Roar!!

Meeting for coffee dates back to 14th century Turkey and coffee houses remain a cultural hub for people around the world.  The coffee house concept was first brought to London in 1652 by Pasqua Roseé, an eccentric Greek who had worked in Turkey.  By the early 18th century London had over 3000 coffee houses.  They are not to be confused with the Starbucks and Caffè Neros of today – the coffee was dark and almost unpalatable and the conduct of patrons greatly differs from us, who now sit in solitary silence sipping our Lattes.  You were expected to talk and debate.  Button’s coffeehouse (located 300 years ago in the site of the current Starbucks on Russell Street near Covent Garden) is a good example – it was frequented by playwrights, poets, thinkers and journalists.  It was customary for a stranger to sit himself beside you and immediately demand your opinion on the news or place the text of a novel before you and seek your criticism and comments.  Button’s was famous for the head of a roaring lion affixed to its wall – the public were encouraged to feed the open mouth of this statue with letters, tales and testaments; the most appealing of the lion’s weekly diet were published in Joseph Addison’s Guardian newspaper, under the heading “the roarings of the lion”.

It was apt that I started last Friday with a cup of coffee, when invited to have a discussion about HR and its role going forwards with Peter Cheese at the CIPD.  Peter joined the CIPD in July last year as Chief Executive, following a successful career in Accenture, which culminated in a seven year stint as Global Managing Director leading the Talent and Organisational Performance Consulting Practice and three years as a senior consultant with various non-executive roles, including Chairman of the Institute of Leadership and Management (where he has continued as a Board member).  I was joined by a couple of inspirational leaders from the HR community - both exceptional bloggers who are not shy in stating their opinions (see http://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/and http://adjusteddevelopment.wordpress.com/).  

I must confess to not being a member of the CIPD – despite having spoken at a number of Institute conferences and being invited to various events over the years, for which I am very grateful.  I have never seen the need to belong.  I did not require the qualification to succeed in my job – I was one of the fortunate few to experience the excellent two year modular HR leadership development programme devised by Lloyds TSB, in conjunction with Roffey Park, which covered much more than the CIPD curriculum did at the time – I can understand a balance sheet, spot anomalies in data and am comfortable being consultative, questioning business approaches and testing strategic plans.  Perhaps I was at ease challenging members of the executive team because I am a “quarrelsome lawyer” who has crossed into HR from a commercial role and was already known as a business leader.  For me, the CIPD seemed to have little to offer, indeed I found it frustrating how tied it was into the production of “best practice” policies and procedures, rather than encouraging its members to get under the bonnet and really understand the drivers for their organisation and its people.  I have always believed that HR’s role is to enhance the lives of workers and through them to enable the achievement of desired outputs for the organisations in which they are based.

We had a robust discussion about the role of HR and hence the purpose of the CIPD.  Peter is passionate about people and what makes them work.  Being an ex-consultant, he looks at business from a number of angles and is mindful of the need to have strong foundations on which to build for the future; it is no surprise that Peter is a European Board Director with Junior Achievement Young Enterprise Europe (which focuses on the encouragement of financial, entrepreneurial  skills that enhance employability in young people through business involvement in universities and schools).  He also sits on the Council of City & Guilds  and is an Executive Fellow at the London Business School, with close links to the faculties of Organisational Behaviour and Strategic Management.  He has not come from the conventional ranks of HR and he brings a fresh pair of eyes and a commercial but compassionate mind.

Peter sees a broad role for HR that can ensure that the function adds value.  Currently, in many organisations, HR practitioners concentrate on only a small part of the overall requirements of the function.  Cost-cutting and dogmatic espousing of “The Ulrich Model” to the exclusion of all else has not helped.  I think Peter is right, to add value, HR needs to think “in the round” – how can a person expect to talk with authority unless they are:

• aware of the context in which a business operates (economic, social, political, environmental, etc...);
• appreciate the underlying drivers of people (psychology, cultural impacts, behavioural traits, neuroscience, etc...);
• understand the business in which they are based, its strengths, weaknesses, competitors, opportunities and planned future direction; and
• can devise approaches that will encourage optimum performance and instil job satisfaction and genuine appreciation of worth in the workforce and those with whom they interact.

However, there is more that is needed.  HR is often its own worst enemy – people in HR devise their award winning policies and procedures, often copying what is perceived as best of breed, without giving due consideration to the business that they are supposed to be supporting.  Frustrated employees and individuals vent their anger in blogs on the subject and apocryphal stories abound illustrating what I mean   (http://www.timsackett.com/2013/08/09/reason-2763-people-hate-hr/)  We people working in HR  need to stand back and consider our role in a business and what we can do to add value.  I am not saying that there is not a place for good policies and procedures – we all benefit from appropriate structures and knowing what is expected of us – but HR is best placed to view what’s going on across the whole business, to hear things from employees at all levels, to have access to data that can be applied to enhance understanding where there are issues and to make proposals as to how to improve things.

Many in HR need to change their attitude and start to roar.  We must join the debate, challenge when we see that things that could or should be done better or that would be more effective if approached in a different way.  The time has come for HR to start leading by example, rather than sitting back, observing the business and waiting to be told what to do.  Being a “support” function, HR usually sees its place as being subservient to those who are client-facing or who make the products.  However, HR has the knowledge and insight to make a real difference and that opportunity will be lost if we won’t join the debate.  As Edward de Bono says in his book Think:

“provocation provides a means by which you can unsettle your mind in order to increase the chance of having a new idea.” 

In a world of almost constant change, new ideas are needed.  When will HR be capable of synthesising and provoking ourselves and others to enhance the world of work?  How can the CIPD best help our industry?

I have placed my comments in the lion’s mouth, now let’s hear yours...

Kate Griffiths-Lambeth

Has this inspired you to roar?! Or discuss HR?  Leave your comments here.

*****

Discuss HR is that HR blog brought to you by the people of Human Resources UK, the HR LinkedIn group with 11,000+ members dedicated to the world of HR.

*****

We welcome guest writers to Discuss HR.  To learn how to contribute click here

Any source

What Use is HR?

Welcome to Discuss HR, the HR blog written by Human Resources UK. 

After Kate Griffiths-Lambeth very topical last post, she moves onto another always topical subject, namely the value of HR. (Ed Scrivener)

What Use is HR?

HR has come a long way - as indicated by this antiquated joke:  Eric, a long-serving administrator in the Personnel Department, who shared an office with his boss, was always puzzled by the fact that, whenever his superior was required to sign a letter, he would slide open his desktop drawer, peer inside, smile and nod, before reclosing it, picking up his pen and adding his moniker and title with a flourish onto the document.

Eventually his boss retired and Eric was promoted to Personnel Manager.  As expected, he moved to the big desk.

Curiosity finally getting the better of him, he opened the drawer...  It was empty, other than a piece of paper stuck to the base, on which was written the simple comment “2 Ns and 1 L”.

The days of HR being little more than a paper-pusher, coordinating the documentation for employees and management, with little understanding and certainly no involvement in decision making, have passed in most businesses, not least because cost constraints mean that there is no room to carry non-contributing individuals.  However, not all organisations (and regrettably not all HR professionals) really appreciate what HR really can and should do to help organisations achieve their goals.  A survey, published by KPMG in late 2012, highlights the fact that HR still has a way to go – just 17% of respondents (418 senior executives drawn from both HR and other functions) believed that “HR does a good job of demonstrating its value to the business”. 

There is no doubt that over the past six years there has been a preoccupation with costs and as a consequence HR has had to become “more efficient” – this is not the same as “more effective”.  The world of work has and is undergoing significant change, including:

• globalisation,
• flexible working,
• the ability to relocate administrative, low margin tasks to less expensive locations,
• automation through technology,
• increased requirement for meaningful information and metrics,
• increased self-service (often to provide the above),
• real-time data and analytics on tap for managers about their team and broader business issues,
• off-shoring and outsourcing of shared services, payroll, recruitment, legal advice and remuneration and tax specialist advice, etc

The above are now seen as normal, cost-effective approaches to business.  They also risk making HR appear redundant, as many of the traditional services provided by HR are no longer needed to be performed in that way, they can be provided in a different and more cost-effective manner.  But, all coins have two sides.  Aren’t we lucky, all this change and innovation has given us the space to free ourselves from the routine tasks so we can add value?

 

Successful businesses are dependent on talented people to execute the strategy.  Strategy is useless without people.  They need to be supported, developed, trained and equipped to be successful and that is where HR should be seen to be operating.  HR’s value is the:

• understanding,
• attracting,
• retaining,
• monitoring,
• supporting,
• inspiring and
• growing of talent

in a dynamic way that keeps abreast of change and puts the best skills in the most appropriate locations, to ensure growth and sustainability.  HR must enable the execution of strategy through building and enhancing organisational capability – to do so we must have in-depth understanding of the organisation’s strategy, what the business and its employees are and could be capable of and be able to introduce effective approaches to bridge the gap.  We must be innovative, agile and responsive – much like the organisations in which we work. Most importantly, we must be seen to be so – so that people have confidence in us and our recommendations.

So of course HR has a purpose.

However, we are very poor at looking after our own needs.  To be capable of being effective, as opposed to just efficient, HR itself needs to be supported, developed and inspired and grow its own capabilities - commercial understanding, business process redesign, organisational design, job design, strategic workforce planning – these are all things we need to apply to our own function as well as to the businesses we support.  We need to take action, not just have thoughts to be kept in the top drawer.

Read about Kate and our other authors here

*****

Discuss HR is the HR blog written by members of Human Resources UK, the 10,000 member strong LinkedIn group dedicated to the HR professionals in the UK.  Discuss HR is published twice weekly and looks to take an insightful, informative and sometimes irreverent view on the world of HR – all with the purpose of generating a discussion.

*****

If you would like to be a guest writer for Discuss HR, you can find more information here.  Our next guest writer week is the week commencing 26^th August.

Any source

Mrs T - A Typical Leader?

Welcome to Discuss HR, the HR blog written by Human Resources UK. 

Kate Griffiths-Lambeth follows her last post with another very topical post about the leadership qualities of Baroness Thatcher. (Ed Scrivener)

Mrs T - A Typical Leader?

In the week of the ceremonial funeral of Baroness Thatcher at St Paul’s Cathedral, it seems apt to consider her style as a leader and her legacy to the world in which we now live and work.  Love her or loathe her and, as certain songs show, feelings run high on this one (there is an irony to the fact that her words, on entering Downing Street, were “Where there is discord, may we bring harmony”) most people have an opinion about her.  The schism in public attitude has remained long after her retirement and looks to continue for years to come.  However, whatever your personal opinion, no one can deny that she had presence and made an impact that has endured.

What most people forget is that, like many new leaders, she was slow out of the blocks.  In the late 1970s the UK was heavily unionised and the unions wielded considerable power (during Heath’s leadership 9 million working days in the UK were lost to strike action, and that is not counting the impact of those employees who were “working to rule”).  I can remember from my childhood the repercussions that strikes had on the world around me  - piles of stinking rubbish in the streets, exciting evenings when we used candles for light and ate sandwiches because the electricity was off, queuing for hours for petrol.  It was a tough environment: inflation was high (over 20%), VAT had just been introduced (much to the concern of my father), taxes were high and the UK was in the grip of a severe recession.  Yet, when Margaret Thatcher came to power she was initially very cautious - her 1979 manifesto made no mention of privatisation nor union reform (indeed initially her government was highly supportive of the public sector unions, awarding them increased funding) and in her speeches she sounded very pro-Europe.  It is not uncommon for a new leader to do little at first, preferring to assess the environment for a while, to gain a better understanding before starting to make their mark.  Many have criticised Obama for doing too little too slowly during his first years after election – he had so much to contend with and comprehend on attaining office that delay was inevitable.  The reality of what is possible is often different from that which a new leader anticipates before appointment and almost everyone needs some time to acclimatise when starting a fresh challenge.

It took an unexpected event, in the form of the Argentinean invasion of the Falklands, for Thatcher’s approach noticeably to alter.  It is easy to speculate that Mrs Thatcher’s confidence in her own capabilities and resolve to change Britain came as a direct result of her burgeoning popularity.  Post the Falklands she was vaunted as a Churchill-esque leader who had saved Britain’s honour and restored its pride.  Her determination to introduce what she saw as beneficial change could have been fuelled by the apparent nationalistic pride and confidence shown in her, which seemed to give her licence to do as she saw fit.  Certainly, it was not until she was buoyed up by public sentiment and media accolades (following the successful regaining of the Falklands) that Thatcher really started to drive through change.  I may be being controversial, but I suspect that, like many leaders whose confidence is reinforced after a high profile success, Margaret Thatcher considered herself more talented than those who worked with and for her.  I doubt Dennis whispered in her ear to discourage hubris.  Many leaders fall into the trap of believing the hype and sycophancy that often surrounds them (and some deliberately enfold themselves with adulation because of how good it makes them feel to have their ideas praised and encouraged).  Many leaders often only achieve results after their confidence is bolstered by knowing that they are supported and deemed capable. 

In her early years Margaret Thatcher was neither well known nor popular and throughout her career there was open hostility to her from a number of quarters.  (Prior to becoming Prime Minister, when she was appointed into Edward Heath’s cabinet as education minister it is reported that Willie Whitelaw said “if we take her we’ll never be able to get rid of her” – hardly the words of a supportive colleague, even if surprisingly accurate.) Many of the House of Commons’ members behaved as if in an ill-mannered bear-pit during the 1970s and early 1980s (the BBC was not the only institution to suffer from a misogynistic culture at this time) – Thatcher as a junior cabinet minister was regularly greeted on the floor of The House to chants of “ditch the bitch” ,as the parliamentary opposition viewed her as a weak link in the government’s team, even after becoming Prime Minister there were cat calls of “Here’s the Immaculate Misconception” in an attempt to put her off and to raise a laugh from others in Parliament.  As a side note - she was not noticeably supportive of other women - during her 11 years in power Margaret Thatcher only appointed one other woman to the Cabinet (Baroness Young).  That aside, it must have been tough and unpleasant being jeered at – to survive she had to be resilient and to develop an unswerving sense of her own self-worth to counter balance the taunts.  Being able to remain resolute, with conviction, in challenging circumstances is a prerequisite for most leaders.

Margaret Thatcher was a swift learner - although only in Heath’s cabinet for three and a half years she observed some significant events that influenced her actions as a leader: namely Heath’s highly confrontational manner and refusal to listen to others that resulted in his downfall; the potential damage of U-turns; and the impact of strikes (based on her exposure to the 1973-74 Miners’ strike).  Thatcher was intelligent and capable of applying on-going learnings to achieve her aims.  Rather than being directly confrontational with her Cabinet, she devised approaches to ensure that she could get things done.   She introduced a system that helped her to have policies adopted, despite the reservations of her Cabinet members.  She established committees populated by sympathetic back benchers and external experts who shared her views.  These committees devised and put forward policies which she then asked The Cabinet to approve.  Simple ratification is easier to achieve than having to argue each point along the way.  She was an excellent orator and good at winning audiences over to her way of thinking.  Despite not being popular within the centre of the party (she had been voted into the leadership initially more because of a desire to oust Heath than due to support specifically for her and her policies), she was highly effective at building a significant following within the Party roots.  Her attitude towards U-turns is now legendary, as is the war she waged against the Miners (few people mention that Thatcher closed 154 mines between 1979 and 1990 - less than Wilson, who closed 211 in the five years from 1965 - 1970).  Although her policy of shutting down unproductive industries was painful, and has in part led to the high unemployment we suffer today, it is clear from her actions that she was a keen observer, a swift learner and apply to use knowledge to frame her actions.  Notable leaders are able to learn and use understanding, gained from events they experience, to inform and help them to achieve goals.

Like many leaders who start enjoying a streak of successes and the resultant adulation, Thatcher didn’t always seem to consider broader repercussions before forcing through what seemed to her to be desirable change.  Her policy of selling council houses was motivated by a desire to reward effort and industry and to enable individual free choice, but there was no plan nor apparent interest in building affordable housing to replace the buildings that were sold.  Similarly, having defeated the minors, little was done to revive and develop industries in the impacted areas - this resulted in huge damage to communities and even now the legacy of poverty and unemployment cannot be shifted from certain formerly industrial towns and regions.  I started my post legal career in The City, shortly after the 1986 Big Bang reforms, because there were opportunities for people prepared to work hard.  Deregulating Financial Services and thereby propelling London into a globally dominant role within the financial markets, resulted in a surge of talent and capital coming into the City.  Being a grocer’s daughter, one should not be surprised that Thatcher was influenced by consumerism and interested in the markets.  She professed to wanting to enable to transform lives and futures, by giving people ownership and individual control.  Yet again, the repercussions were not thought through and many of the shameful and scandalous occurrences, involving banks and bankers, that have dominated the media since 2007, can be traced back to the risks of deregulation and greed.  Once in power it is tempting to forge ahead, to try to get things done - but to do so without thinking things through can be very damaging and cause dreadful repercussions.    

It would be easy to write pages on the lessons (both good and bad) that we can learn from Mrs Thatcher.  She possessed enviable energy, didn’t suffer self-doubt, was tenacious to a flaw and proud to fight for what she believed in.  She was not always right, nor was she always wrong.  We all need to remember that she, like us, was a human.  Certainly an extraordinary woman with the ability to lead and inspire others, but also to invoke intense hatred and distrust.  Whether you adore or detest her, it cannot be denied that she has left a lasting legacy as a leader that will be contemplated long after most of us have been forgotten.

Read about Kate and our other authors here

*****

Discuss HR is the HR blog written by members of Human Resources UK, the 10,000 member strong LinkedIn group dedicated to the HR professionals in the UK.  Discuss HR is published twice weekly and looks to take an insightful, informative and sometimes irreverent view on the world of HR – all with the purpose of generating a discussion.

*****

If you would like to be a guest writer for Discuss HR, you can find more information here.  Our next guest writer week is the week commencing 29^th April.

Any source

We Need to Talk...

Welcome to Discuss HR, the HR blog written by Human Resources UK. 

Today we welcome another guest writer, HR Director and seasoned blogger Kate Griffiths-Lambeth.  Kate has written an excellent post about a topic that has built momentum in recent months due to a number of individuals.  Today Kate further explores the subject that is still taboo to many, that of mental health.  (Ed Scrivener)

We Need to Talk...

At the start of February I attended an inspirational HR-focused event that was recommended to this Group.  It was refreshing to be surrounded by people who had made a conscious choice to be there, who came in their own free time because they shared a genuine interest in the topic and they wanted to learn and be involved.  There was a buzz and a sense of camaraderie, in the way you hope there will be at a learning and awareness session.  My fellow attendees were willing and active participants - honest and authentic.  At the end of the evening there was a mutual conviction that, between us, we can improve the world in which we live and work.  

The event was organised in response to reactions to an extraordinary and powerful online blog post published on 12th January – if you have not read it, I urge you to do so now: http://thehrjuggler.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/day-43-courage/

These courageous words resulted in people around the globe talking and tweeting on the subject of Mental Health in the workplace.  With HR interest rising and numerous individuals asking what they could or should do, it was clear that the dialogue needed to be brought into the off as well as on-line arena.  Alison Chisnell, HR Director at Informa (and host of the blog on which Jon, the author, posted his piece) offered a meeting space.  A number of people worked together at speed to determine the format and experts, including Mind, the NHS and various individuals who have been or are impacted by mental health issues, agreed to be speakers and be involved.  Jon went public at the event and wrote about doing so on https://projectlibero.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/it-starts-with-a-conversation/.  There is a simple and well written blog about the evening, that is more eloquent than I on the impact of the event: http://www.fergco.co/2013/02/start-conversation.html.  I hope that by talking here about my own thoughts and by sharing some of the recommendations made, that I can encourage you too to think about how you should approach this issue in your workplace and with the organisations and people with whom you do business.

According to ACAS, Mental Health problems cost employers in the UK £30 billion a year through lost production, recruitment and absence http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1900.  I suspect that the hidden and non-financial costs have an even more severe impact on work, employees, their friends, families and business.  It is a sad fact that the approach towards Mental Health by the majority of employers is woefully inadequate and the time has come for that to change.  I am not advocating that we form a militant group and campaign, there is an easier solution – to dispel common fears and misconceptions, to remove the stigma and to enable us understand so that we can do the right thing... we simply need to talk.

Despite the fact that one in four of us will experience Mental Health problems in our lives, there is still a social reticence about admitting to being a sufferer, and/or living with and supporting someone with Mental Health issues.  It is clear that this reserve is partially rooted in fear.  People don’t know how to start the conversation and they are embarrassed and don’t want to say the wrong thing.  Mental Health is seen by many as a dark and complex issue that, by its very nature, is private and should be hidden from others.  Certainly it is personal – the reasons why people suffer from Mental Health issues are complex and varied and each victim is an individual, so there is no simple, standard approach or treatment.  However, I think we should take a step back and consider ourselves and those we come into contact with. 

Humans are wonderful.  We are sentient and expressive beings – we would all be the poorer for not being able to feel and think about the world around us.  However, there are times when our emotional and mental reactions are overwhelming and uncontrollable and can prevent us from being the person we like and feel we are, or can make us antisocial and potential dangerous (to ourselves or others).  Mental Health is a broad term that encompasses a range of issues such as clinical depression, Bi-polar disorder, anxiety, phobias and Schizophrenia; unlike emotional problems, these cannot be resolved swiftly – they require treatment (often medication and therapy) to control the symptoms and to lessen the impact on the individual and others.  It is probable that a number of Mental Health sufferers are also suffering emotionally and often not just because of their own health but also because of the way in which we, the people they work and interact with, treat them.  The stigma of Mental Health is so strong that people avoid talking about it and hence they exacerbate the problem, because they isolate and alienate individuals who are already suffering.

There is often a fine line between Mental Health and emotional health.  Each one of us is who we are due to the environment in which we have grown up and the circumstances impacting our lives at any moment in time.  I am not naturally tidy, but I have friends who are fastidious; they say it is because of the spotless households in which they lived as children, where even an ornament out of position was viewed as unacceptable – regimented neatness is their comfort zone.   I know others who close in on themselves and cease contributing to discussions whenever voices are raised - they have told me that they were deeply disturbed by arguments between their parents when they were small and that the increased volume of colleagues, enthused or trying to stress a point in an argument, is sufficient to make them feel uncomfortable.  I love films, but potentially I am an embarrassing companion, as I can easily be reduced to a weeping wreck when watching characters show how much they care for each other - I know that this is partially due to my own insecurities, my devotion to my friends and family and my own desire to be loved.  Many parents find news footage depicting suffering children immensely disturbing, because they transpose themselves into the scenario and can imagine how awful they would feel if it was their own offspring.  Each of these people, me included, is reacting emotionally –although emotions can induce some symptoms that are similar to those experienced by a portion of Mental Health sufferers (such as sleeping disorders, anxiety and sadness) these responses tend to be short-term and can be treated and resolved swiftly.  However, many people suffering from Mental Health issues also have to contend with emotional pain, either because of their condition or induced through the reaction of others around them.  Many sufferers feel isolated due to many others’ desire not to bring matters into the open.  By appreciating the impact our emotions have on us, it is perhaps easier to start understanding how others may be feeling.  Empathy is a good step towards trying to support and be helpful.

On a moral and social level we have a responsibility to be considerate towards others.  Even without that, employers have a legal duty of care to employees.    We in HR need to devise strategies to promote well-being and to ensure that we and others are equipped to support when an employee has a problem.   BUT strategies and policies will not solve a problem.  Good managers and colleagues are attuned to those around them – if you know your people and how they are, you can spot when they aren’t themselves.  You must foster a culture of trust and understanding where management and employees are comfortable having non-judgemental and open conversations.   We need people to be able to ask with ease:

                “What do you do to look after your health and well-being?  And what can I, your manager,          do to help?” 

If managers invest in their people, by talking with them, their team members will in turn be more engaged and committed to their employer.  If employees feel comfortable talking about Mental Health, awareness and understanding will increase and colleagues who are suffering will no longer feel so isolated or ashamed – everyone can be a winner.

Progress won’t happen unless we make an effort.

We have started...come and join us.

As Jon says in his original post: “here’s to 2013 and a change in attitudes...”

Read about Kate and our other authors here

*****

Discuss HR is the HR blog written by members of Human Resources UK, the 10,000 member strong LinkedIn group dedicated to the HR professionals in the UK.  Discuss HR is published twice weekly and looks to take an insightful, informative and sometimes irreverent view on the world of HR – all with the purpose of generating a discussion.

*****

If you would like to be a guest writer for Discuss HR, you can find more information here.  Our next guest writer week is the week commencing 29^th April.

Any source