The 'paradoxical importance' of people

 "Show me whom should I fire", said the global business leader to the HR Head. The global business leader and the HR Head were reviewing the performance of the company operations in the country they were visiting. During the review, some complex issues were highlighted and that was when the global business leader made the above statement.

  
After two decades in the domain of people management, if there is one thing I have understood about the domain, it is that the domain of people management is inherently paradoxical. While the above statement made by the business leader seemed like a knee-jerk reaction (and reflecting a 'not so people-friendly' philosophy), it also highlighted the underlying belief that people make all the difference (and that just by changing some of the people the company performance issues can be fixed). 

Yes, in some cases, the cause of business performance issues can be traced back to particular individuals. But, in many cases the main problem might not be related to the capability level of the individual employees at all. The problem could mainly be at the strategy, structure, policies or processes level. However, it is relatively difficult/inconvenient for the business leaders to address the issues/make changes at those levels. So, there is a temptation to jump to the conclusion that it is an employee capability issue that can be fixed just by replacing the people involved.

Yes, it is highly tempting to 'throw people at problems'. This becomes even more of a concern in organizations that worship 'newness'. These organizations go through repeated cycles of trying to improve company performance by firing a large number of employees and replacing them with new employees. Even when there is no evidence to prove that the newly hired employees did any better than the employees they replaced, this gives the leaders the satisfaction that they took quick and decisive action. It can also create an illusion of progress, by wrongly equating 'change' with 'progress'. 

Sometimes, these people changes can trigger a chain reaction. There is often explicit or implicit pressure on the newly hired leaders to demonstrate their commitment to the change agenda by replacing the team members they have inherited. 'Infusing new talent from outside' appears to be much more progressive and decisive as compared to just 'recycling the existing talent'. This can snowball into large number of people changes with the associated disruption/ripple effects (and an absolute bonanza for recruitment consultants)!

In a way, what we have here is an 'irony'. Irony is the paradox of consequences. Irony occurs when what actually happens turns out to be completely different from what was intended. In the particular example that we started this post with, an action that was based on the belief in the importance of people and the impact people can create, led to a consequence that was not at all people-friendly!  

Another paradox here is that the global business leader asked the HR Head to show him the people to be fired. While HR is very much expected to 'know the pulse of the organization', line managers are often in a much better position to diagnose and address business performance issues. This also raises interesting questions on the role of the HR function and what exactly should be the right type of 'business-orientation' that HR function should demonstrate. 

The domain of people management is rich in paradoxes, dilemmas and ironies. My new book 'Life in organizations - Paradoxes, dilemmas and possibilities' explores many of those paradoxes, dilemmas and ironies in more detail. The book is available on Amazon India, Amazon UK and Amazon US in both paperback and Kindle versions.. 

Would love to to hear your comments/thoughts!!!

 

Of change, progress and a kaizen story

Let’s start with a kaizen story, that I heard a long time ago. A particular organization had rolled out kaizen (continuous improvement). An incentive scheme was also launched to reward the employees who make any such improvement in any part of work. So, one person successfully claimed a ‘kaizen’ for putting some flowerpots in the work area and thereby ‘improving the work environment’.  After sometime, another person successfully claimed a kaizen for removing those flowerpots and thereby ‘improving the flow of people and materials in the work area’. So, we were back to square one though it counted as two kaizens (making the organization appear ‘continuously improving’) and both the employees received their incentive payout!

While the above story might come across as a caricature (and not a portrait) of what actually happens in business organizations, it has more than a grain of truth. The biggest source of waste in many business organizations, that so deftly escapes even lean six sigma and productivity improvement efforts, is that results from frequent changes in direction and the tendency to equate ‘change’ with ‘progress’. Yes, rapid changes in direction, including fast U-turns, helps in creating some sort of illusion (or even a convenient collective delusion of) progress and of taking 'decisive action'. The point here is not that one shouldn’t change the direction when it is required or that one shouldn’t correct one’s mistakes. It is just that one should have some accountability for one’s decisions and the organization and human costs associated with them.

This works well in Human Resource Management (HR) also. One of the great ‘advantages’ of being in HR is that one can get credit for both hiring and firing the same person, that too in rapid succession. Similarly, we can get credit for adding a reporting layer to ‘integrate’ and also for removing that layer to ‘increase efficiency’. Yes, this leads to the HF² model of HR, where HR is reduced to Hire (sourcing), Feed (payroll) and Fire (exit). Of course, one can have other (more ‘fashionable’) functions in HR. But they are more of ‘show horses’ than ‘plough horses’!

Postscript : This post, especially the 'kaizen story' at the beginning of this post,  generated quite a bit of discussion on social media. It left me wondering why such an old story could connect so well. Now, I realize that it is because the story almost perfectly matches the definition of a 'myth'. A myth is a story that keeps on happening again and again in various forms, because it contains a deep truth (a deep truth about the nature of reality in organizations, in this case)!

Any comments/ideas?