HRevolution

In The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions Thomas Kuhn wrote about how theories and paradigms change. His point was that science doesn't gradually evolve toward truth, but that it undergoes periodic revolutions - paradigm shifts. Revolutions occur when the predominant theory is replaced by a one which explains things better. Interestingly, the change isn't smooth. The old theory doesn't retire - it gets shredded - then its replaced by a new one. The point is, there's an active component. Sometimes the old theory is retired through the inevitable death of it's proponents. They may never be convinced to of the veracity of the new one, but they do eventually die.

Applying this model to HR, there has been plenty of evolution, whether it be evolving new practices to conform to new laws or buying new software to deal with labor shortages, but everything is incremental. There hasn't been a revolution since the industrial age. I'm not convinced we have a prevailing theory today, but the incremental change isn't accomplishing much. We need a "school of thought". I don't care where it comes from - academia would be fine - but I hope it comes soon. In the meantime we need to tear up the existing structure. I'll do my part. Generations X and Y probably won't require much convincing when a new theory is proposed. They'll just hold out a little longer till the old guard dies off.

When a company states that human capital is their top priority perhaps we should take them at their word. I know that sounds silly when the cynical view prevails but its naive for us to think it as their only priority and, they probably have all kinds of short term issues as well. It's completely possible that the combination of putting out fires and not knowing what to do about HC simply crowds out the issue.

So, if addressing human capital is not the top priority on any given day, then what's lacking is an appropriate long term effort to redesign our approach it. It's a topic, to be sure. But when you examine who is trying to solve it you see a myriad of entrepreneurial wizards offering products from the fringes. These same innovators try to sell their creations upstream to a mainstream audience of slow (that's S-L-O-W) adopters who seem aware of the problems they face but not how to treat them. This is the state of human capital redesign today. For a top 5 issue in companies today, it is not enough.

Within the world of HR who do we look to? SHRM? Get serious. If ever there was an organization built for inbreeding this is it. SHRM is designed for networking and chatting up 'Best Practices'. It's a club for people with common interests. It makes money, has good membership and strong brand identity but lends no discernible contribution to the human capital paradigm. It is pro-industry, but doesn't move it. There are limitations on enterprises that aren't institutions - they need to make money - and there are no established Human Capital institutions. (Apologies to the Human Capital Institute - the right idea, but much smaller than needed and not an HR institution today).

Its not about having an institution, but a school of thought. We need a point of view - a philosophy of, or a paradigm of how best to employ human capital. What we have today is an aggregation of rules and habits that get mucked up with every new labor law. We seek out best practices just to figure out how to comply with laws instead of making real progress. Other lines of business have schools of thought - finance and accounting, sales and marketing - we just have 'human resources'. Its a collection of stuff, not a discipline, not a point of view. We have no school of thought. This is what the field needs. Business isn't coming up with anything (not today's top priority) and the lack of HC institutions hasn't helped. Perhaps we'll see the birth of a new academic area - human capital science?

Much of what happens in human capital today is a response to external pressures. Many best practices are little more than an efficient way to respond to some change in labor law. We don't come up with these ahead of the time, but react to the change. Overall, the human capital arena wouldn't have as much attention if labor were plentiful. So, since the early '90s when it became hard to find good people, the economic pressures brought on by labor shortage has been a hot topic. With the onset of ASP technology, automated tools have sprung up. We have been reacting to technological advances since then. [On a side note, it's a shame the tool of choice became the ATS. An ATS is an automated filing cabinet. You can't solve material shortages with filing cabinets. You need more material. For those who would argue, next time you're hungry go buy a refrigerator. Tell me how it satisfies your appetite.]

Increased attention to the labor shortage is a straightforward economic response. More attention is paid to the shortage. Substitutes in the form of outsourcing and automation are increasing. But the economic reaction is just that, a reaction. The urge to redesign human capital energy is not there because it's worth doing but because it needs doing. If it can be deferred or delayed in any way it will be. And that's where we are. Since there are problems with greater short term urgency they get solved first. For those companies who believe their number one issue is human capital, I wonder what they're doing to solve it? Not treat it, but solve it. Our reactions to external pressures tends to result in adjustments, not solutions. While we approach our work this way we are unlikely to solve anything long term. We're just corporate ants following the bread crumbs wherever they may be. I don't know about you, but I aspire to more.

As much as I enjoy reading blogs I can't say I enjoy writing as much. Still, the idea that we have an outlet which allows us to express ourselves is just too grand to pass up.

Much of what's posted here is about the shortcomings of HR. I believe the profession has incredible potential but lacks the ability or desire to take advantage of the opportunities before us. For example, the focus on 'Best Practices' as an end instead of the means to an end. Or the new emphasis on metrics - which still isn't getting to the effectiveness of work. While I believe there is great potential my experience is that progress is slow. I see a schism between the rhetoric and the action. On one hand we hear of people suggesting HR should make the key difference in how human capital performs. On the other hand I see hardworking professionals mired in a bureaucratic practice, but no connection to the bottom line.

This is a problem. Everyone says so - yet it must not be a very urgent one. If it were, we might see some efforts to solve it. We might hear of ground breaking work connecting employee efforts to compensation, or some other creative initiatives. Instead, we hear about it in the abstract sense. It's not a real dilemma. Perhaps it's the second or third largest issue in organizations with more pressing matters - slow sales, problems with quality, or political dramas played out between shareholders and executives. Maybe it's a long-term problem so we have plenty of time to figure it out. Or, perhaps we're waiting for leadership to have a brainstorm and solve it for us.

Whatever the case may be, there is plenty of discussion but little attention given to the energizing of human capital on a large scale. It's all just talk. We need a little more action.