HR

keepin’ it relevant

Recently my daughter and some friends were doing a scavenger hunt where they followed a series of clues to discover the prize at the end. One of the clues was, “The place where we get bills.” Immediately, my daughter rushed to the computer because that’s where we pay bills. Uh oh. The last thing a business wants is to be irrelevant to the customer.

Your business, your department, and even you become irrelevant to your customers the second they no longer think of you as a resource and solution to their problems. Few think about it that way, but it’s true. Customers are trying to solve a problem they have and need you to do it. Put another way, from the customer’s point of view, your business (department, team, etc.) is useful and relevant only if you can solve their problem.

Banks exist to solve the problems of safely storing and accessing money. Lawnmowers exist to solve the problem of an unkempt lawn. Car dealers exist to solve personal transportation problems. Human Resources departments exist to solve the problems of finding, hiring, managing, and developing people. And so on. Internal or external, it doesn’t matter – your job is to help your customers solve their problems.

When salespeople don’t listen to the customer, they don’t (can’t!) provide solutions. When employees judge their worth to the company by their tenure rather than the problems they are solving, they are missing the point. When HR departments focus on administration they are solving only the lowest level of problems (which are easily outsourced). When your potential customers avoid you or work around you or tolerate you because you are the only option (for now), you become a problem to them.

You become a problem that they will look to someone else to solve.

training is (still) stupid

“Training is a complete waste of time!” Not true, but that’s what I got out of an article in ASTD’s Buzznews published yesterday. A report by ILX Group “revealed that 63% of HR professionals and business managers conduct training to boost business capability.”

Pardon me while I go hyperventilate and scream in rage against my profession! So they are reporting that 37% conduct training for reasons unrelated to boosting business capability?! Anyone else see a potential problem? How about a real, right now, in your face problem? And some wonder why training is the first thing cut when money gets tight!

It gets worse: “30% said training had a positive impact on achieving profit.” SEVENTY PERCENT of those surveyed believe that training doesn’t have a positive impact on profit!!! Why are we bothering?

The actual focus of the article was that 40% of companies want tablet computers for training. Well, sure, if your training doesn’t do any good you might as well spend money on toys and at least entertain the participants. New technology doesn’t improve bad training. EVER.

For a more in-depth and less exclamation point filled response, I’m reposting a piece I originally published on June 04, 2011.

 

Training is Stupid

There is one and only one purpose for training: to increase performance. That’s it. Training provides new knowledge and skills that allow a person to perform better than they could without the information or practice provided by the training. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about training for leadership development, college classes, or even physical fitness. Any training that doesn’t increase performance is stupid.

I once observed a safety training where the trainer was showing the participants how to fill out a government form. Not the most exciting topic to begin with, the training was so slow, dull, and unengaging that the trainer made Mr. Rogers look like Tony Robbins. The more experienced participants were getting caught up on reading spy novels. The others looked like they were wishing for sweet, sweet death – his or theirs, it didn’t matter. It was total waste of time and money, but the company was able to check the box and say that their employees had attended the required training.

I’ve also known trainers so charismatic and entertaining that everyone has a great time and universally gives the trainer high marks on their evaluation. Yet, said and done, the participants can’t remember what the program was about or don’t understand how to apply it to their own lives. A good time was had by all, but it was still a horrific waste of time and resources.

Sometimes the training is a hodgepodge of great ideas and techniques, but there is no plan to bring it all together so that the person can consistently apply it and improve. Every been at the gym and seen someone “training” their friend by almost randomly showing them different exercises? Information is dumped on them, but they have no understanding of how to truly apply it. There’s no plan, no tracking of progress, and minimal (if any) improvement.

The biggest challenge is that increasing performance means change. Scary word. Our performance gets better only when our behavior changes (we’ll never get better if we keep doing the same things). Changing others – even simply helping them change themselves – is incredibly difficult. That’s why most training fails us. It’s much, much easier to provide information and call it “training.” It’s much, much easier to be entertaining, have fun, tell some great stories that kind of relate to the topic and call it “training.” It’s much, much easier to string together a bunch of ideas than organize them into a plan that will create ongoing improvement. It’s much, much easier to think of training as a one-time, check the box event than to approach it as an ongoing process. How different would training be if every aspect was scrutinized to determine if each bit of information was truly important and if it would create the changed behavior that leads to increased performance?

And here’s why we care. Company performance improves ONLY when individual performance improves. It’s painfully funny how many leaders insist on improving company performance without ever trying to create higher performance from each and every individual. Training is crucial to any company that wants sustained performance.

Except when it’s stupid…

 

simplify, then add lightness

I’m a big fan of good policy and process because it allows for quick, consistent, and better decision making. It says that when this event happens, we respond this way. No agonizing, no reinventing the wheel, no he said/she saids or playing mom off of dad. Policy defines how we as a company have decided – in advance – to deal with certain situations. Process defines how we will do certain tasks and ultimately supports and makes it easy to adhere to policies.

Great policies and processes enable decisions to be made as quickly and as low in the organization as possible. Decisions made on the ground are always more relevant to the immediate situation than decisions made even one or two levels up.

The problems start when we adhere to policy for the sake of policy, rather than to help make better decisions. Policy should guide thinking and decision making, not replace it. Once we let policy and process replace judgment and thinking, then we must exponentially expand the number of policies and procedures to cover every possible situation that could possibly come up. When new situations arise, even one-time anomalies, another policy must be added. The more specific the policies, the more policies we must have. Soon, we’re crushed with bureaucracy and we’re safe because we’re sticking with policy even when it’s the wrong thing to do.

Unfortunately, thriving in this world requires dealing with new situations. Little to no innovation is possible in bureaucracy. The tighter the policies, the less judgment allowed, the higher in the organization decisions must be made and the less we are able to innovate, adapt, and invent.

Colin Chapman, founder of Lotus Cars and legendary race car engineer, famously once said that the secret to building a winning race car is to “simplify, then add lightness.” Simple parts and systems are less likely to break. Reducing weight makes a car quicker, better handling, more responsive, and reduces the amount of strain and wear on critical components. He understood cars, but might have well been talking about organizations.

The internet is full of people babbling on about the need for companies to be more innovative, react more quickly, and adapt faster. But it misses a crucial point: nimble companies react quickly, ponderous companies don’t. You can’t be driving along in a city bus and expect it to stop, accelerate, and turn on a dime just because you want it to. Mass creates momentum. Yet, we smugly suggest that bus size companies should behave like race cars.

Solution? Simplify, then add lightness. Good policy and process provides just enough framework to make decisions consistent with the strategic direction of the company. And not a gram more.

Four prime examples:

1. The US Constitution. This document is a miracle of simplicity. The few Americans who have actually bothered to read it know that it is amazingly stripped down and simple. In fact, it’s only about 7,400 words long (call it about 16 pages). Knowing that they couldn’t accurately imagine every possible situation that would need to be accounted for, the authors simply created an enduring framework that would enable adaptation. It was so simple and brief that they had to immediately amend it to establish and protect basic rights.

2. Nordstrom. Nordstrom’s focus is customer service and they want nothing to get in the way of employees providing phenomenal service. Their entire employee handbook is reported as listing only ONE rule: “Use good judgment in all situations.” And then there is brief mention to feel free to ask the department or store manager or HR any question at any time.

3. Apple Computers. Steve Jobs genius was not leadership: it was an unrelenting focus to make things as simple as humanly possible and then make them even simpler. How many steps does it take to get to any song on an iPod? (Hint: you won’t come even close to using all the fingers on one hand when you’re counting.)

4. Amazon. 1-click ordering. Enough said.

Um, how big’s your policy manual again? How many pages does the dress code really need to be? How many steps are truly necessary to for a customer to return an item? How easy is it for the customer to give you their money?

it’s not about you, it’s about the decision

Ever experienced (or maybe created) a situation where someone refused to yield on a decision? They made their preference known and refused to back off – even when it clearly went against the group or good sense?

So often, we’re not arguing for what would be best. We’re not hearing the other views, taking in new information, and reassessing our solutions. Instead, we’re sticking to out guns. No matter what.

And what a waste of time that is.

I was recently involved with a committee that needed to assess several applicants to determine who would receive an award. Each applicant was evaluated on several criteria and assigned ratings. One person collected the ratings from each member of the committee and compiled them into a spreadsheet, comparing the rating in a few different ways. The numbers showed there was a clear division between the top tier and the next level. The top group was certain to be granted the award, but there were a few the committee would need to debate. These were applicants that received mixed ratings across the committee.

On almost a whim, the committee members’ names had been removed from the spreadsheet. Although each could see all of the ratings given for each candidate, no committee member knew who had given which ratings.

Interestingly, with the names removed, the candidates became more important than the raters. No one dug in their heels or got defensive. Those who felt strongly one way or the other brought up their concerns – but it was clear it was about the candidate, not saving face or defending their ratings. Those who didn’t have strong feelings could quietly go along with the group without having to justify their scoring. Debate and discussion moved along quicker than ever, egos stayed in check, real issues surfaced, non-issues stayed away. All in all, a quicker and more effective method than in previous years.

This suggests to me that there are real benefits in any decision making when we can find ways to keep it about the decision. That’s what a secret ballot is all about. I’ve been harping on the idea that people don’t want the best decision, they want their decision to be best. Well, this is one way to remove the “their” part of the equation so that the group can focus on the best decision.

Although, this was for a community award, I’m very interested in using this approach with interviewing and selecting candidates. Or any group decision. Any thoughts?

it’s the little things

I despise and resent pre-paying for gas. I find it to be a major pain in the rear. Either I pay at the pump with a card and then go in and pay again (because I’m probably going to get a snack or soda while I’m there), pay once and forego my snack, or make several trips back and forth and stand in line a few times.

It’s interesting how quickly we humans adjust to and even expect such poor service. With nearly 100% of gas stations now requiring pre-pay we deem such lousy treatment acceptable and the norm. Why?

Hmmm. That’s a bit tougher. Certainly we all understand that this prevents drive offs, but how big of a problem is it really? Imagine if you couldn’t try on clothes until after you’d paid for them because it helped prevent shop lifting. Makes sense, but is it an acceptable solution, and would anyone shop there? No. That’s why stores use other measures to prevent theft.

I’ll admit, this sounds like a silly point of contention if only because the pre-pay system is so prevalent. Aren’t their bigger injustices to rail against? Sure. But how many other industries could inconvenience their customers, treat everyone who shops there like a criminal, and still thrive?

I go out of my way to pay more for gas because there is a local convenience store that will let me pump first. That’s how strongly I feel about it. Not everyone feels the way I do, but I can’t help but wonder about other people’s pet peeves. I’m sure other examples abound of people accepting higher price or having to go a bit out of their way because they prefer the service, selection, product, whatever at a certain store.

The challenge is that when everyone’s doing it and customers don’t have a choice it’s hard to identify these areas. I remember when I first moved to the Midwest back in the mid-nineties. I was in a mildly rural area and customer service was horrendously bad. But it was so universally terrible it was simply a case of “it is what it is” and no one knew different or cared. Then the big box stores came in. Say what you will about them, they had much better service and forced all the other companies to play catch up. Within a few years, the overall customer service for the entire area had improved markedly.

You can really only compete on price or differentiation. Being lowest cost is a losing battle for most. That leaves differentiation which means providing a product or service different enough to be worth paying a little more for. That might be selection, customer service, outstanding return policy, unique product or knowledge, etc.

Whatever your business or field, I can spend five minutes on google and find someone offering it cheaper. Let’s put this in an HR perspective (please tweak to think about from your business/field’s point of view): it wouldn’t take long to find a vendor that I could outsource your entire HR department to for less than your company is paying for internal HR right now. Keeping HR internal is not the cheapest option. So what value are you providing that differentiates you from your competition?

Where are you making life more difficult for your customers because it’s more convenient for you? What are the things your customers really value? What could you do that would be free or low-cost that would make life easier for your customers? These questions are doubly valuable if you are in a support department and have internal customers. Without external options it’s easy to get slack. Try this on: if your internal customers had three other options for your product or service would they choose you? Why should they?

 

customer service equals solving problems

We all know that customer service – whether the customers are external or internal – is crucial. But stating that raises an important question: “What, exactly, is customer service?”

The answer is: “Solving the customer’s problems.” That’s it. And we tend to forget that. Then we focus on creating structures and processes to provide “customer service” and forget the reason behind the structures and processes. Companies with great customer service invariably have strong processes, but processes alone ensure nothing.

Solving problems is more than structures and processes. In fact, great customer service is hard. It requires thinking. It requires being creative. It requires really understanding the customer’s needs. It might even mean sending the customer to (gasp!) a competitor. But here’s what the customer remembers: you solved their problem. Or: you didn’t solve their problem. Or: you prevented them from solving their problem.

I was once trying to return home from a business trip in Europe. A flight attendants’ strike in Berlin delayed my flight from Spain to Frankfurt enough to cause me to miss my connecting flight back to the States. The flight from Spain was on a small, economy carrier and Frankfurt to home was on Lufthansa. Even though it was not Lufthansa’s fault, they VOLUNTARILY (I did not have to ask) booked me on the first flight out the next day, paid for a hotel room, and gave me meal vouchers for my dinner. Maybe they did that for everyone because of the strike, maybe it was because I was flying Business Class – maybe I don’t really care. They solved a big problem without me asking. Any guesses which airline is my absolute favorite?

Here’s the example that sparked this posting. I recently broke some important parts off my mountain bike. When I went in to the local bike shop I was told that the part I needed was backorded for at least a month. Their tone and expression suggested that the “month” was going to be a lot longer than 30 days. They said they could order the part and let me know when it came in or I could try eBay. Not wanting to wait, I scoured eBay, even resorting to looking at eBay pages in Europe (international shipping can’t be that much extra, right?). A friend who currently lives 2000 miles away and runs a small bike shop offered to help. He contacted some folks at the manufacturer and found they had the part I needed still attached to a frame that had been sent back on warranty. Two days later the part is in his hand. Could my local bike shop have done that? Absolutely! Did they? Nope. They probably thought they had provided good customer service by being honest, offering to order the part, and suggesting other solutions. Truly, it was better than most shops, but they failed to solve my problem when another solved it easily.

This struck a huge chord with me from an HR perspective. How often does HR offer the bare minimum of service (“Read the employee handbook.”)? How often do we stop at the policy or just shrug shoulders and say, “Sorry, we can’t do that.”? How often do we forget that our customers are looking to us for help and guidance? How often do we treat our internal customers – the managers and employees – like actual customers who have a choice in whether they spend money with us? (By the way, they do have a choice. It’s called outsourcing. If HR isn’t providing real value by solving problems, it deserves to be disbanded and hired out to a vendor.)

So what are some of the basic tenants that make a person stand out as providing excellent customer service? Here are some thoughts in no particular order. These aren’t customer service secrets, just some observations from over the years:

  • Set and manage their expectations. When can they expect an answer, when will you follow up, what is the process, what can they expect, etc.
  • Do what you say you are going to do.
  • Take time to really understand the problem the customer is trying to solve. They may be asking for one solution when, if you had better understanding, you could easily offer a better solution.
  • Let them know if you can’t do it AND then explain what you can do to solve their problem.
  • Suggest alternative solutions AND provide the pros and cons of each. You don’t always have to have the one right solution, just provide them with the information they need to decide on a solution.
  • Great customer service does not necessarily mean doing things for free. Sometimes you can through extra service or product in for little or no cost to you. However, if they ask for something beyond what you normally provide and this will create costs, the appropriate response is: “You bet we can do that, it will just add $X and Y time to the process.” Then let them decide if it’s worth it. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. Either way you are helping them solve the problem in a way that best fits their needs.
  • Communication regularly during the process. Even if it’s only to say that you have nothing new to report. People can deal with waiting much better if they know you haven’t forgotten about them and understand the general timelines.
  • In fact, go above and beyond all the time (hunt that part down!) AND let the customer know what you’ve done for them. Not in a martyr-ish whiny way, but so they know how hard you’re kicking butt on their behalf. I’ve known so many people who go way beyond and then get resentful when the other person didn’t appreciate it – even though the other person had no way of knowing about all the extra effort. I guess they “should have known.”
  • Respect people’s time. Treat their time like it’s precious and you’re practically guaranteed to be providing great customer service. Treat their time casually or disregard it and they are practically guaranteed to resent you no matter what else you do.
  • People remember how you treat them. Even when they don’t like the outcome, your behavior sets the stage for their response. Grant them the understanding, compassion, and humility that you’d want if you were in their shoes.

Actually, I’ve probably overcomplicated it. Maybe it’s as simple as: help them solve their problem and treat them the way you’d want to be treated while you do .

why HR rocks

I can be quite critical of HR, but it’s only because I really like HR. I see what it can be and get frustrated when it’s not. HR on a good day contributes heavily to great business, to competitive advantage, to a workplace where people can perform at their best. HR is not why the company exists, but it enables the company to do what it does best. Good HR moves things forward; bad HR gets in the way.

I have a personal mission to help people be at their best – that’s why I’m in HR. But why should you be in HR? Why should anyone choose HR as a career? Hmmmm, good question. Some thoughts:

If you have both people and business skills you can be a superstar. HR needs people who can understand, translate, and communicate between the impersonal numbers side of business and the intensely personal human side. Even the coldest, sterilest, most numbers driven work gets done through humans with all their squishy, emotional, irrationality. Understand and communicate to both and you’re a hero.

Influence the entire organization. HR plays a large role in developing the culture (and is also a reflection of the culture that’s been created). It’s pretty cool to help shape a company.

Know what’s going on. IF (big if) you can keep your mouth shut and keep things confidential, you will learn far more than you ever wanted to know about your co-workers and all the scandals kept on the downlow.

Get a big picture view. Even if you don’t want to stay in HR forever, a couple of years will give you a very big picture view of how the organization fits together, who does what, how information flows, and who the real power players are. That’s invaluable info for any rising leader.

Gain exposure. HR is one of the few departments that actively interacts with leaders in every other area. Even the admins in HR have more exposure to leadership than the high potentials in more isolated areas. The exposure and networking can be a huge advantage (just avoid making enemies).

Food. There is always food in HR. My six year old son told me that he wanted a job just like mine.  In moments like this I’ve learned to ask “why?” before getting all misty eyed. He said, “Because you always get to have cake.”

Party central. HR often bristles at the idea of being the ones who have to organize the company picnics and Christmas parties. Yes, if that’s all you’re being asked to do by senior leadership then you’re in a very marginal HR department. However, HR really is in position and generally has the people skills to throw great parties. What better way to reach people and influence the culture? If the HR department is already supporting competitive advantage and helping the business kick capitalist booty why not lead the charge to celebrate it? (Do you really want accounting heading up the next party?)

Helping others. Everything else aside, it’s pretty cool to be in a position to help others. People tend to come to HR when their lives are at their best and worst moments and without getting all clichéd and sappy, it is a tremendous privilege to be able to celebrate with them or help them with their transition.

HR isn’t always fun, but it’s a place I enjoy. That’s why I want it to be the field I know it can be.

human resources’ top goal?

From time to time I see HR folks insisting that the primary purpose of Human Resources is to keep the company from being sued. This philosophy is at the very core of everything I find wrong with HR.

Yes, HR can play a huge role in preventing or mitigating employment lawsuits. This is an important result of HR, but the top goal? Prevent lawsuits vs. select and train really great people? Prevent lawsuits vs. creating an environment where people actually want to be there? Prevent lawsuits vs. helping managers be the best leaders they can be? It really seems to be putting the cart before the horse. After all, a company can get sued if it mismanages its money but no one ever says that the number one goal of the finance department is to prevent lawsuits. You can get sued for being abusive to customers or false advertising, but I’ve never heard anyone suggest that the primary purpose of customer service and marketing are to prevent lawsuits.

Want to know the #1 way to ensure that HR is never involved in any strategic level conversations? Want to guarantee that your company culture is rife with fear and managers don’t manage? Want to be stuck in the glorious tar pit of HR as bureaucracy? Spend all your time focused on not getting sued.

In the perfect little world in my head, HR’s #1 goal is to help the company perform at its best. Minimizing lawsuits is a by product of doing things right; it’s a means to an end but not the end itself. The best processes and practices will help the company perform in a way that comply with all the laws and regulations. However, “not getting sued” as an end goal will never, ever create high performance. It’s like a runner training for a marathon with the #1 goal of not getting injured. Sure, they don’t want to get injured, but the best way to not get injured is to not train. After all, you can’t pull a muscle sitting on the couch. But that doesn’t work because their #1 goal is to perform at their best on race day. Not getting hurt is a part of that, but it’s obviously not the focus. Instead, the runner knows that with good planning, preparation, and execution of a training program they will minimize their chances of getting injured while maximizing the chances of high performance.

It’s an idea worth repeating: HR’s #1 goal is to help the company perform at its best.  And if you do it well, you automatically reduce the chance of getting sued. But that’s an outcome of doing things right not the other way around. For example, adhering to all the anti-discrimination laws does not ensure that you hire great people. But when you are focused on hiring the best people you will naturally seek diverse talent pools because you don’t want to exclude the best talent because of arbitrary bias.

Can we move HR out of the dark ages now? Instead of operating out of continual fear of lawsuit, let’s create high performing companies by helping people be at their best.

shrinking comfort zones: the quick path to nowhere

Your comfort zones are either expanding or shrinking – there isn’t any middle ground. Either you’re stepping across the line, challenging yourself, moving a bit into the unknown and pushing back the boundaries OR you’re backing away from the line. Each time you step back so that you can stay with the familiar and comfortable, the line draws in, so you have to step back again, and again it shrinks.

The world it is a changin’ (duh!). Jobs are moving off shore or going away or radically evolving. A sure ticket to failure is to stand still, refuse to change and insist (insist!) that the world not change either. Problem is, the world’s changing whether we like it or not. The jobs of tomorrow are not going to look like the jobs of today. Want to stay employed? Stay relevant. Challenge yourself. Learn. Grow. Push your boundaries. Take on challenges you wouldn’t normally take on.

The more we try to stay safe by not changing, the more at risk we are of being completely behind. My prediction is that anyone who isn’t focused on improving and developing new skills each and every year will soon be either underemployed or unemployed. BUT, I’m not necessarily referring to technology. Technology facilitates a lot of changes, but is becoming more and more user friendly (anyone remember punch cards?).

The biggest growth potential that I see needed is in change, communication, and relationship development. As an HR pro or manager or employee, can you have the tough conversations you need to have? Can you hold people accountable? Can you influence people who don’t report to you? Can you use technology to enhance your communication instead of complicating it? Can you develop the trust and relationships that will enable you to get twice as much done with half the angst? Or do you leave it up to other people who are “better at it.”?

You’re either moving forward or falling behind in direct relationship to the rate you are pushing your comfort zone. Avoiding the difficult or unpleasant parts of the job – often the parts that involve other people – is a fast track to irrelevance.