Capitalising on the first 90 days - HR leadership

Today's white paper I'd like to share is one by the RBL Group, written by Dave Ulrich, Norm Smallwood and Jon Younger.

It sets out a great list of questions HR professionals should ask themselves when they step into a fresh leadership role. This paper is written from the perspective of landing the top HR job in an organisation however I feel it contains relevant information for all aspiring business partners.

You can view a copy of the paper here. These are three of the takeaways that particularly resonated with me.

1. Do you really know the business? Can you synthesise a cash flow map to understand how the organisation makes money and what the value proposition is to the customer?

This I believe is critical and (for me at least) is one of the core separators between HR simply being a process function and HR being a business enabling function. In order to add value to a business, one needs to understand the business in addition to the HR function.

With this in mind, the paper presents a practical activity in order to assess these elements together (that being the integration of business and HR functions).

Every company is doing HR work. Find out what is being done by mapping it. Summarize and synthesize the work being done with a grid of businesses (columns) by HR activities in people, performance, communication, and work (rows). Look at the grid to see where HR investments are innovative, aligned, and integrated. Try to assess the overall quality of HR work within the organization. Where are the pockets of excellence Where are the areas of concern? - The RBL Group

2.  Can you see how the business operates from multiple points of view? Have you built relationships with enough key people to construct this multidimensional view?

I found this to be an interesting point. Here the paper not only talks about the obvious stakeholders (i.e C-Suite's and senior managers) but also mentions customers, analysts and investors. While you may have a diverse perspective from within the organisation, have you had the chance to appreciate the perspectives gained externally from the organisation?


3. Have you identified your core HR priorities over the short, mid and long term?

Identify the early wins and achieve them quickly in order to build credibility with the business. Its important however to prioritise what should and can be achieved rather than just what can be achieved. I remember very fondly a HR leader I worked under who told me to remember "Don't fight the crocodiles; drain the swamp." Assess what your doing against the big picture.

An easy and common mistake is trying to be all things to all people. In study after study, leaders need to synthesize and prioritize. In your first few observations of your company you will probably find many things that could be improved. List them. Think about them. Prioritize them. If you have 10 projects and 100 units of resources, the wrong allocation is 10 units per project. You need to focus your time and HR investments on those initiatives that will be both implementable (doable within time and budget) and have impact (make a visible difference in business results). - The RBL Group

Support Person or Advocate... What's the Difference?

In my last post I touched on the difference between a support person and advocate. I find this an interesting distinction so I thought I'll explore the difference in a bit more detail here.

Fortunately we have some case law to look at from a Full Bench decision by the Fair Work Commission in Victorian Association for the Teaching of English Inc v Debra de Laps [2014] FWCFB 613 

In short, this was a case where an employee claimed a constructive dismissal because their employer refused to allow them an advocate at a disciplinary meeting.

First lets look at the Fair Work Act 2009. Section s387 outlines criteria the Commission must consider when determining if a termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and subjection (d) refers to a support person. 

(d)  any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal;

Interestingly, this is not a positive right for an employee to have a support person, rather it obligates that an employer can not unreasonably refuse a request for one to be present. So what is a reasonable refusal? Well in terms of a meeting which relates to a dismissal, it is if the employee intends to bring an advocate.

In terms of how clearly this case defined the distinction between support person and advocate; it appears that different firms have slightly different takes on the matter.

Importantly, this case has also clarified the role of a support person. By affirming an employee's right to a support person, but not an advocate, the Full Bench has distinguished between the two roles. A support person is "present to assist in any discussions", whereas an advocate "speaks on behalf of, or argues in favour of, another". Therefore, the assistance a support person provides, must not amount to speaking on behalf of the employee and an employer has a right to limit the role of the support person. - HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

The demarcation between "support person" and "advocate" has not been clearly drawn. While a support person may not be able to speak directly on behalf of an employee, they are also not confined to offering emotional support (as important as that can often be). For instance, as a general observation, they may be able to help an employee formulate what to say, provide advice and take notes of the matters being discussed. - Clayton Utz

Personally, i'm leaning towards HWL on this one - I like how their definition sets up a point where a support person's actions can amount to advocacy. 

I believe it's important good practice to inform staff that they may bring a support person, particularly if the situation appears to be heading towards what may be a dismissal. This way an employer is able to better defend a claim of harshness etc. A manager should consider if the meeting is of appropriate caliber to offer a support person however - just because a manager is holding a performance discussion doesn't necessarily mean a support person should be offered. Ideally a performance matter is dealt with and resolved informally before it escalates to disciplinary proceedings.

Conducting Investigations

I came across a great little paper by Harmers Workplace Lawyers on workplace investigations so I wanted to pull out some of the interesting things I found from that paper with some of my own thoughts. 

It is important to realise that despite the employer having to make a decision about how to act, once the fact-finding has concluded, a workplace investigation is not a trial, nor is it a court case where the employer acts as the plaintiff. - Harmers Workplace Lawyers

When to investigate and when not to

Its important to identify when items should be investigated formally and when a more informal, hands on management approach would be more appropriate. For example, is the matter trivial, interpersonal, relating to a procedure or concerning maters not workplace related? 

Let's have a look at some potential alternatives to resolve those situations. 

Trivial matters - Employers are not obliged to investigate a trivial/frivolous matter. A common sense prima facie test needs to be applied (and make sure your policy allows for such!). For instance let's take an example of someone making a complaint about receiving what is a lawful direction from their manager, even though they may disagree. An informal discussion around the clarification of roles and responsibilities could solve this matter. 

Interpersonal matters - Is this a suspected case of workplace bullying, or just two individuals in disagreement? It may be that a simple grievance or mediation process would be more appropriate. 

Relating to a procedure - Perhaps an employee has ideas for improvement but the process by which to communicate those is unclear. Alternatively, they could be complaining about a procedure already in place they don't wish to perform. A more appropriate response could be treating this as an operational matter (or potentially a performance matter). However in some cases, for instance if the procedure related to safety, then a formal investigation may become warranted. 

Not workplace related - Two employees may have a dispute over an incident that occurred outside of and disconnected to work. It's important to remember that while an employer's role is not to investigate these matters, it does have a role in ensuring the appropriate conduct of its employees while at work. The focus here should be on the behaviors demonstrated while at the workplace and representing the company. A mediation process may be a good first step in resolving this. 

When a formal investigation is warranted

When a formal investigation is warranted here are some points to consider.

Harmers' outlines the following items.

1. Plan Carefully

2. Act Quickly

3. Observe proper process and the rules of natural justice

4. Interview witnesses

5. Maintain confidentiality

6. Be aware of what constitutes evidence

7. Keep proper records

8. Preserve evidence

I'd like to also draw out a few elements.

1. Clearly and specifically define the scope of the investigation. A poorly defined scope can lead to investigations loosing focus, going off track, taking an unnecessarily amount of time and resources or involving irrelevant parties.

2. A technical expert necessarily a expert investigator and visa-versa. Investigations are a specific skill. 

It is sometimes tempting to call in an “expert” to carry out an investigation—for example, a forensic computer expert to deal with allegations of computer misuse. Care should be taken before appointing an expert in that way. It may well be appropriate when the only issue is a technical one—for example, there is no dispute as to the facts in general, but only whether the material in questions was copied from one computer to another. In many cases, however, the technical aspect will be but one factor in the investigation. The fact that a person has expertise in computer science does not mean that she or he will also be skilled at investigations generally. In those cases, it may be better to have a proper investigator carry out the investigation, with the expert appointed to assist the investigator on issues of fact. - Harmers Workplace Lawyers

3.  A support person and an advocate are not the same thing. It's may be that a unionised organisation has an EBA which specifies a union representative to be present during an investigation. However unless an employer is bound by such terms, it's important they ensure any support persons stay within their relevant roles. i.e. They are there to witness and potentially assist but not speak or argue on behalf of the employee.

4. Ensure a workplace policy which is not overly prescriptive. Every case is different and while there are fundamental best practice elements discussed here, a cookie cutter approach can leave employers stuck in a corner. For example, a policy that requires an item be investigated and have subsequent action taken according to pre-determined time frame can be unrealistic and inappropriate to the individual circumstances of the case.