Category Archives: HR

The role of Human Resources departments

by Robert Bacal

Some human resources (HR) departments (sometimes called personnel or a current new name) really add value to a company. Some don’t. That’s no surprise. But what sets apart the good ones from the bad ones? Here’s one way of looking at it.

Some human resource departments have maintained an old command and control mentality, where they see their jobs as making sure managers and employees are doing what they are supposed to. Is everyone on time? Why not? What about sick leave? Are all the rules being followed? It’s not that these departments are misguided, because some rules, (e.g.. hiring practices, safety, harassment, etc.) ARE important and need to be handled centrally by a company. Or, certain programs and procedures may best be handled by a central department because of the need to coordinate some actions across the entire company. Problems arise, however, when the HR departments forgets that it’s purpose is to serve the needs of the company, the managers and the employees, to help THEM get the work done.

After all, is your company’s human resources department a PROFIT CENTER? Of course not. The HR department doesn’t produce anything or sell anything but it can help the rest of the company make things or sell things by smoothing the path on some matters.

What sets apart good HR departments from bad is that the bad ones lose their service orientation, and forget that if they don’t help others get their jobs done, they won’t get cooperation from those they should be helping. The good ones recognize that while they are obligated to do some regulation of some processes, that they can play important leadership roles in the organization. And that does NOT mean dictating but balancing off the needs of the organization with the needs of the managers and employees.

What would this look like? Let’s take an example: performance appraisal. Poor HR departments go about performance appraisal this way. They devise a set of rules and forms on their own, then go forth (if they have executive support) and TELL managers and employees what they SHALL do. They tend not to consult, or if they consult just forget to listen to the people who have to use these sometimes monstrous procedures. What happens is that since HR tends to be somewhat distant from the users of the system, the process misses. Managers and employees see the process as another hoop to jump through, and stall, or avoid doing what they are supposed to. What happens is that HR then has to move into the police or enforcer role, to try to coerce managers to do what they are supposed to. That gets everyone frustrated and drives wedges between HR and the rest of the company.

The good HR department goes about it differently. While they recognize that performance appraisal needs to be, in some respects, a central organization process, they also recognize that if the process isn’t responsive to at least some needs of managers and employees, it will never succeed. So rather than dictating the procedures, forms and minutiae, the smart HR folks create (in consultation with both managers and employees), a skeleton outline of the process. This skeleton outlines the basic components, but leave the details to the managers. So rather than telling managers they much use the twelve page form provided, they simply say that managers must document the performance discussions, and forward them to HR at least annually. See the difference? The shift here is from dictating details to providing a framework and helping people work within that general framework. It’s a SUPPORTING function, and not a lead actor.

Everyone benefits (including the HR staff) by backing off and recognizing that one can both support and lead at the same time without dictating. The bottom line is that the more HR dictates and plays enforcer, the less managers and staff feel they need to take responsibility for the functions HR is dictating. The more dictation the more resistance from the rest of the company.

So, HR folks. Look to providing frameworks, rather than details. Look to serve rather than to command.

This article was published on Work911.com

Improving communication by eliminating insinuation

by Robert Bacal

Consider this. Maria, head of her department, has a concern about the dedication of one or two of her staff members. Maria learned somewhere that it’s not good to embarrass anybody in public, so at the next staff meeting, she says: “I have some concerns about some people in our department who seem uncommitted and unwilling to go the extra mile. I want it clear that we need maximum effort from everyone.” And, she leaves it at that. Is this a good way to approach the issue?

Well, it certainly doesn’t single out anyone, hence avoiding public embarrassment. But how do you think staff will react? First, each and every person in the room will wonder if they’ve somehow offended the boss. That’s ALWAYS the first reaction to what we call “insinuation”.

The next reaction is: “Oh, right, Maria must be talking about Jethro (or some other co-worker.” Perhaps more serious is the effect this type of communication has on trust. Because of the lack of clarity and ambiguity, it wouldn’t be surprising if staff began to doubt the boss’s honesty or straightforwardness.

Insinuation isn’t used only by managers. Many people use it rarely. Some people use it often. Each use of insinuation increases distrust, damages the work environment and has the potential to trigger very destructive conflict.

So, what’s insinuation? Insinuation refers to a statement that is ambiguous, vaguely put, and generally negative. The nature of insinuation is that it is deniable, and that’s one reason why people use it. It avoid addressing issues straight up and directly, and therein lies its destructiveness. The use of insinuation pushes solutions much farther away because it disguises the issue, and creates additional mistrust.

Here’s another example. Over coffee Mark is talking to Fred, one of his co-workers. Mark says: “I don’t want to name names but it’s pretty obvious that someone around here isn’t interested in anything but his own job.” Can anything good come from this? I doubt it. It isn’t meant to SOLVE the problem. It isn’t being discussed with the right person (who would obviously be the person that remains unnamed). It’s just sneaky, deniable back-stabbing.

So, What Can I Do?

First, if you have something to say don’t cloak it in vagueness or insinuation. Realize that such remarks won’t get anything solved, and are liable to make things worse for everyone, including you.

Second, take some responsibility. If you have a concern, then have the courage to take it up with the person in question, in private, and try to work it out. Don’t snipe from afar. If private conversations fail, then it may be appropriate to bring it up in a more public setting, but present it in the spirit of solving a problem, and make sure you take responsibility for your comments and opinions.

Third, understand that people use insinuation when they feel uncomfortable with expressing their anger or frustration, but can’t discipline themselves to keep their mouths shut. Or, perhaps their frustration levels are so high, they aren’t thinking clearly. If you are tempted to insinuate, ask yourself this question: “Am I saying this in the spirit of trying to solve a problem, or am I saying this because of some selfish motive or because I’m too uncomfortable to approach this constructively? If it’s the latter, don’t say it.

Finally, keep in mind that every time you use insinuation you will be seen as less courageous, more manipulative and less trustworthy by the majority of people who hear you. This applies even for people who might “congratulate you” on your insinuation, for they, too will realize that your next target might be them.

Robert Bacal is a noted author, keynote speaker, and management consultant. The above posting was first published on Work911 Supersite, which contains many more free articles and tips on a number of workplace topics. Access it at www.work911.com.

A Performance Management Bias and Error Glossary

by Robert Bacal

 

Performance appraisals are always sticky for everyone. While managers make an effort to be as objective as possible, there are always concerns about specific performance appraisals, and their accuracy. If you are going to evaluate your staff, then it is wise to be aware of factors that may affect your assessments. In this short article we outline a few factors you should be aware of, so that you can examine your own assessment processes to ensure that they are as free from bias as possible.

Halo Effect

The halo effect is the tendency to rate someone high or low in all categories because he or she is high or low in one or two areas. Results in appraisals that do not help develop employees, because they are two general or inaccurate as to specifics. Evaluating someone lower is sometimes also called the “devil effect”.

Standards of Evaluation

If you are using categories such as fair, good, excellent, etc, be aware that the meanings of these words will differ from person to person. In any event, the use of these categories is not recommended because they do not provide sufficient information to help employees develop.

Central Tendency

The habit of assessing almost everyone as average. A person applying this bias will tend not to rate anyone very high or very low.

Recency Bias

Tendency to assess people based on most recent behaviour and ignoring behaviour that is “older”.

Leniency Bias

Tendency to rate higher than is warranted, usually accompanied by some rationalization as to why this is appropriate.

 Opportunity Bias

Ignoring the notion that opportunity (factors beyond the control of the employee) may either restrict or facilitate performance, and assigning credit or blame to the employee when the true cause of the performance was opportunity.

False Attribution Errors

We have a tendency to attribute success or failure to individual effort and ability (at least in North America). So when someone does well, we give them credit, and when someone does less well, we suggest it’s somehow their fault. While there is some truth in this, the reality is that performance is a function of both the individual and the system he or she works in. Often we misattribute success and failure and assume they are both under the complete control of the employee. If we do, we will never improve performance.

Robert Bacal is a noted author, keynote speaker, and management consultant. His most recent books include Performance Management – A Briefcase Book, and The Complete Idiot’s Guide To Dealing With Difficult Employees. The Work911 Supersite contains many more free articles and tips on a number of workplace topics. Access it at www.work911.com.