Showing posts with label HR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HR. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
HR & That Social Stuff
Recently there have been a bit of a storm about employers either asking for Facebook passwords or demanding that job applicants sign into their accounts while the interviewer looks over their shoulder to read their content or that they ‘friend’ a person in the organization thus giving access.
It should not be news to any HR practitioner that this practice is unacceptable and raises serious concerns about hiring practices in general. There is some consensus that this is not something that is widespread but there is little in the way of gathered data to know one way or another. It is possible that it occurs more often than one might think or less often that the media storm suggests. We just don’t know. It is, however, worth discussion and that this is taking place is a good thing. What has been highlighted is how little understanding there is among the general population about social media, hiring practices, employment law, privacy legislation, human rights and ethical norms.
The use of social network products has become widespread especially since mobile devices have become much more user friendly and allow simple everyday actions to be photographed, tweeted, posted on a social network and thus shared across a much broader range of people than ever before. This has put some pressure on the lines of privacy that were previously considered cultural norms, resulting in a flurry of activity in updating privacy legislation in many countries and creating discussions about appropriate behaviour from many angles.
In hiring practices the general principle is that people being considered for employment are assessed based on their ability to perform the requirements of the position. In some roles that also includes considerable intrusion into a person’s character and behaviours in addition to evaluating their technical abilities. For example, in roles that include access to financial data or accounts a credit check may be required, in some jobs a criminal record check may be required. These reports are acquired from a third party, financial rating organization or a police department and only include relevant information. However, social media products have opened a door to access to information about candidates that would not have been available previously unless you have private detectives following people about or interviewing their friends, family and neighbours.
Smart employers will have a third party conduct a social media review and that third party will only pass on information that is applicable to the position being hired for as defined by the employment laws and human rights acts. To do otherwise not only opens an employer up to legal actions or human rights complaints but it can lead to a backlash via that very same social media if an applicant believes they have been unfairly eliminated from a job competition based on information that does not relate to the role they applied for.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Outsource or Not-What Are The Human Costs?
Outsourcing Has Human and Financial Considerations
Often when I read articles talking about whether or not to outsource support functions in organizations, they focus primarily on financial costs and metrics that refer to customer satisfaction surveys. I have also seen articles that talk about the benefit of outsourcing much of the administrative nature of HR so that HR practitioners can be freed up to focus on strategy. I have worked through HR task outsourcing and IT outsourcing and I am not convinced that those ideas are always as great as they appear to be on paper. There is a human cost in all this outsourcing that business executives would prefer not to discuss in any meaningful way. When mass layoffs occur they often outsource some aspects of that activity to a third party.
Understand the Financial Perspective But…
I understand the value of outsourcing from a financial perspective, but my question lies with whether the ‘on paper’ financial value really does outweigh the value of doing things in-house. Having heard all the arguments for that to date, I still am not entirely sure which is the best answer. But perhaps the “Occupy” movement provides some clues-the loss of community, the loss of jobs, the seemingly unfeeling nature of placing a dollar value on everything and seeing that dollar value as being more important that the humans that are affected. Perhaps the backlash costs provide some clues as to some of the very real costs that are ignored in these decisions.
Humans-Remember Them?
If your job title includes the word human or people in it-isn’t direct interaction a significant part of the deal? And what is lost when we send opportunities for face-to-face interactions out to a third party? Do we gain more than we lose? This is something that is hard to measure and as outsourcing has been around for so long now it would be hard to measure the impact as many people won’t remember what it was like to have a person within the organization to talk to when having problems with benefits or signing online for programs in the organization. Or the value of having a competent IT support person to show up and help with a problem, face-to-face.
Culture, Trust & Communities
Another point to consider is that when we outsource any role to a third party we are also displacing people within our organization, which has a deeply unsettling affect on the culture and the level of trust in the organization. We see so much about ‘engagement’ these days but if you are wondering when your job is going to be outsourced just how engaged do you feel like being? Outsourcing also affects the communities the business operates in and it is not likely that the effect can be measured in financial or statistical terms precisely, but it seems within the realm of reality that it is a significant effect.
Hiring Unemployed People?
I read another one of those discussions about why some companies refuse to consider unemployed people for employment recently-they have been popping up quite a bit since the recent economic meltdown. The argument that people get laid off because they are incompetent or lazy or a troublemaker seems to be the going thinking among some. Yet when we look at the massive numbers of layoffs (we have seen numbers such as 15,000, 30,000, 3,500 etc.) in some organizations it defies logic to believe that an organization could have recruited hired and retained that many problematic employees. That would say a lot more about the executives that laid those people off than it does about the employees. Is it really reasonable to believe that if a company laid off 30,000 people that all 30,000 were as described by those who refuse to consider people who are unemployed? And what about outsourcing-about two years ago a very large local data processing company decided to outsource 80% of the jobs held locally to India. That does not mean those employees were in any way at fault-it meant that the business, which by the way is a multi-billion dollar business, wanted to reduce costs by outsourcing to a country where they could pay far less in wages than they can locally.
Right or Wrong?
I don’t know if there is a right or wrong answer and it is likely one of those “it depends” situations. I do believe it is time we started placing a higher value on humans than we do on dollars. It isn’t necessarily good business to take the “profit as the only goal” strategy when the potential human costs are so high.
Often when I read articles talking about whether or not to outsource support functions in organizations, they focus primarily on financial costs and metrics that refer to customer satisfaction surveys. I have also seen articles that talk about the benefit of outsourcing much of the administrative nature of HR so that HR practitioners can be freed up to focus on strategy. I have worked through HR task outsourcing and IT outsourcing and I am not convinced that those ideas are always as great as they appear to be on paper. There is a human cost in all this outsourcing that business executives would prefer not to discuss in any meaningful way. When mass layoffs occur they often outsource some aspects of that activity to a third party.
Understand the Financial Perspective But…
I understand the value of outsourcing from a financial perspective, but my question lies with whether the ‘on paper’ financial value really does outweigh the value of doing things in-house. Having heard all the arguments for that to date, I still am not entirely sure which is the best answer. But perhaps the “Occupy” movement provides some clues-the loss of community, the loss of jobs, the seemingly unfeeling nature of placing a dollar value on everything and seeing that dollar value as being more important that the humans that are affected. Perhaps the backlash costs provide some clues as to some of the very real costs that are ignored in these decisions.
Humans-Remember Them?
If your job title includes the word human or people in it-isn’t direct interaction a significant part of the deal? And what is lost when we send opportunities for face-to-face interactions out to a third party? Do we gain more than we lose? This is something that is hard to measure and as outsourcing has been around for so long now it would be hard to measure the impact as many people won’t remember what it was like to have a person within the organization to talk to when having problems with benefits or signing online for programs in the organization. Or the value of having a competent IT support person to show up and help with a problem, face-to-face.
Culture, Trust & Communities
Another point to consider is that when we outsource any role to a third party we are also displacing people within our organization, which has a deeply unsettling affect on the culture and the level of trust in the organization. We see so much about ‘engagement’ these days but if you are wondering when your job is going to be outsourced just how engaged do you feel like being? Outsourcing also affects the communities the business operates in and it is not likely that the effect can be measured in financial or statistical terms precisely, but it seems within the realm of reality that it is a significant effect.
Hiring Unemployed People?
I read another one of those discussions about why some companies refuse to consider unemployed people for employment recently-they have been popping up quite a bit since the recent economic meltdown. The argument that people get laid off because they are incompetent or lazy or a troublemaker seems to be the going thinking among some. Yet when we look at the massive numbers of layoffs (we have seen numbers such as 15,000, 30,000, 3,500 etc.) in some organizations it defies logic to believe that an organization could have recruited hired and retained that many problematic employees. That would say a lot more about the executives that laid those people off than it does about the employees. Is it really reasonable to believe that if a company laid off 30,000 people that all 30,000 were as described by those who refuse to consider people who are unemployed? And what about outsourcing-about two years ago a very large local data processing company decided to outsource 80% of the jobs held locally to India. That does not mean those employees were in any way at fault-it meant that the business, which by the way is a multi-billion dollar business, wanted to reduce costs by outsourcing to a country where they could pay far less in wages than they can locally.
Right or Wrong?
I don’t know if there is a right or wrong answer and it is likely one of those “it depends” situations. I do believe it is time we started placing a higher value on humans than we do on dollars. It isn’t necessarily good business to take the “profit as the only goal” strategy when the potential human costs are so high.
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Why Does Your Small Business Need HR?
One of the reasons I advocate for small businesses to start to build their HR infrastructure early in the start up phase is because it will help save time and money over the long term. Putting aside for now the practical aspects of being within compliance of employment laws we need to consider the culture we envision for our business and to understand the internal and external factors that will affect that culture as the business grows.
In my first discussion with a business owner to determine what the HR needs of their business is I ask that they answer a short series of questions that provide a good picture of their business today and their plans for the future. Answering these questions is helpful to me in understanding the goals for the business but it also provides the owner with another opportunity to review the overall system and strategies from a fresh perspective.
Understandably the focus of most small business owners is attracting and engaging a paying client base but attracting and engaging employees is equally as important as your business grows. Having an agile, well thought out and straightforward HR infrastructure is essential to ensuring that your customers have the kind of experience that will bring them back and prompt them to refer your business to their contacts.
Having the money available to properly manage your HR considerations is a very real concern when a business is in a growth phase, perhaps more so in businesses that have significant cash outlays for premises, inventory and equipment. This is just one reason why an agile, module based infrastructure is ideal and it will allow you to implement only the aspects you need and add additional elements as the business grows and more employment related demands are required.
If you determine what values that you want the culture in your business to reflect and build your HR infrastructure around those values you will have a better shot at developing and maintaining the core cultural aspects that are the most important to you as a business owner. Trying to fix a culture that has gone off track is an expensive and time consuming prospect and can easily derail your focus on other aspects of the business.
Many companies include values such as integrity, honesty, and hard working in their core values, all good values. However, as the leadership figure in your business you need to define precisely what those values look like ‘on the job’ to your employees and customers. This is an oft overlooked but vitally important approach to take when building your business. It helps in the hiring process, as you are clear on the necessary skills and approaches to work you are looking for in the candidates you recruit. Retaining employees requires in part, maintaining the values based culture that you presented to candidates during the hiring process. And ensuring that employees present the customer experience you have determined for your business means a common understanding of what those values look like on the ground.
In my first discussion with a business owner to determine what the HR needs of their business is I ask that they answer a short series of questions that provide a good picture of their business today and their plans for the future. Answering these questions is helpful to me in understanding the goals for the business but it also provides the owner with another opportunity to review the overall system and strategies from a fresh perspective.
Understandably the focus of most small business owners is attracting and engaging a paying client base but attracting and engaging employees is equally as important as your business grows. Having an agile, well thought out and straightforward HR infrastructure is essential to ensuring that your customers have the kind of experience that will bring them back and prompt them to refer your business to their contacts.
Having the money available to properly manage your HR considerations is a very real concern when a business is in a growth phase, perhaps more so in businesses that have significant cash outlays for premises, inventory and equipment. This is just one reason why an agile, module based infrastructure is ideal and it will allow you to implement only the aspects you need and add additional elements as the business grows and more employment related demands are required.
If you determine what values that you want the culture in your business to reflect and build your HR infrastructure around those values you will have a better shot at developing and maintaining the core cultural aspects that are the most important to you as a business owner. Trying to fix a culture that has gone off track is an expensive and time consuming prospect and can easily derail your focus on other aspects of the business.
Many companies include values such as integrity, honesty, and hard working in their core values, all good values. However, as the leadership figure in your business you need to define precisely what those values look like ‘on the job’ to your employees and customers. This is an oft overlooked but vitally important approach to take when building your business. It helps in the hiring process, as you are clear on the necessary skills and approaches to work you are looking for in the candidates you recruit. Retaining employees requires in part, maintaining the values based culture that you presented to candidates during the hiring process. And ensuring that employees present the customer experience you have determined for your business means a common understanding of what those values look like on the ground.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Ten Reasons HR Seems To Have An Image Problem
My response to Susan Popoolas' post about the image problem HR has is below the link. And yes, you can probably think of more reasons but most of them are covered broadly in these ten reasons.
The post can be found at this link: http://www.xperthr.co.uk/blogs/employment-intelligence/2011/08/susan-popoola-tackling-hrs-ima.html
There are a few points in which HR continues to maintain an image problem.
(1) Many employees only come into contact with HR during difficult situations-while unemployed, experiencing disciplinary problems, being fired or laid off, undergoing unhappy life changes etc.- sometimes HR can help and sometimes they have a role to play that won't feel like help to an employee. As in any profession, some practitioners have good interpersonal skills that allow them to do their jobs without angering or frustrating the employee further, and sometimes they don't. People are much more likely to speak out about the bad experiences they have than they are the good experiences.
(2) Because HR is often understaffed they tend to take shortcuts that look like efficiencies to them but come across as uncaring to others. And those people are experiencing difficult situations-so they are at an increased sensitivity to anyone perceived as contributing to that difficulty. For example-job seekers complain that HR never acknowledges applications and they also complain when they receive an automated acknowledgement that their application was received. They want a personal interaction and are unwilling to concede that the HR person may not be able to comply.
(3) HR professionals don't operate in a consistent fashion, so when people are interacting with them, it is quite literally a guessing game as to what all the *right* things to do are. Even seemingly simple things-like what to wear to an interview gets a rather diverse set of opinions that the poor applicant doesn't know who to believe.
(4) HR professionals make hiring screen out decisions that are often perceived as ridiculous (because they mostly are) as part of the "I have to eliminate people because we get so many applications" excuse. It is little wonder that people see HR as unable to understand the business or the jobs they are screening for when they eliminate people based on personal bias.
(5) HR professionals need to have respect for diversity and seeks ways to gain a global outlook-too many fail to do so.
(6) HR professionals should be required to have both education and work experience in fields outside of HR at some (or several) stages of their career. Some do and some don't.
(7) HR professionals work with humans for the most part. Humans are diverse, unpredictable, predictable, puzzling, amazing, awe inspiring, smart, silly, have good days, bad days and mediocre days. Including the humans that are HR professionals. But we deal with humans in difficult situations and they remember when we don't meet their specific needs in the way they want at the time- and say so to anyone who will listen. You need a teflon exterior to work in this field for any length of time.
(8) HR professionals need to be the best at collaboration and change resilience-but they don't tell you that in school and for the most part it requires learning from on the job experience and seeking knowledge and resources consistently.
(9) HR professionals are perceived to have either great power over ones career or no power at all. Take your pick because the perception is situational.
(10) HR professionals would benefit from remembering that regardless of how overwhelmed they are by their workload, no matter how many people have yelled, insulted, swore, threw things at you, threatened you, cried, blamed, done something perverted or disgusting to a colleague, that your role is to remain neutral and objective in the way in which you handle those situations and every other situation. That doesn't mean you have to take abuse-you absolutely must never let that continue. It does mean the decisions you make or the advice you give has to be objective, wear that teflon shield while decision making. You can vent privately, later.
It isn't easy. You will never get everything just right every time. Every successful leader will tell you the same thing.
The post can be found at this link: http://www.xperthr.co.uk/blogs/employment-intelligence/2011/08/susan-popoola-tackling-hrs-ima.html
There are a few points in which HR continues to maintain an image problem.
(1) Many employees only come into contact with HR during difficult situations-while unemployed, experiencing disciplinary problems, being fired or laid off, undergoing unhappy life changes etc.- sometimes HR can help and sometimes they have a role to play that won't feel like help to an employee. As in any profession, some practitioners have good interpersonal skills that allow them to do their jobs without angering or frustrating the employee further, and sometimes they don't. People are much more likely to speak out about the bad experiences they have than they are the good experiences.
(2) Because HR is often understaffed they tend to take shortcuts that look like efficiencies to them but come across as uncaring to others. And those people are experiencing difficult situations-so they are at an increased sensitivity to anyone perceived as contributing to that difficulty. For example-job seekers complain that HR never acknowledges applications and they also complain when they receive an automated acknowledgement that their application was received. They want a personal interaction and are unwilling to concede that the HR person may not be able to comply.
(3) HR professionals don't operate in a consistent fashion, so when people are interacting with them, it is quite literally a guessing game as to what all the *right* things to do are. Even seemingly simple things-like what to wear to an interview gets a rather diverse set of opinions that the poor applicant doesn't know who to believe.
(4) HR professionals make hiring screen out decisions that are often perceived as ridiculous (because they mostly are) as part of the "I have to eliminate people because we get so many applications" excuse. It is little wonder that people see HR as unable to understand the business or the jobs they are screening for when they eliminate people based on personal bias.
(5) HR professionals need to have respect for diversity and seeks ways to gain a global outlook-too many fail to do so.
(6) HR professionals should be required to have both education and work experience in fields outside of HR at some (or several) stages of their career. Some do and some don't.
(7) HR professionals work with humans for the most part. Humans are diverse, unpredictable, predictable, puzzling, amazing, awe inspiring, smart, silly, have good days, bad days and mediocre days. Including the humans that are HR professionals. But we deal with humans in difficult situations and they remember when we don't meet their specific needs in the way they want at the time- and say so to anyone who will listen. You need a teflon exterior to work in this field for any length of time.
(8) HR professionals need to be the best at collaboration and change resilience-but they don't tell you that in school and for the most part it requires learning from on the job experience and seeking knowledge and resources consistently.
(9) HR professionals are perceived to have either great power over ones career or no power at all. Take your pick because the perception is situational.
(10) HR professionals would benefit from remembering that regardless of how overwhelmed they are by their workload, no matter how many people have yelled, insulted, swore, threw things at you, threatened you, cried, blamed, done something perverted or disgusting to a colleague, that your role is to remain neutral and objective in the way in which you handle those situations and every other situation. That doesn't mean you have to take abuse-you absolutely must never let that continue. It does mean the decisions you make or the advice you give has to be objective, wear that teflon shield while decision making. You can vent privately, later.
It isn't easy. You will never get everything just right every time. Every successful leader will tell you the same thing.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Next Shift In Blog Direction
My post on the Netflix HR job posting yesterday is the last time I will post on this topic. I thought I was finished with that several months ago but several things I have read recently prompted me to put up my thoughts just one more time. Done, that feels great because I am at an end point with seeing exactly the same issue arise every year for at least the last 12 years. Either HR changes radically and quickly or it will become something else altogether and I am not talking about a name change.
I will still talk about HR stuff though, when someone asks me a question I will respond, when I encounter a situation that someone asks for help in resolving, I will respond; I just won't post about HR as a profession needing to change anymore. It has been said too much already.
Here is a question I was asked a couple of weeks ago and the topic has come up a few more times since then: Do you think companies in Canada are practising ageism? The first person who asked me felt that she had been turned down for at least 2 jobs she had interviews for based on her perceived age once she arrived at the interview.
Yes,human beings that do hiring as part of their role in companies are practising ageism; not all of them but more than you might think given our Human Rights Act. It isn't hard to 'get away with it' either. So, is there a solution to this? The simple answer is yes: stop it, just stop it. Unfortunately the solution needs a solution, because people do this based on ill-advised beliefs and often are so convinced of just how accurate or relevant those beliefs are that there is nothing you can say to change their minds. Which leads to the next solution, conduct research on companies you are interested in working for and find out if they practice ageism (or any ism for that matter); if they do not, then apply there. If they do, they don't deserve your awesome contribution, they just don't.
I will still talk about HR stuff though, when someone asks me a question I will respond, when I encounter a situation that someone asks for help in resolving, I will respond; I just won't post about HR as a profession needing to change anymore. It has been said too much already.
Here is a question I was asked a couple of weeks ago and the topic has come up a few more times since then: Do you think companies in Canada are practising ageism? The first person who asked me felt that she had been turned down for at least 2 jobs she had interviews for based on her perceived age once she arrived at the interview.
Yes,human beings that do hiring as part of their role in companies are practising ageism; not all of them but more than you might think given our Human Rights Act. It isn't hard to 'get away with it' either. So, is there a solution to this? The simple answer is yes: stop it, just stop it. Unfortunately the solution needs a solution, because people do this based on ill-advised beliefs and often are so convinced of just how accurate or relevant those beliefs are that there is nothing you can say to change their minds. Which leads to the next solution, conduct research on companies you are interested in working for and find out if they practice ageism (or any ism for that matter); if they do not, then apply there. If they do, they don't deserve your awesome contribution, they just don't.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Is It Too Late for HR? Maybe Not
It is time to speak up and share what you are doing if you are one of the HR people that are reflected in the 'want' list rather than the 'don't want' list.
I read a job posting for a management position in human resources with Netflix recently, this is the text of the posting:
“We are looking for a very Senior HR Business Partner at Netflix. This role will report to our Chief Talent Officer and will be an essential part of our success as we expand globally.
What we are looking for:
Someone who thinks business first, customer second, team and talent third. Someone with a profound understanding, respect and admiration for the craft of engineering and analytics. This person must be extraordinarily candid and possess demonstrable common sense. They will have read the Netflix culture deck and been drawn to the concepts. They will ponder and be able to discuss how they might put those concepts into action from an HR perspective (and consider what traditional HR practices may not apply).
The position(s) support several Technical Vice Presidents and their respective teams. The focus of the job is to define, coordinate and manage the talent in those teams to efficiently affect the business and customer goals. Leading, demonstrating, redefining and modeling the Netflix culture is job one. In addition there will be plenty of hiring, firing, coaching and organizational alignment work.
Candidates will likely have had experience in a large, global company as well some start up experience. Must have influenced management at the VP/C level.
What we are not looking for:
A Change Agent, an OD Practitioner, a SHRM Certificate, a People Person, a policy or guideline writer.”
The list of what they are looking for is important to Netflix, but the list of what they are NOT looking for is important to human resources practitioners. This will increasingly become a familiar list of wants and don’t wants in positions for human resources practitioners. Several people tweeted out comments regarding this posting in which they clarified that “they” meet the above criteria and some reiterated the old “HR doesn’t get it” theme.
Then a few days later I read a blog posting by Lance Haun who blogs about human resources in which he discusses why you should rethink your career if you want to get into HR because you are a people person. http://rehaul.com/love-helping-people-dont-go-into-hr/ The comments below this post are somewhat amusing as several people jump in to say that “they” of course are both people persons as well as business focused people; or ensuring that all readers know that this blog doesn’t apply to them, without actually adding anything helpful to the discussion. And no discussion about HR can escape the inclusion of at least some of the assertions that: HR people are bullies, siloed, not business oriented, bureaucratic and more and this commentary is no exception. Okay, that last sentence while accurate is not one that I agree with, as in any profession there are people that will display all of those characteristics, and your encounter with one or two like that are not indicative of everyone in that professional group.
Yes, I have been known to post about human resources practitioners needing to step it up and make the necessary changes to start providing the type of service that the businesses require and that the profession is simply too slow to change. What I think now is that the executives have decided they are tired of waiting for human resources to make the changes and so they are going to make the changes. They are going to start hiring people that can do what needs to be done and it is quite possible that many practitioners will find themselves left out of the playpen.
So, what are human resources practitioners going to do? Some are going to find they are working with career coaches to determine what career is best for them; maybe a lot of practitioners will be doing this. Others are going to continue doing the ‘right’ thing because they already are and some are going to find they are increasingly feeling like they are being pushed out. Just like everyone in any profession that doesn’t adopt a continuous learning + application of learning perspective and that doesn’t adapt their current thinking to what they really need to do. Oh, and by the way, if you are in HR you really, really need to start bouncing ideas around and looking for resource materials outside the HR realm-that is where your clients are and you can’t provide what they need unless you know what they need and how it will work best in their business.
So, don’t put your hand up and say “not me, not me” but do share your most brilliant ideas that demonstrate how you, in your HR practice are making the kind of difference in your organization that companies like Netflix are demanding. In other words, share your leadership.
I read a job posting for a management position in human resources with Netflix recently, this is the text of the posting:
“We are looking for a very Senior HR Business Partner at Netflix. This role will report to our Chief Talent Officer and will be an essential part of our success as we expand globally.
What we are looking for:
Someone who thinks business first, customer second, team and talent third. Someone with a profound understanding, respect and admiration for the craft of engineering and analytics. This person must be extraordinarily candid and possess demonstrable common sense. They will have read the Netflix culture deck and been drawn to the concepts. They will ponder and be able to discuss how they might put those concepts into action from an HR perspective (and consider what traditional HR practices may not apply).
The position(s) support several Technical Vice Presidents and their respective teams. The focus of the job is to define, coordinate and manage the talent in those teams to efficiently affect the business and customer goals. Leading, demonstrating, redefining and modeling the Netflix culture is job one. In addition there will be plenty of hiring, firing, coaching and organizational alignment work.
Candidates will likely have had experience in a large, global company as well some start up experience. Must have influenced management at the VP/C level.
What we are not looking for:
A Change Agent, an OD Practitioner, a SHRM Certificate, a People Person, a policy or guideline writer.”
The list of what they are looking for is important to Netflix, but the list of what they are NOT looking for is important to human resources practitioners. This will increasingly become a familiar list of wants and don’t wants in positions for human resources practitioners. Several people tweeted out comments regarding this posting in which they clarified that “they” meet the above criteria and some reiterated the old “HR doesn’t get it” theme.
Then a few days later I read a blog posting by Lance Haun who blogs about human resources in which he discusses why you should rethink your career if you want to get into HR because you are a people person. http://rehaul.com/love-helping-people-dont-go-into-hr/ The comments below this post are somewhat amusing as several people jump in to say that “they” of course are both people persons as well as business focused people; or ensuring that all readers know that this blog doesn’t apply to them, without actually adding anything helpful to the discussion. And no discussion about HR can escape the inclusion of at least some of the assertions that: HR people are bullies, siloed, not business oriented, bureaucratic and more and this commentary is no exception. Okay, that last sentence while accurate is not one that I agree with, as in any profession there are people that will display all of those characteristics, and your encounter with one or two like that are not indicative of everyone in that professional group.
Yes, I have been known to post about human resources practitioners needing to step it up and make the necessary changes to start providing the type of service that the businesses require and that the profession is simply too slow to change. What I think now is that the executives have decided they are tired of waiting for human resources to make the changes and so they are going to make the changes. They are going to start hiring people that can do what needs to be done and it is quite possible that many practitioners will find themselves left out of the playpen.
So, what are human resources practitioners going to do? Some are going to find they are working with career coaches to determine what career is best for them; maybe a lot of practitioners will be doing this. Others are going to continue doing the ‘right’ thing because they already are and some are going to find they are increasingly feeling like they are being pushed out. Just like everyone in any profession that doesn’t adopt a continuous learning + application of learning perspective and that doesn’t adapt their current thinking to what they really need to do. Oh, and by the way, if you are in HR you really, really need to start bouncing ideas around and looking for resource materials outside the HR realm-that is where your clients are and you can’t provide what they need unless you know what they need and how it will work best in their business.
So, don’t put your hand up and say “not me, not me” but do share your most brilliant ideas that demonstrate how you, in your HR practice are making the kind of difference in your organization that companies like Netflix are demanding. In other words, share your leadership.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
HR & The Seat At The Table Conundrum
I just really wanted to use the word 'conundrum' in a post although the whole HR identity crises is a conundrum. On the one hand articles stating that HR wants "a seat at the table" (translation: they want to be seated at the boardroom table with the "C" executives) have been popping up pretty consistently over the past dozen years; on the other hand employees and employees that are managers often comment that HR spends too much time in their seats and not enough "out there"-taking in what is happening operationally.
It is true that the profession is changing albeit slowly but the question is: Is HR on the right path? Is the profession chasing after the right goals?
Consider that a couple of recent articles based on surveys (Price Waterhouse Coopers) of CEO's indicate that while said CEO's are clear about what they want from HR-that HR still isn't getting it and thus still are not providing the deliverables. So where exactly is the disconnect between the CEO's and HR coming from? How is it that two roles that require "excellent or strong" communication skills can't seem to get the service wanted/provided discussion on track?
What needs to happen to get Human Resources professionals and Chief Executive Officers talking with each other? The fact that this same disconnect has been going on for so long leaves the question open as to why the CEO's aren't demanding that HR deliver or take action to ensure they are getting what they claim to need for the future of the business. What do you think? What are you doing in your organization to meet the needs of the business going forward?
It is true that the profession is changing albeit slowly but the question is: Is HR on the right path? Is the profession chasing after the right goals?
Consider that a couple of recent articles based on surveys (Price Waterhouse Coopers) of CEO's indicate that while said CEO's are clear about what they want from HR-that HR still isn't getting it and thus still are not providing the deliverables. So where exactly is the disconnect between the CEO's and HR coming from? How is it that two roles that require "excellent or strong" communication skills can't seem to get the service wanted/provided discussion on track?
What needs to happen to get Human Resources professionals and Chief Executive Officers talking with each other? The fact that this same disconnect has been going on for so long leaves the question open as to why the CEO's aren't demanding that HR deliver or take action to ensure they are getting what they claim to need for the future of the business. What do you think? What are you doing in your organization to meet the needs of the business going forward?
Friday, May 06, 2011
toonlet: HR Is Fun-Right?
toonlet: HR Is Fun-Right?
Just for fun on a rainy Friday. Chris Burns http://potential-chrisburns.blogspot.com/ told me about Toonlet, so I *had* to try it out.
I am curious to hear more tales from the field-what are your experiences with HR? What do you think they do? Tell us your fun, sad, weird and odd stories-oh- and if you have some happy, positive stories we absolutey want to hear about those.
Just for fun on a rainy Friday. Chris Burns http://potential-chrisburns.blogspot.com/ told me about Toonlet, so I *had* to try it out.
I am curious to hear more tales from the field-what are your experiences with HR? What do you think they do? Tell us your fun, sad, weird and odd stories-oh- and if you have some happy, positive stories we absolutey want to hear about those.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
HR and Twitter-Yes You Can!
I usually stay away from writing about how to use specific Social Technology tools as there is a bigger gap in the ‘why’ to use them arena. I firmly believe that you must directly link the benefits of using Social Technology tools to achieving strategy and goals, but perhaps a little inspiration about how a tool might help you in your role is in order. My favorite HR competency, collaboration will be very useful when you are integrating Twitter with other tools.
Twitter is a Social Network tool and is used externally, meaning beyond the firewall. Twitter is free to use at this point, however, given the speculation regarding a possible purchase by Google it may change to a freemium model at some point. Twitter is primarily used by HR Professionals for recruiting purposes and depending on your target demographic it may be one of the most effective ways to connect with a great pool of candidates.
HR practitioners tend to think of recruitment as an activity that occurs only when specific jobs are open but strategic HR practices require that you develop and maintain a pool of candidates that have competencies that are critical to the organization. Go beyond posting an abbreviated job description with instructions on how to apply and use postings to attract the interest of people who may want to work for your company in the future. Becoming visible as an employer of choice can be enhanced through connecting and branding.
Resources Required
Managing a potential candidate pool is a little tricky but Social tools provide us with a much bigger reach than ever before and with less reliance on external consultants and expensive advertising methods. It does take time and you need to account for that in your schedule. You can’t rely on Social tools only; traditional methods will also be required.
Things to Consider
• At this point, Twitter and LinkedIn are the most widely used Social Network tools for recruiting in North America. It makes sense to have a company profile on LinkedIn if you are using Twitter for recruiting (Integration)
• Training is required to learn to use the tools well and as these tools are constantly being improved, ongoing learning will be necessary
• It takes time to build a network on Twitter and LinkedIn-consider who your target connections are and start following and connecting carefully. Remember that Social Tools are only effective if you engage and share with others. Figure out how much time and when in your work week to set aside for interacting with your networks. There is such a thing as “too much”, don’t overwhelm your audience
• Tools that work beyond the firewall have security concerns, liaise with IT
• The use of Twitter must be integrated with other tools, requiring planning. Once you attract candidates through a 140 character Tweet, they need a link to your application system. Does your application system reflect your brand? Is it attractive to your target candidate pool?
• Your branding must be consistent with the overall branding of the organization, liaise with Marketing
• You must be able to write well, getting someone to click on your link requires a very concise and interesting Tweet
• Mistakes made via Social Technologies are a much bigger deal than sending a dumb email to your entire office. It will take a lot of work to repair the damage done.
• Follow companies that are using Twitter and LinkedIn for recruiting -what do they do that works and what doesn’t work?
I usually stay away from writing about how to use specific Social Technology tools as there is a bigger gap in the ‘why’ to use them arena. I firmly believe that you must directly link the benefits of using Social Technology tools to achieving strategy and goals, but perhaps a little inspiration about how a tool might help you in your role is in order. My favorite HR competency, collaboration will be very useful when you are integrating Twitter with other tools.
Twitter is a Social Network tool and is used externally, meaning beyond the firewall. Twitter is free to use at this point, however, given the speculation regarding a possible purchase by Google it may change to a freemium model at some point. Twitter is primarily used by HR Professionals for recruiting purposes and depending on your target demographic it may be one of the most effective ways to connect with a great pool of candidates.
HR practitioners tend to think of recruitment as an activity that occurs only when specific jobs are open but strategic HR practices require that you develop and maintain a pool of candidates that have competencies that are critical to the organization. Go beyond posting an abbreviated job description with instructions on how to apply and use postings to attract the interest of people who may want to work for your company in the future. Becoming visible as an employer of choice can be enhanced through connecting and branding.
Resources Required
Managing a potential candidate pool is a little tricky but Social tools provide us with a much bigger reach than ever before and with less reliance on external consultants and expensive advertising methods. It does take time and you need to account for that in your schedule. You can’t rely on Social tools only; traditional methods will also be required.
Things to Consider
• At this point, Twitter and LinkedIn are the most widely used Social Network tools for recruiting in North America. It makes sense to have a company profile on LinkedIn if you are using Twitter for recruiting (Integration)
• Training is required to learn to use the tools well and as these tools are constantly being improved, ongoing learning will be necessary
• It takes time to build a network on Twitter and LinkedIn-consider who your target connections are and start following and connecting carefully. Remember that Social Tools are only effective if you engage and share with others. Figure out how much time and when in your work week to set aside for interacting with your networks. There is such a thing as “too much”, don’t overwhelm your audience
• Tools that work beyond the firewall have security concerns, liaise with IT
• The use of Twitter must be integrated with other tools, requiring planning. Once you attract candidates through a 140 character Tweet, they need a link to your application system. Does your application system reflect your brand? Is it attractive to your target candidate pool?
• Your branding must be consistent with the overall branding of the organization, liaise with Marketing
• You must be able to write well, getting someone to click on your link requires a very concise and interesting Tweet
• Mistakes made via Social Technologies are a much bigger deal than sending a dumb email to your entire office. It will take a lot of work to repair the damage done.
• Follow companies that are using Twitter and LinkedIn for recruiting -what do they do that works and what doesn’t work?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)