Robin Schooling - advocate of the workplace revolution

Reality Check: Pontification vs. HR Practice

A few years ago (2019 to be precise – pre-pandemic!) I wrote about the battle of “Conference HR” vs. “Real World HR” (still one of my top 5 read blog posts) in which I pointed out that the hot-takes offered by speakers, pundits and the vendor account executive at the bar are often so far removed from day-to-day reality as to be somewhat laughable.

Now I wholeheartedly believe that HR professionals in SMBs can learn from enterprise organizations and effectively scale-down some of the macro-lessons. And vice-versa: enterprise HR teams have much they can learn from small HR shops.

Case in point: last week, at UNLEASH America (truly one of my favorite events), I attended a session with HR and TA leaders from UPS as they discussed their use of Fountain to scale and streamline the hiring of frontline workers – their candidates are interviewed within 7 minutes of apply and extended an offer 22 minutes post-interview.

Are most of us hiring 400,000 people during “busy season?” No. Nevertheless, it was an amazing and captivating story of their (ongoing) journey – particularly as they discussed how they are now at the phase of finding the “touchpoints” wherein they can insert (re-insert?) the “human touch.”

Do HR teams want to use HR technology to improve efficiency? Absolutely – although it’s often a need for automation, system integrations, or mobile-friendly applications vs. a burning desire for virtual reality or AI. A large part of my fascination with reviewing and exploring HR technology is how it can remind us of the need to balance operational efficiency with the “human” side of what we do.

However, as I was reminded across the Expo floor and during conversations at dinners and Happy Hours, there is a continuing disconnect between pontification and practice.

Attendees at a conference are intrigued and drawn-in by provocative statements – often presented as “the truth.” Session speakers, akin to peddlers of tabloid magazines or editors of reality TV shows, take a position, promote it as the ultimate factoid, and expect us to collectively and obediently fall in line.

There are always popular and of-the-moment sentiments to which HR professionals subscribe; aligning on the topic du jour via Fast Company or WSJ articles or through survey data gathered by an ~~vendor~~ interested party. The resume is dead. Get on TikTok to recruit Gen Z. Mocktails are all the rage.

And sure enough, just as always, a few of these of-the-moment topics rose to the top last week.

Should we discuss them? Absolutely!

The problem is when these sorts of things are tossed out as something we simply MUST-DO (lest we fall behind and become the next Kodak) and we don’t explore the subtleties and nuances inherent in the real world…well…we do ourselves no favors.

To wit…

Remote Work

Pontification: “If you don’t prioritize remote work, you will never be able to compete for today’s top talent.”

Reality: Obviously there are jobs (and industries) where working remotely (or even “hybrid”) is not an option. The line workers needed to restore power after a storm must be in the field. Healthcare workers are not coming to our houses to draw blood, run a CAT Scan, or perform surgery. The team members at the auto dealership must be ON THE LOT to show us the vehicles or IN THE SERVICE SHOP to change our oil. (Of course, the waiting room at the auto dealership is teeming with those who are privileged enough to be able to open their laptops (while kvetching about poor WiFi) and host Zoom calls while waiting for their 18-point inspection.

Do I like being able to work from home? Of course I do; and there’s no denying it’s preferred by lots of folks. But it’s NOT a realistic option for many. Can it be a differentiator when it comes to attracting candidates and hiring? Certainly. But it’s not the default.

Lots of folks, in lots of jobs, will never be able to work remotely – and we need to stop SHAMING the business owners or leaders who will not or cannot fully embrace WFH,

The 4-Day Workweek

Pontification: “We need to move to a 4-day workweek to meet the desires of the emerging workforce.”

Reality: This is not, obviously, as simple as announcing to one’s staff and customers that “we will now be working Monday thru Thursday!” and calling it a day. Here in the good old US of A, we have a little thing called the Fair Labor Standards Act which, among other things, codifies that non-exempt (hourly) employees must be paid an overtime rate of time-and-one-half for any hours worked over 40 per workweek. (The 32 Hour Workweek Act introduced by Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) in 2021 proposes to amend the FLSA. A recent bill introduced in the Senate by Bernie Sanders (I-VT) does the same).

In addition to the payroll impact for employers, this would require an overhaul of many sacrosanct employer-provided benefits – many of which have plans designed for FT (40 hours) versus PT employees. If 32-hours per week becomes “full time,” employers must amend their plan offerings with potential impact accessibility for part-time categorized workers to benefits such as short or long-term disability, PTO, and other benefits. Employers cannot absorb these costs just because new legislation require they do so; responses would undoubtedly include layoffs, elimination of some benefits, and potentially loss of business due to staffing inability.

Would I like a four-day work week? You betcha. But I’m operating from the vantage point of a career and roles where I haven’t been OT eligible for decades. Susie the Call Center Employee who relies on a 40 hours per week paycheck to house and feed her family, will not magically be able to subsist on a paycheck of 32 hours per week (because I can guarantee you she will be cut to 32 hours per week – not 32 hours regular rate and 8 hours of time-and-one-half rate).

So again, just as with the exhortation to prioritize remote work, this topic smacks of elitism and classism. Something good for the ruling class (or consultant class)… so why worry about the majority of other workers?

*****

I love – really I do – big ideas. Toss them out there and let’s discuss. Let’s dig in and figure out if we CAN make something work instead of nay-saying why it won’t. I’m all for that.

I just am achingly tired of “thinkers” (not doers) gallivanting around the conference circuit presenting concepts and ideas when these same “thinkers” (not doers) haven’t been down in the trenches of real-world HR for decades.

Or, even worse, those who have never (ever) visited.

*****

“Pontification expresses opinions or judgments. It’s less of a process and more of a static delivery mechanism for information the messenger has deemed valuable. It is often dogmatic (even when it’s friendly) and it favors what matters to the speaker over what matters to the audience. Pontification centers the speaker.” TedX

HR and the Law of Unintended Consequences

The actions we take, whether as individuals or institutions, often lead to consequences that we did not anticipate. This phenomenon, known as the Law of Unintended Consequences (LOUC), is a fundamental aspect of human decision-making and has significant implications for various fields, including economics and social science. Despite its importance, the LOUC is often ignored by those in decision-making roles.

The concept of the LOUC was first analyzed by sociologist Robert K. Merton in 1936. He identified five sources of unintended consequences that contribute to the divergence between intended and actual outcomes of actions:

Ignorance
Error
Imperious immediacy of interest
Basic values
Self-defeating predictions

The LOUC is ubiquitous because we, as humans, limited ability to foresee all the potential outcomes of our actions combined with our tendency to prioritize immediate benefits. Sometimes we just need to get shit done. We get in the groove and crank out a new policy or implement a change without doing the analysis about “what” might happen as a result when we, for example:

Institute unlimited PTO
Conduct an Employee Engagement Survey
Implement a Return to Office mandate

The consequences of our actions may vary and can range from beneficial to harmful – and these consequences may not always be immediately observable.

Like What?

Numerous examples illustrate the LOUC in various contexts:

An IT Department implements increased security measures requiring complex and “must change every 30 days” password protocol. An unintended consequence might be employees writing their passwords on post-it notes and sticking them to their monitors … thus defeating every attempt at strengthening security.
A government offers incentives that have the exact opposite intended effect. In India, back in the day (this really happened), in an attempt to control the cobra population, the government announced a “bounty” for captured/killed cobras. So, you guessed it; folks wanting to earn some money BRED cobras to earn more money and then, when they government shut down the program due to exploitation, all these NEW cobras were released by the breeders thus increasing the population beyond what had been the original count.

So yes, while some outcomes may bring unexpected benefits, others may exacerbate existing problems or even create new challenges. Perverse results occur when actions intended to improve a situation backfire … making it worse.

I once worked for an organization where, with a goal of decreasing expenses (admirable and understandable), the corporate powers-that-be issued directives (as they sat FAR removed in the corporate office). The demands to stop hiring full time employees and only hire part time employees, while also cutting OT labor, and reducing turnover led, as could be expected, to increased turnover within the first 30/60/90 days, higher operational and labor expenses, and additional unanticipated costs.

Second-Order Thinking

The failure to anticipate unintended consequences often stems from a lack of critical thinking and foresight. But a term (and mental model) I like much better is Second-Order thinking – referring to when one considers the long-term implications of decisions with an aim to mitigate risks and inform more effective planning and execution.

To adopt second-order thinking, individuals (and teams/organizations) should:

ask critical questions
consider the consequences over time, and
identify potential ripple effects.

Understanding the interconnectedness of various factors enables the capacity to make informed decisions and anticipate unintended outcomes. And in day-today HR, many initiatives require second-order thinking to anticipate and address unintended consequences effectively. Employee engagement surveys and listening “tours” may, for example, can yield valuable insights but may also inadvertently impact employee trust and behavior if not managed thoughtfully.

Here’s what I know … navigating the complexities of human decision-making requires a deep understanding of the Law of Unintended Consequences and a commitment to second-order thinking. When you start by acknowledging there’s potential for unintended outcomes you can proactively address them and, ideally, avoid costly missteps.

Myth Busters: Rethinking Hiring in the Modern Workplace

There are numerous notions we hold close – in our hearts and minds – about recruiting and hiring employees.

We often learn these things early in our career as a manager, HR professional or recruiter. In the professional equivalent of sitting around the campfire, we hear the scary stories and soak in “advice” from those who have come before us. But a significant portion of what we think is truth might, in fact, be a myth. An urban legend. Something made up to keep us all “in line” – just as this story was designed to scare us and prevent nefarious nighttime activities.

Join me for this upcoming 30-minute Humareso #TalentTalk webinar when I’ll deconstruct a few of the traditional views and most cherished principles and share some hot takes on job advertisements, candidate “quality,” and how we make hiring decisions.

Myth Busters – Rethinking Hiring in the Modern Workplace

Thursday, February 15th at 1 PM ET – 1:30 PM ET

You can register HERE.

Paper Trails and Power Plays: HR Technology

paper trails and power plays and HR Technology

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.”

******

Tedious Twins: Jury Duty and New Employee Orientation

I had jury duty last week. Or, to put it more accurately, last week I answered a summons to serve on a jury and thus reported to the 19^th Judicial District Court to fulfill my civic duty.

There were maybe 150 of us in total. Folks in business attire (suits, heels, LSU sweatshirts) and others who looked like they barely passed through a shower. Facial expressions and body language ranged from grim determination to exasperation. A fair number of people seemed eager and excited. And, naturally, this being Baton Rouge, quite a few seemed to be acquainted and/or related to each other based upon their delighted interactions.

The jury room was sparsely decorated; industrial carpet, uncomfortable chairs, and pictures of current and long-since deceased members of the judiciary adorning the walls. There was water (no coffee). We had been fore warned that bringing in food or coffee was prohibited – although a lady next to me had a bag of peanut M&Ms in her purse from which she surreptitiously grazed throughout our captivity.

We were given a packet of papers (with the rules for the day!) and treated to an intermittently long video (hosted by a local news anchor!) about the court processes. Then we sat. And sat some more. And waited. (Until – hurray – they ultimately released ALL of us!).

As I sat through this every-several years exercise (‘Merica!), it struck me that jury duty and new employee orientation (at many companies) are both unavoidable, often tedious, and yet somehow necessary evils in the adult world.

The Summoning

When it’s time for jury duty, you receive a notification you’ve been commanded to report on a specific date and time with no regard for other plans or obligations you may have. The offer letter for a new job, with lots of CYA legalese, also portends the start of a journey filled with policies and paperwork.

The Weird Social Dynamics

Jury duty is a social experiment where you’re stuck with strangers trying to either remain invisible (“please please please don’t pick me”) or demonstrate your leadership capabilities (“I not only want to BE on a jury but also serve as foreperson!”). Those first few hours can make or break your reputation for the rest of the week! The same goes for joining a new organization and spending the first day or two with co-workers; you’ve got to navigate a mix of personalities and indulge in awkward small talk, all while trying to figure out who’s the office gossiper.

The Aftermath

Surviving jury duty leaves you with a bizarre sense of achievement – you’ve done your civic duty, and now you need a nap. Surviving orientation means you’re now officially on payroll and equipped, apparently, to traverse your new corporate jungle. Chances are you also need a nap.

In a life filled with monotonous events, these two sit at the top of the ”All Time Tedious List.” But, if you’re starting a new job, (and no matter HOW the HR team tries to sexy-it-up) you will be forced to endure painfully dull training and the filling-out of numerous forms (paper or digital – doesn’t matter).

May I suggest you bring some snacks?

************