HRevolution

Sumser has been writing on relationships and referrals this week. This morning he references a piece from Jeff Hunter paraphrasing: “The existence of relationships is replacing the meaning of relationships.”

This is a great insight. And it certainly seems true. Especially where business reasons are driving relationships - like referral networks.

So, why do I want to cringe?

First, because relationships are important. As recruiters, developing relationships is our stock in trade. And, on a fundamental level, we are social beings. Our biological and social needs for relationships precede our business needs. It is the business needs that commoditize relationships. As social beings we seek emotional support in relationships; and turning them into commodities feels unnatural. To put it another way, we lose intimacy. And replacing intimate relationships with casual ones leaves us unfulfilled.

Second, because trust (a subset of intimacy) is important. This is what breaks down within 3 degrees of separation. This limits the commoditization of relationships. Relationships are not transferrable. There is some limit to how much commoditization can occur. This is also a limitation of automated referral tools.

Last, as recruiters, we establish relationships for a living. It is this skill more than any other that we bring to the table and build upon. So when the importance of quantity outstrips quality in our relationships, we feel like we're prostituting our emotional skills for the company. And that’s not worth it.

I've been reading with fascination about the labor issues in France. It appears that, despite low population growth they have a different talent war. Instead of dealing with shortages, as we are, their talent is at war with the government. I feel like I'm watching a car accident - I don't want to stare but can't look away.

Here's the deal - in response to a recent law which would make it easier to fire workers under 26, French workers are throwing a fit. The law is aimed at increasing employment among young people by lowering the obstacles to firing them if they don't work out. There is chronic unemployment among this group. But the French workforce sees this as an assault on their right to lifetime employment, characterizing any situation with the potential for job loss as precarious. (Are French workers so lame that without protection they would be fired en masse?) The protests imply such fear among workers that you have to wonder about their culture. We've become accustomed to the lack of loyalty between companies and employees. We have learned that moving from one employer to another can have an upside. Indeed, most of us seek upward mobility on some level; and we know there is always some risk. Perhaps, as a generation, we've always been aware of employment risks. Perhaps we have less fear because our economy continues to grow - or perhaps it grows due to freedom of movement among workers.

I do know this, when you stay in a job too long it becomes dull. Productivity declines (even if our capacity grows). We've all been there. We know what uninspired production creates: mediocrity. When you place widespread mediocrity in the context of an entire workforce, you doom your local economy to mediocrity. This cultural difference, opting for safety and mediocrity over risk with an upside, has Darwinian implications in the larger economy. In casting their vote, French talent has declared war on raising expectations. A victory wins the right for every citizen to live a quiet life of desperation. Meanwhile the global economy steadily pulls away, and a proud nation matters less and less in the world.

So, I'm differentiating between managing talent from managing people or tasks. Here's the rub. A hands-on approach to inventorying talent, individually or by groups, is the kind of thing HR should be good at - it's comparable to skills analyses. But, it would be a creative move, and HR doesn't do creative. After all, how many new ideas come out of HR? So the likelihood is low, unless the next "Great Company" (tomorrow's Google) does it, then others copy. Or a vendor builds a module into a product and the right company happens to try it...

The irony is, when executives credit their people as their greatest assets, they are serious. It's just silly that we don't try to measure the value our "greatest" assets. We do it for the lesser assets (property, plant, equipment, patents, accounts receivable, etc.).

Here's a B-school refresher:
What is measured is important.
If you can't measure it you can't manage it.

After Jeff's comment on the last post, it occurs to me we should differentiate between task management, people management, and talent management. Task management is MBO-stuff (management by objective) and a very useful thing. People management is about ensuring people are focused and effective (hopefully with a good attitude). Talent management would be an effort to develop and adequately deploy talent, whether it be on an individual basis, or across a group of people. This isn't touchy-feely - and not everyone should be on American Idol (though they all seem to try). I'm suggesting we make an effort to inventory people's talents and figure out how best to deploy them. This would likely increase productivity and growth. At worst, engagement levels and retention rates would improve.

Have you ever worked with someone who is really talented and knows it? The prima donna types stand out (and we despise them) but there are many talented people who are down-to-earth. We see it in the opportunities taken - or passed by. Jobs that don't utilize their skills effectively aren't acceptable. In a talent-short economy, more people will behave this way. I'm surprised more don't already. Instead, most of us rationalize our underemployment and double our efforts to focus on jobs that have become exercises in repitition. They test our self-motivating skills, not our talents. We should teach classes in college on how to motivate yourself through a boring job (a truly useful skill). For those majoring in business, perhaps a minor in Rationalizing is in order. This focus would be justification of short-changing yourself across a career of chronic under-employment.

To borrow Maslow's heirarchy for a moment, once your need for cash, benefits, vacation, and status have been met, it's the challenge that counts. The use of your time becomes the highest need, and jobs not addressing it aren't worthwhile. Why? Because it isn't an appropriate use of your talent. It doesn't stretch, nurture, or teach something new. You think the competition for talent is going to heat up? Do you think you're adequately challenging your people? Are you?

As we age, it becomes clearer that our working lives are finite. Many of us have achieved some goals by mid-life, only to wish we'd set them higher. With half the game over, we aren't interested in short-changing ourselves for the sake of a mere paycheck, or worse, an ignorant task-focused manager.