Robin Schooling

Not that long ago  – I am talking within the last 5 years – I worked with a company that, to put it mildly, was reluctant to implement new work and HR technology. Monthly financial reports, delivered to department heads for review and approval, were 1-inch thick paper packets. Internal comms (memos and newsletters and directives) were posted on bulletin boards and left on tables in the employee breakrooms.

Manager self-service, while available in the HRIS of choice, was not enabled and many aspects of employee self-service (such as requests for PTO) was also “turned off.” Rather, when an employee wished to request a day off from work, they filled out a paper form and turned it into their manager for approval. The manager signed the form (eventually), made a copy, gave the copy to the employee, and then retained the original paper form in a dusty file drawer. There were situations where, for a long-tenured employee, managers retained copies of PTO request forms going back a dozen years.

Work schedules, for this primarily hourly work force, were created by supervisors on paper templates and posted on bulletin boards; if you happened to be working when the schedule was posted you could see it immediately. If, however, you were a part time employee who may not be working for the next 4 to 5 days, you had no way of viewing this schedule unless you either (a) made a special trip to come into the office, or (b) had a friendly co-worker who would take a picture and send you the schedule via text message.

But, as happens in workplaces ‘round the world, employees and a few intrepid managers created work arounds.

One department manager – let’s call him Joe – with an hourly staff of 60+ employees, created his schedules using scheduling software (that he set up himself – not company provided) and had his employees download the app for the program. As the company would neither pay nor reimburse for this, each employee absorbed the download cost. Obviously, as this sort of software is designed to do, it provided employees with the chance to (a) view their schedules (b) request shift swaps with co-workers (c) pick up extra shifts due to business volume (d) request time off (e) easily flex their time to meet the needs of the business.

It worked beautifully as one would imagine and, aside from the questions such as “why won’t the company reimburse me for this tool I need to do my job,” there were no complaints. Until the Big Boss – let’s call her Sally – got wind of it.

Rather than embracing this efficient use of technology the edict was issued that (paraphrasing here) “henceforth all schedules will be completed on the approved templates and posted to department bulletin boards. There is to be no use of scheduling apps that have not been approved or purchased by the company.”

Unbelievable. Or is it?

If adding HR technology – especially when it improves efficiency and ultimately operational performance – seems to be common sense…why do companies still say “no?”

The Struggle is Real

I headed over to Google this morning and inquired about “reasons to use HR technology” and pulled up over 550M results. Putting in the phrase “building a business case for HR technology” garnered 666M results. (eeks. 666)

I did not read them all. Nor, quite frankly, any of them.

What I’ve learned though, over time, is that when looking at implementing some sort of work technology (HR tech or something else), the high-level determination whether to even dive INTO any sort of consideration is about the Four P’s:

Price – Let’s be real; cost is top of mind with the addition of any sort of tool or technology. For SMB’s (and smaller HR teams), it’s often the first consideration when putting together any sort of business case. What’s the model? Is there a subscription? Will I have a month-to-month or annual contract? What are implementation costs and/or data migration costs? How do we compare and determine a PE/PM cost from our current system to something “new?” Does it make sense? How can I justify this PRICE?

Proximity – The need for accessibility and relatively close relationships is often top of mind. This quest for understanding proximity begins at the exploration and demo’ing stage when the potential user is trying to find peers or colleagues or “others they know” who are using the tool. And, of course, proximity (not necessarily ‘geographic’) becomes critical once that new user relationship has been established – “what is the SUPPORT like?” What about access to support or information for all end-users (not just the “system admins”)?

People – End users can make or break the successful roll-out, adoption and use of a new technology. Obviously the internal project implementation team is key to driving success through change management initiatives, proper communication plans, training and follow-up. And the thoughtful evaluation of the end-user experience should be front and center – and assessed by asking both “how is what we’re using now hindering our end-users <i.e. employees>?” and “how will this different tool HELP our end-users <i.e. employees>”?

Power – Finally, we can never underestimate the POWER dynamics at play in organizations and how they impact the ability to bring about change in the use of work tools and technology.  Naturally there are those invested with institutionalized power (“the C-Suite!”) while also those who, absent a fancy title or corner office, still have influential power. Those influencers, however, may possess POWER via their relationships or their expertise.

Joe vs. Mary

Joe, our plucky manager referenced above, was not a decision maker. Joe, however, saw a need for something more efficient and effective to successfully manage his team in this 24/7/365 work environment and, barring any relief from TPTB, found his own solution.

Mary, the Big Boss, was hell-bent on staying in the driver seat on her title-delineated POWER trip. She considered neither price (minimal), proximity (easy accessibility to the solution), or people (the frustrated staff and managers). She focused on power – and power only; this was not HER idea, she had nay-sayed previous attempts to implement updated technology…so therefore, this go-round, she responded with a firm and emphatic “no.”

‘Twas a pity.

Oh. Pity. There’s our  5^th “p.”

******