Saturday, February 19, 2005
Don't Go Changin'...
A lengthy debate over evolution vs. revolution isn’t really important. Because if you remove time from the equation you get the same thing: change. What does matter is whether change is initiated from within, or imposed on you.
In HR, we change you. We have lots of rules for you to learn. We can teach you how to avoid sexual harassment and treat everyone equally. We can tell you how to conduct interviews, performance reviews, or how to put in for a transfer. And we have forms – lots of forms – for you to fill out. We are ‘forms’ people. Basically, we’re good at imposing change on other departments. You don’t change us; we change you. Oh, and we don’t change ourselves either. That’s the neat part. We can get by with a little ‘process re-engineering’ - automate something, or conduct another seminar and throw around some buzzwords. That makes it seem like we’re doing something - and it works! The secret is that we’re not really accountable. We seem to be, because we always look really busy. You can’t be a bureaucrat if you don’t know how to look busy. See, its hard to hold someone accountable when you can’t measure their performance. (We talk about this in our performance management seminars). But, we’re good at looking busy, and we can always hint that we’re meeting with someone important in a few minutes. Of course, its confidential. But, a combination of looking busy and hobnobbing with the big execs is hard to argue with. Clearly, we’re doing something here.
OK. So, process re-engineering isn’t so bad, is it? That depends. For the most part, our re-engineering movement has become synonymous with our automation movement. Take the same processes, add automation, and stir. The results are more automation but few changes in process. Sadly, many of these processes were created under different circumstances (like an abundant labor supply) and a bad process – automated or not – is still a bad process.
Change is directional, active, and can be a stimulus or a response. HR pushes change outward, but merely reacts to outside forces. There seems little appetite for changing from within. The entire field responds to some change in law, a new technology, or some demand for measurement. But there is no ongoing renewal originating from within the profession. This lack of self-examination is pervasive, and, coming from a group espousing proactivity, it is an extreme hypocrisy. It is the most damning characteristic of HR today. The drive for change continues to come from outside HR, from the courts, from new technologies, from executives, and from shareholders.
What is needed is a fundamental questioning of why we are here, and what values we can add - by virtue of positioning or ability – and re-prioritize our goals. Only then can we ‘re-engineer’ processes that fit our new realities.
In HR, we change you. We have lots of rules for you to learn. We can teach you how to avoid sexual harassment and treat everyone equally. We can tell you how to conduct interviews, performance reviews, or how to put in for a transfer. And we have forms – lots of forms – for you to fill out. We are ‘forms’ people. Basically, we’re good at imposing change on other departments. You don’t change us; we change you. Oh, and we don’t change ourselves either. That’s the neat part. We can get by with a little ‘process re-engineering’ - automate something, or conduct another seminar and throw around some buzzwords. That makes it seem like we’re doing something - and it works! The secret is that we’re not really accountable. We seem to be, because we always look really busy. You can’t be a bureaucrat if you don’t know how to look busy. See, its hard to hold someone accountable when you can’t measure their performance. (We talk about this in our performance management seminars). But, we’re good at looking busy, and we can always hint that we’re meeting with someone important in a few minutes. Of course, its confidential. But, a combination of looking busy and hobnobbing with the big execs is hard to argue with. Clearly, we’re doing something here.
OK. So, process re-engineering isn’t so bad, is it? That depends. For the most part, our re-engineering movement has become synonymous with our automation movement. Take the same processes, add automation, and stir. The results are more automation but few changes in process. Sadly, many of these processes were created under different circumstances (like an abundant labor supply) and a bad process – automated or not – is still a bad process.
Change is directional, active, and can be a stimulus or a response. HR pushes change outward, but merely reacts to outside forces. There seems little appetite for changing from within. The entire field responds to some change in law, a new technology, or some demand for measurement. But there is no ongoing renewal originating from within the profession. This lack of self-examination is pervasive, and, coming from a group espousing proactivity, it is an extreme hypocrisy. It is the most damning characteristic of HR today. The drive for change continues to come from outside HR, from the courts, from new technologies, from executives, and from shareholders.
What is needed is a fundamental questioning of why we are here, and what values we can add - by virtue of positioning or ability – and re-prioritize our goals. Only then can we ‘re-engineer’ processes that fit our new realities.
