, who’s fault is it? To blame the economy is a cop-out and simply too easy for HR.

An effective strategic HR department would have been regularly monitoring and doing scenario planning  with regards to their strategic workforce plans. This strategic activity would have highlighted the possibility of excess staff in the forthcoming months. Out of the scenario plans, HR solutions would have then been produced to support the likely scenarios. These could have been practical plans like reducing non critical skill recruitment, active skill redevelopment of resources that you would not want to leave the organisation, preparation of the organisation for a slowdown, early retirement options, flexible work arrangements. 

Being proactive to possible scenarios is what makes HR a value adding department and will certainly breed trust and support by line management and executives. Being reactive and thinking that your role is to execute the retrenchment policy and procedure is not value adding and is a sign of misunderstanding what it means to be a strategic HR department.

So is HR to blame for retrenchments in this economic downturn? – absolutely if they consider themselves a Strategic HR department.

I immediately said to him that this was a good thing, which took him by surprise. I continued to put my argument forward that it is not HR’s role to be managing his staff, and that the concept of HR being the department that deals with “People matters” is old and not contributing to organisational growth.

His counter argument was that he is there to make sure his business unit achieves its output goals and all this other HR mambo-jumbo is wasting his time. I did concede that if HR is dumping a lot onto him that is not value adding then he may have a point and should push back on doing stuff that fails to help him achieve his outputs. But, achieving his goals involves people, and he could not abdicate this role to HR or anyone else. Management of a business includes effective management of people. I asked him about his HR department in some more detail and how they had got to this point.

There are a number of interesting take aways from this discussion that took place. Firstly this is not a unique situation and its been an ongoing debate for many years. What it does tell me is that the role of HR in that organisation in not understood or positioned properly. Even though HR is trying to do the right thing by getting line management to take accountability for their staff in a holistic manner, they are fighting an uphill battle and will continue to do so until the executive reposition the HR department correctly.

The second point I would make is that the HR department does not realise the long term damage they are creating when they execute an approach without the proper backing and strategy. It backfires like we have seen with this line manager. His view of the HR department is not positive and he sees them working against him. Correcting this is now going to be a bigger problem than before.

Thirdly this does highlight a major concern with the level of strategy knowledge within HR departments. HR folk tend to be good at designing and executing activities inside the “HR space”, but can do with some support in executing programmes into the larger strategic realm. It points typically to the lack of business understanding and how to position HR strategically.

The forth point is about line managers themselves – I personally think that most of the push back to managing all aspects of their staff is related to fear and uncomfortableness with dealing with difficult people situations. This highlights the need to select management correctly, and not just appointing the good salesman into the sales manager role. Not all people are good and dealing with people matters, but it must be a requirementfor management and supervisory positions, and training and development in this space is a necessity.

Lastly it is also senior managers responsibility to measure people correctly to achieve particular behavior changes. If this line manager is rated on how he achieves his output goals, then that’s what will drive his behavior, however, if he is also measured on how he effectively manages people and gets the best out of them then that will drive another set of behaviours – but its all part of a well thought out HR strategy.

Some of you may be thinking whether there is a need at all for an HR department if line management become super proficient in managing people. The answer is not as simple as a Yes/No, but I do think that you can get rid of the HR department as we know it today. Concepts such as HR shared services and other components that are administrative and transactional in nature can be owned by an inclusive services division. But HR strategy and expertise groups would still need to exist, but could be intertwined into the organisation in other ways than a separate department. Sounds like a good topic for a later discussion.

Check out the poll below about how you feel about your HR departments.