HRevolution

In HR we run into situations where we feel we have to balance the needs of the organization and the individual. In fact, this is an unnecessary conflict. It is a by-product of our existing structures. Avoiding such conflicts is considered a matter of aligning individuals with organizations, and that’s a good start. But people and organizations change and when alignment is off we fire the people. In the end, we're forced to choose and organizations win.

What’s missing is the realization that people want to be used more effectively. They want to be challenged, and want to be engaged. Companies want them to be engaged too, and go to great lengths to define what it is they want us engaged in. But there is no conflict between an individual wanting to be challenged and a company’s desire to increase productivity. They are the same animal, seen from different sides.

While we see clarity in defining skills and tasks relevant to each job, we don’t attempt to quantify the totality of skills a person brings to an organization (and might like to use). We don’t examine that talent set and ask how it might be deployed beyond a narrow job description. Defining an appropriate challenge for anyone would seemingly necessitate an examination of their abilities, but we parse out the skills relevant to specific tasks only. Then we ask them to repeat their behaviours until they become disengaged, quit, or get fired. But it begins by ignoring that untapped human capital that isn’t considered relevent to the job at hand. Its very short-sighted, and not being addressed at all. Instead, we’re automating performance management systems using the very same methodology and hoping we get a different result. Good luck with that.