Of espoused values and enacted values

"This slide has a spelling mistake", remarked one of employees attending the 'corporate values workshop'. "Sorry, I can't find it", said the puzzled facilitator. "The problem is with what is shown as renewal. The correct spelling should be removal!", replied the employee. 

We come across these kinds of tragicomic situations when there is a significant difference between the 'espoused values' (the values that an organization publicly states that it believes in) and the 'enacted values' (the values that the organization actually exhibits) of an organization. The enacted values get reflected in the manner in which the organization treats its stakeholders, including the employees. 

In the particular incident that we started this post with, the employee did have a point. The organization had gone through repeated cycles of trying to renew itself by firing a large number of employees and replacing them with new employees. While there was no evidence to prove that the newly hired employees did any better than the employees they replaced, it did give the management the satisfaction that they took quick and decisive action. It also created an illusion of progress (or even an illusion of renewal). So, 'renewal' in this organization actually meant 'removal' though it was referred to by means of more progressive terms like 'workforce refresh' and 'top-grading'!

It is indeed 'fashionable' to have well-articulated set of corporate values. Also, how can we even think of (let alone work with) an organization that doesn't have any values? However, the most essential thing about values is that they should be 'valued'. To me, something should be called a value only if it is so important (so valuable and so core to the organization) that the organization will exhibit it even when it leads to competitive disadvantage or results in a loss to the organization. Also, values are about 'who you are' as an organization and hence the values are 'discovered' (not 'designed'). 

Unfortunately, many organizations trivialize values and hence the values 'safely' remain in corporate presentations and on the walls of the organization. The arduous journey from the walls to the head to the heart and to the hands is never even seriously attempted. Ironically, this lack of congruence between the espoused values and the enacted values of the organization creates the highest amount of 'cognitive dissonance' and 'disengagement' in the case of those sincere employees who take the organization and its stated values seriously.

Any comments?

On what good looks like : HR policies and processes

This post is an attempt to come back to a topic that we had explored here 7 years ago. The topic is the implications of the unstated assumptions that organizations and individuals have on 'what good looks like'. 

In the the previous post (See 'On what good looks like') we had explored this mainly from the point of view of selection decisions and 'person-organization fit'. In this post, let's look at it from the point of view of the different options for running the HR function, especially from the point of view of HR policies and processes.  

Now, if you were to ask me what is the significance of 7 years, I can only say that the number 7 is considered to be a 'perfect number' in many cultures and that some even associate mystical qualities to it!

When it comes to the underlying (unstated) definition of 'what good looks like' we had identified two themes that can be conceptualized as two ends of a continuum. They were 'absence of variation'  and 'presence of value' . Let's see what this means from the point of HR policies and processes.

In 'absence of variation' kind of organizations (where the definition of quality is similar to the 'Six Sigma' definition of quality), consistency of implementation of HR processes/policies is of paramount importance. This ensures ‘procedural justice’. This is also largely in line with HR models that emphasize process stability and maturity. This would mean very few or no exceptions! The essential message to the employees in this way of working is something like  "If you are eligible for something you don't have to ask for it (because you will get it without asking). If you are not eligible for something, then also you don't have to ask for it (because you won't get it even if you ask)."

In 'presence of value' kind if organizations(where the definition of quality is more like 'fitness for purpose'), the emphasis is on what makes most sense (adds most value) in a particular situation. This approach leads to a lot of flexibility in running HR (subject to some broad principles/HR philosophy and the laws of the land, of course). But it also can lead to a lot of exceptions. This, in turn, can lead to perceived inconsistency unless the HR and Business leaders have deeply understood the broad principles/HR philosophy and also have extensively communicated the same to the employees. 

Most of the companies find their equilibrium point somewhere in the continuum between the two polar opposites. The state of evolution of the company, the state of evolution of the HR function in the company, the industry in which the company operates, the culture of the company and the personal preferences of the leaders are often the factors that impact the choice of the equilibrium point. 

It can be argued that when the size a company becomes very large, it tends to gravitate towards the 'absence of variation' kind of underlying definition of quality (See 'Paradox of HR systems' for a related discussion). 

It can also be said that in those contexts where 'the owner and the manager are the same person' (e.g. in the case of partnership firms and proprietor-driven companies) there is often an affinity towards the 'fitness for purpose' kind of underlying definition of quality (See 'HRM in partnership firms' and 'Of owning and belonging' for more details)

Again, it can be argued that as the HR function in a company evolves, the underlying definition of 'what good looks like' often follows a U-curve kind of pattern - starting with 'fitness of purpose' kind of definition (as HR policies and processes are yet to take root). moving towards the 'absence of variation kind of definition' (when there are very detailed policies and procedures in place) and then coming back to 'presence of value'  kind of definition (when the policies and procedures are perceived to be too restrictive/bureaucratic). This is especially significant in companies that are operating in rapidly changing industries, and hence requiring more agility in terms of people management also. By the way, this 'U-curve' is a concept is found in many of the social sciences (See 'U-curve and Simplicity @  the other side of Complexity' for more details). A similar argument can be made in the case of some of the key enablers in HR, like behavioral competency frameworks, that assume that 'there is one right way of doing things' and hence comes very close to the 'absence of variation' kind of underlying definition (See 'Competency frameworks : An intermediate stage?' for more details).  

It is also possible to create some sort of a ‘synthesis’ of these two definitions of 'what good looks like' ('absence of variation' and 'presence of value') that act like the 'thesis' and the  'antithesis'. One pragmatic option could be to define the policies/procedures very clearly/in detail, and also define an exception process that is very tough!

Any comments/ideas? 

Of values and competencies

“If we don't clearly differentiate between values and competencies, we are devaluing the values!”, said the Organization Development Manager to the HR Business Partner. They were discussing the plight of the new hires in the organization who were confused by similar-looking names that they come across in the list of organization values and in the competency framework of the organization. Since this is quite a familiar situation across organizations, let’s try to explore the domains of values and competencies in a bit more detail in this post.

To begin with, let’s understand these two concepts more deeply. Competencies are a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes that lead to success/superior performance (e.g. in a job, in a function, in an organization etc.) Values are the things that the organization ‘values’ (i.e. consider to be important) and hence values are deeply-held beliefs about what is most important.

Most of the confusion comes because we often don’t take the organization values seriously. In many organizations, they are an ornamental piece (i.e. they don’t really influence decision-making) and they harmlessly exist in the posters on the walls of the organization and in the slides of PowerPoint Presentations(typically in the elite company of the vision and mission statements of the organization).

To me, something should be called a value only if it is so important (so valuable and so core to the organization) that it would be exhibited even if it leads to competitive disadvantage or even a loss for the organization.  Since competencies (by definition) are linked to success, this clearly brings out the difference between competencies and values.In a way, competencies are about how to win and values are about how to live, and winning has to be done within the overall context of living!

The difference between values and competencies are evident in the typical manner in which they are arrived at. Competency frameworks are ‘designed’ where as values are ‘discovered’ or ‘crystallized’. In a way, competencies are more a matter of the mind where values are essentially a matter of the heart!

Typically, values are identified at the organization level (i.e. there is only one set of values for the organization) where as competencies can be defined at job, function and organization level (based on what leads to success at each of the levels). Competencies are developed whereas values are aligned! Addressing competency gaps in the employees is much easier as compared to addressing lack of alignment between the values of the employees and the values of the organization.

The competency frameworks are often revised much more frequently (based on changes in business environment and strategy) as compared to the values for the organization. It is interesting to note that the organization values are often a reflection of individual values the founding members of the organization. While the values of the organization can be shaped to some extent by the members of the organization and by significant events that shape the organization over a period of time, values remain relatively more stable as compared to competencies. The relative stability of values is also because the fit between the individual values and the organization values (the so called ‘culture-fit’) is often a criteria in the selection process! In a way it make sense, as inculcating values is a long process!

It is interesting to note that while the same thing can be a competency or a value, the implications are vastly different. For example, if ‘customer orientation’ is a competency, we will probably understand customer needs deeply and meet the needs better that what our competitors do so that the customer is willing to pay us more. But if ‘customer orientation’ is a value, we would meet a commitment made to the customer even if it leads to a loss for the company (even when there are ways to wriggle out of the commitment). So while values might look nice and innocuous, they definitely need skin in the game! Competencies should be exhibited in the context (spirit and boundary conditions) provided by the values! If this condition is met and the difference between values and competencies are clearly understood, then the same thing (e.g. customer orientation) can be both a value and a competency in an organization and it might even be beneficial as it might lead to greater focus on capability building (as competencies are often linked to HR processes like assessments and learning & development).  

Yes, deeply-held values can guide behavior when no one is looking (and even shape how we experience and interpret the world) and values can be a great culture-building tool (In a way, culture is encoded in the DNA of values!). But if there is a disconnect between the espoused values and the enacted values, it would lead to confusion and loss of trust that can be very damaging to the organization culture. Technically speaking, it can be argued that values are 'value-neutral' (in the sense that what defines them is their supreme importance to the group and not their correctness according to some external ethical standards). But we must remember that each group is part of a larger society and there are some basic standards of ethics that are largely accepted by most of the current human populations!

So,  what does all this mean? I am all for leveraging the power of values so long as the values are really valued. That is, we should include something as a value if and only if it is so important to us that if required we would be prepared to take a a hit to the business for it. This conflict is easier to manage if the values are in sync with the core purpose of the organization. Actually, some companies include values explicitly in the purpose/mission statement (as opposed to keeping it separate). Of course, this would work only in those organizations where the purpose/mission of the organization is taken seriously!

Identifying the values is only the first step. After that entire chain of activities including clearly describing the values and articulating why values are so important, creating and communicating representations/examples of how each of the values play out in the various parts of the business, ensuring that the leaders visibly demonstrate the values/are role models in living the values, conducting values workshops across the organization to enable the employees to understand what exactly each of the values mean in the context of their jobs so that they can live the values more completely in their jobs, collecting and celebrating/recognizing outstanding demonstrations of the values across the organization, measuring the actual experience (of lack of it) for the values across the organization and taking action to reinforce the values where needed etc. begins! Of course, we must validate that the policies and processes in the organization are in alignment with the organization values.

How strongly a value is held decides the extent to which it influences decision-making. Also, if there are multiple values, how strongly each one is held becomes the deciding factor when there is a situation where the values are in conflict (i.e. where we have to prioritize one value over the other). Since values usually ‘goody goody things’, often we don't even consciously think about the relative importance of the values to us, unless we are forced to choose between values (and hence the importance of doing an exercise like 'value auction' that forces us to prioritize the values  as part of value clarification/crystallization sessions). It is also highly useful to clearly articulate (e.g. during the values workshops mentioned above) how to deal with situations where there is a possible conflict between two of the company values!

 

Hence, while values are very powerful and useful they also involve hard decisions and hard work! So, 'handle with care'!!

Any comments?

The Culture Lizard

“We need to change the hierarchical culture here. So let us stipulate that everyone should be addressed by their first name in the office”, said the young HR professional. When I hear a statement like this, an image comes to my mind – image of the detached tail of a lizard!

It is said that when lizards are attacked (or when they are captured by the tail), they are likely to shed part of their tail and flee. The detached tail will continue to wiggle, creating a deceptive sense of continued struggle and distracting the attacker’s attention from the fleeing lizard. The lizard can partially regenerate its tail over a period of weeks.

Now, let us come back to our young HR professional. As far as I could figure out, the real problem that she was trying to address was the hierarchical culture. While I don’t think that there is anything inherently evil with a hierarchical culture (especially in the context of a larger society that has high ‘power distance’), I do agree with her that such a culture can be an impediment when an organization is trying to ‘empower’ the employees.

However, the source of my ‘disconnect’ with the young HR professional here was something very different. It was because I felt that the terms people use to address each other in the office (‘Sir’, ‘Boss’, ‘first name’ etc.) seemed to be just a symptom (or just one of the manifestations - that too a rather peripheral one) of the underlying hierarchical culture. I also felt that the manner in which people address each other in office was like the tail of the lizard (the 'hierarchical culture lizard!).

Hence my fear was that if our young HR professional tries to catch the culture lizard by its tail, it will just shed the tail and flee. Again, the distraction caused by the wiggling tail (the change that is happening in the way people address each other) might dilute the focus and adversely affect the chances our young HR professional might have had to bring about real culture change. So we might have a situation where people address each other by their first names but the underlying hierarchical culture remains very much intact. In my opinion, this is a more damaging situation as it creates cognitive dissonance and it can be very confusing – especially for new entrants.

In such hierarchical companies, newcomers might find it difficult to read the situation correctly when it comes to the degree of empowerment they actually have and how much innovation/creativity they should exhibit. For example, let us look at the following situation.

Your manager gives you the feedback that you need to be more innovative. You take it very seriously and you come up with many innovative/creative ideas during the next year. However, these ideas get promptly shot down by the manager. You detail out your ideas and try to convince manager that they are likely to work. However, the result remains the same and you also sense that the manager is becoming impatient and annoyed. At the end of the year, you again get the feedback that you need to be more innovative. Here what really happened was that that when the boss asked you to be more innovative, the boss was not really expecting you to come up with something very innovative/creative. The real expectation was that you should show more enthusiasm for the innovative ideas that the boss comes up with!!

In hierarchical organizations, it is often assumed that the bosses are the source of all good ideas and that the ideas from people down in the reporting chain (lower forms of evolution!) are unlikely to work as they won’t have sufficient understanding of the business/organization. It also follows that the best way to get the organization to implement your innovative idea is to create it twice - first in your mind and then in your boss's mind. The 'second creation' has to be done in a subtle manner - by 'triggering' or 'planting' it in your boss's mind without letting him/her know - so that the boss considers it to be his/her innovative idea. This might not be such a difficult task if the boss is prone to a bit of megalomania and/or self-delusion. This assumes that your primary motivation is to get your idea implemented and not to get credit for generating the idea. However, you might get 'indirect credit' - for implementing the idea - which has now become the innovative idea the boss has come up with. Not such a bad deal - considering that you managed to get your idea implemented and also received some sort of recognition (even if it was not for generating the idea)!

I am in favor of intervening simultaneously at multiple levels of culture to bring about culture change. Again, interventions/changes at a particular level of culture can sometimes have useful 'ripple effects' at the other levels of culture. Hence I do see value in making changes at the ‘outer layers’ of culture (like artifacts, norms etc.). But if we make changes at these levels without touching the inner/core layers of culture (like values, basic underlying assumptions etc.), the culture change is unlikely to work. Depending solely on the 'ripple effects' mentioned above is too much of a risk (especially since the ripple effects are often unpredictable). Also, as we have seen earlier, the lizard can regenerate its tail fairly quickly. Similarly, if the culture lizard is alive and kicking despite the loss of its tail (i.e. if the underlying hierarchical culture remains intact even after the change in the way people address each other), it might regenerate its tail without much delay!

Have you encountered any such ‘culture lizards’? If yes, what happened to the tail?

Note: Please see 'Placebos, Paradoxes and Parables for Culture Change' for further exploration of this theme.

Towards a philosophy of HR

"HR is like gardening", said a senior HR professional when he was completely drunk. "We are not using any functional expertise in this recruitment assignment; our role in this project is similar to that of a pimp", said a Project Manager from a reputed HR consulting firm when he was in a reflective mood. "The HR leadership team is thinking about strategies to build the firm for the next 150 years", said a global HR leader in a 150-year-old MNC. Three senior HR professionals and three interesting perspectives - in three different contexts.

What is the basic 'philosophy' that underlies the domain of Human Resources? Does this (and should this) vary significantly across organizations? Is it a clearly defined and commonly accepted philosophy ? If not, can we derive some sort of 'emergent philosophy' from the way the craft of HR is practiced ? How has this philosophy been evolving? Is it worthwhile for organizations to invest time and effort in formulating and articulating an HR philosophy?

Now that I have been working in the HR domain for a decade, these are some of the questions that I have found myself thinking about quite a bit these days. Of course, I don't claim to have definite answers to these questions. What I do have are some 'thought fragments'. So the objective of this post is to seek comments from the readers so as to have a discussion on the topic.

Since this is a very broad topic, let us make a couple of simplifying assumptions for the propose of this discussion. Here we are taking about HR only in the context of business organizations. We are using the term 'philosophy' in a limited sense, to mean the basic assumptions, premises or tenets that underlies the field of HR.

There are many ways to approach this topic. One of them is to look at the applied behavior science foundations of HR. It can be said that the objective of applied behavior science is to understand human behavior in order to make predictions regarding probable behaviors in various situations so as to be able to influence those behaviors. This 'understand-predict-influence' sequence underlies all applied behavior science including Human Resource Management. From this it can be inferred that one basic assumption in the philosophy of HR is that it is possible to understand and predict human behavior so that it can be influenced to be in line with the organization objectives.

Another 'trick' that is often used is to look at the various terms used for HR and derive inferences from the choice of words. Here we comes across many terms, including Human Resource Management, Human Resource Development, Personnel Management, Human Capital Management, Talent Management etc. Then we could make 'inferences' like

(a) use of the term 'Management' indicates the intention to 'control' (more than what is meant by the term 'influence')
(b) use of the term 'Resources' implies that employees are a factor of production or even that they are essentially costs of production that needs to be minimised to the extent possible
(c) use of the term 'Capital' implies that employees are more like assets than costs and hence they are worth investing on or even that they add significantly to the value of the firm
(d) use of the term talent and avoidance of the term resource implies that employees are like investors who invest their talents in the organization and that they would continue to do only if they see attractive benefits like rapid appreciation in the value of their talent and good revenues in terms of salary.

While some of these 'inferences' do not necessarily follow from the terms, they do give us a flavor of the underlying assumptions.

Now if we look at many of the HR practices (that originated many years ago), we can figure out that they make some assumptions like 'continuity of the employment relationship', 'good amount of predictability regarding the business growth and hence career growth' etc. If we examine what actually happens in organizations these days (especially in highly dynamic industries), we are likely to find that these assumptions no longer hold good. Please see here for an illustration of this point in the context of career planning. Based on this we could argue that some of the basic underlying assumptions and hence the de facto philosophy of HR is evolving - often quite rapidly.

It is interesting to note that to some extent this 'evolution' also gets reflected in the changing names for the various sub-functions in HR. For example the function of 'Compensation' (which can be interpreted to mean that the organization is compensating the employees for some harm done to them) evolved into 'Rewards' and then into 'Total Rewards'. Another example could be the 'Training' function evolving into 'Learning' function. Training sounds like something that is done to the employees (or even forced upon the employees), almost similar to training animals. Learning happens inside the minds of the employees and hence can only be facilitated (and not forced upon the employees) by the 'Learning' function. Of course, the change in the name need not always imply a change in the underlying assumptions/philosophy. But it does show that it is fashionable/desirable (at least from a PR point of view) to have (or at least to create an illusion of) a more progressive philosophy of people management.

Now let us look at the basic issue of why should we be bothered about the 'philosophy of HR'. The 'philosophy of HR'/'basic assumptions in HR' in a particular organization context shapes the way the employees are managed in that organization.

Lack of a clearly articulated and understood 'philosophy of HR' can make the organization susceptible to 'taking up the latest fad in people management and discarding it soon after to take up the next one'. It can also result in highly inconsistent attitudes/practices in managing the employees (e.g. swinging wildly between high empowerment and high control, between large investment in employee development and no investment between 'intense focus on encouraging employees to form emotional bonds with the company and 'downsizing and then scaling up shortly after that' etc. This in turn can cause a lot of avoidable confusion.

More importantly, the 'way the employees are managed' will influence how the employees respond to that/how the employees behave in the organizations. What happens here is similar to the 'Pygmalion effect'. Thus 'wrong/bad' assumptions/philosophy, might result in creating 'wrong/bad' reality. For example, 'Theory X' kind of assumptions/philosophy (i.e. that the employees are inherently lazy and will avoid work if they can) in people management will promote 'Theory X' kind of behavior among the employees. Hence, though the 'initial reality'/'employee behavior' might not be in line with 'Theory X kind of assumptions', after people management based on 'Theory X assumptions' have been practiced for some time, employees might start to behave in a fashion that validates 'Theory X'. This makes people management a very dangerous domain !

We also have to be mindful of the possible conflict between the stated HR philosophy in an organization and the 'actual' HR philosophy practiced in the organization. What really matters is the HR philosophy (basic assumptions about HR) that emerges/can be inferred from (or gets reflected in) in the decisions made by the organization. It will be a tragic-comic situation if an organization says that 'people are our greatest assets/people are our main source of competitive advantage' and at the same time practices 'downsizing' and/or 'cutting employee benefits & training' as the first response (instinctive response!) to any business downturn. There is no better way to create mistrust and cynicism in the organization ! The same holds good at the level of managers also. Managers (especially direct supervisors) represent/symbolize the 'organization' to the employees and the real 'HR philosophy' of the organization (as perceived by the employees) is the one that gets reflected in the behaviors of (or in decisions made by) the managers. So we can't overemphasise the need for congruence between the 'articulated HR philosophy' and the 'HR philosophy in practice' ! It is interesting to note that discussion mirrors the discussion on the need for congruence between the 'espoused values' and the 'enacted values' in an organization. Logically speaking, HR philosophy of an organization should be closely linked to (or even derived from) the core values of the organization. Thus, the issues at the level of core values are likely to get reflected at the level of HR philosophy also!

So, these are some of my preliminary thoughts. Now over to you for your comments.