Can you handle the truth?

Jason-

Really, really good post. I think this is an issue at the root of many challenges that organizations and leaders face.

You posed two questions for me...

1.) Does my experience align with yours regarding the desire of most folks to avoid conflict (even at great cost)?

Yes. Emphatically yes. In some of the workshops that I do inside of organizations we spend time considering the culture...we actually examine specific aspects of the organizations culture, assign them a grade and then talk about opportunities for improvement. People seem to enjoy doing this and have no problem identifying specific things that the organization or senior leaders can do better. Then we move on to talk about individual opportunities to contribute to a better organizational culture and the entire conversation dries up. I start to hear things like:

"You just dont rock the boat around here...if you do there will be blowback."
"Change starts at the top, how am I going to make something happen."
"I just do my job and keep my head down."

I do not know if real change ever starts at the top, but there are a whole host of reasons that people have (regardless of their title) about why the environment is not quite right for them to speak out or to take some ownership for organizational culture.

2.) What must we do to solve this problem?

Probably several answers to this question, depending on who "we" is. But I think that the big answer is that we must strive to build organizational culture and organizational leadership that values and rewards personal courage and risk taking. This is a really big shift, as we currently have a way of leadership that defaults to defense of the hierarchy and the status quo. This always compromises truth...which compromises everything else.

You probably have some additional and more specific answers relevant to your role inside the machine. I think that I have to be very intentional about holding myself accountable on this issue, because as an external consultant I can fall into the same trap of focusing on what others want to hear rather than the whole truth. I have gotten much better at having candid (and often times very difficult) conversations with organizational leaders about my observations, but I know that when I first began work as a consultant I did not do a very good job of this.

Again, I think you have touched on a really important topic here and I would love to hear a bit more from your perspective about solutions...are there things that you do to develop the comfort and skill in your direct reports for handling conflict?
-joe

Crowd, Part 4

Jason-

Well, I am back from a bit of a vacation and thought that I would throw out a couple more questions regarding applying the principles of crowdsourcing to the large and complex body of work we refer to as Human Resources.

1.) It seems to me that implementing crowdsourcing (and other tools, including Web 2.0 stuff) requires HR to move to more of a solution orientation than a process orientation. Do you agree with that and if so, how does that move happen?

2.) Should we be concerned that things like crowdsourcing (and open systems, and appreciative inquiry) are not being born out of HR work? Shouldn't the people charged with tapping into our "human resources" be doing more experimenting and producing more innovation in how we do that?

3.) The word on the street is that you are riding part of RAGBRAI this year. Is that true and are you ready?

It's About the Crowd, Stupid - part 3

Jason-

So, I think we are doing quite a lot of agreeing and maybe a bit of disagreeing on this topic. We clearly both believe that there are some ways in which HR needs to evolve and we both believe that crowdsourcing could potentially be a powerful part of that. But of course, I will try to examine the disagreement...

You mentioned the importance of process, software and compliance as being critical to HR. I think that, paradoxically, these tools are what is killing HR right now. A process is a tool, not a body of work and I think that HR has lost sight of that. A hammer can be used to build a home or it can be used to inflict great physical violence on another human being. It is of little real value to spend a great deal of time, energy and attention making sure that you have the absolute best hammer if you have not gotten clear on what you are using it for and what your role is. This to me is one of the disconnects facing HR and it is one of the things standing in the way of truly utilizing an approach like crowdsourcing.

The employee referral programs you mention is a perfect example. I think that nearly every one of the 19,284 companies I have been employed by in my lifetime have had an employee referral program. I cannot think of a single one that was actually very serious about it. Despite the fact that hires generated by employee referrals have a greater ROI than those that come from other sources, most companies do not appear to make a serious commitment to referral programs. To me this is just one example of a profession that prioritizes process over people. I think that many HR professionals and leaders in their heart of hearts believe that they can find better applicants through their tools, than "the crowd" can. I think that HR has come to worship their own processes, policies, language, paradigms and especially their software to the extent that it is not easy for them to have a lot of real faith in "the crowd."

Too much of the conversation is about using HR tools to keep "the crowd" in line and content. You cannot ever make a real effort to employ crowdsourcing if you do not believe in the raw ability of the crowd to deliver answers and create value. I think that many in HR have come to believe that the crowd is the source of problems, not the source of solutions.

Process is important. Software is important. Tools are important. But they are only valuable to the overall business if they are being applied within the appropriate philosophical context. I would say that context is part of what needs to change and I would say that changing that is a much bigger job than implementing some new process or changing software.

-joe

It's about the crowd, stupid.

Jason-

I personally cannot participate in another conversation regarding "a seat at the table" without putting a fork in my eye, but I do want to say this...

I think that the work of Human Resources needs to change...a lot. Not because other people at home in their pajamas, typing on their computers say so, but because how value is created has changed and how we do work and organize resources needs to change.

I apparently know very little about Human Resources because everyone else it seems is talking about processes and software and compliance and I care very little about any of that. I care about our ability to fully realize the potential of the "human resources" we bring into our organizations. If there is software that does that, kick ass, everyone should go buy some immediately.

If not...those of us that work in and around the discipline of Human Resources should be relentlessly rubbing our brains together to do a better job of setting talent free...of getting more value out of the intellectual, aspirational, experiential and relational capital that exists in our workforce. I truly believe that we are literally drowning in un-utilized and under-utilized "human resources."

Crowdsourcing may very well be part of the solution. Crowdsourcing (much like Web 2.0) is being talked about by a lot of, lot of, lot of, lot of people right now, and we do not want to confuse popularity for value, but (also like Web 2.) crowdsourcing appears to be potentially very valuable to Human Resource work...because it is about people.

Crowdsourcing (like Web 2.0) means slightly different things to different people and is still being defined and framed. Wikipedia says this:

Crowdsourcing is a distributed problem-solving and production model. Problems are broadcast to an unknown group of solvers in the form of an open call for solutions. Users--also known as the crowd--typically form into online communities, and the crowd submits solutions. The crowd also sorts through the solutions, finding the best ones. These best solutions are then owned by the entity that broadcast the problem in the first place--the crowdsourcer--and the winning individuals in the crowd are sometimes rewarded. In some cases, this labor is well compensated, either monetarily, with prizes, or with recognition.

Procter and Gamble, Threadless and Innocentive are often pointed to as examples of how and why crowdsourcing works...but these and most other examples out there are using crowdsourcing in marketing, and research and development.

I believe that Human Resource professionals can champion crowdsourcing within their organization to be used in marketing and R&D efforts for starters. But the pressing issue for us is, this... is crowdsourcing something that we can and will apply to Human Resources work. Can we use it for:

• identifying and attracting talent
• increasing innovation
• increasing employee engagement
• improving organizational culture
  
• reducing bad turnover
• professional and career development
• employee wellness and balance
• feedback and evaluation
• strategic planning
• development of compensation and benefit plans
• change management
• policy review
  

I think it offers a great deal of potential for many of these areas, but there is some conversation to be had about the "how." I think this is an issue that we can spend some time exploring, and I am interested to hear what you (and others) might have to say.

-joe