Don't go shopping for employees when you're hungry!

Ben Eubanks, from Upstart HR did a quick audio review of a book called "Red Flags: How to Spot Frenemies, Underminers, and Toxic People in Your Life" on a recent HR Happy Hour Podcast and did so through the lens of a HR practitioner (although this is not an HR book).

Ben raises some interesting thoughts and got me pondering. I'l quote some of his review below.

1.
"We all know the advice we shouldn't go shopping when you're hungry so why are we looking for employees to solve problems only when we really get desperate?"

Interesting point. Being in HR I've seen plenty of cases where managers are trying to fill gaps in their team and lose track of time. It can be very easy to overlook how much time a recruitment process can take up. One has to consider evaluating business needs, advertising, shortlisting, synchronising with panel members and applicants for interviews, debriefing and discussions on suitability and negotiation with the preferred applicant. After all that you may have to wait another 4 weeks before they can walk in the door ready to work.

I appreciate sometimes we are sprung with a termination or resignation and time is never a luxury however it got me thinking; how many managers have crisis plans for their team if they suddenly lose a critical FTE or two?


2.
If you want to know about someone at a deeper level the book discusses the FLAG acronym and Ben considers these a useful tool to help build questions around in recruitment.

Focus - What do they focus on?
Lifestyle - What are their lifestyle choices?
Association - What are the types of associations they make with other people?
Goals - Consider the goals people have.

For me these are the elements that can separate a good candidate from a star candidate. People that tick these boxes well are the candidates that take a professional and personal pride in building their brand and will be able to sell themselves articulately beyond the confines of the role. Who do they network with? How do they build their skills? How have they built their career progression around adding value to organisations?

I would imagine elements of this could be drawn out through psychometric screening and others through interviewing and seeing who can bring the 'answer plus' responses.


3.
"The worst people aren't the ones that look bad right away. We naturally shrink back from those kind of people. The worst ones are the ones that look great just before they attack you behind your back."


Not sure if I agree with Ben's take on this one. In the personal, social context in which this was written I can see the point however in the workplace context (unless your talking about the 'corporate psychopath') I would argue employees with fundamental flaws tend to filter themselves out easily with good recruitment processes.

I'll take it then that this quote is pointing to poor recruitment practice. I.e not having behavioral questions, not identifying STAR answers, not following up on matters of concern and not investing the time needed to actually identify a great candidate.

I'll put extra emphasis on the last point there. I've run into recruiting managers that are happy to spend a surprisingly small amount of time on selecting the best candidate. I'm talking a single 45 minute interview, no phone discussion and no second round.

I like to point to the example of a business plan to highlight my concern with this approach. Lets assume someone wanted to propose a project that would cost approximately $300,000 and run for 4 years. I would expect a robust plan, discussion and evaluation of tenders before making the call. No right minded manager would sign off after 45 mins of thought.

However when it comes to employing someone on a 75k salary, who may well stay with the organisation for 4 years, the view the value of the recruitment process for some can be dramatically less. And lets not forget, unlike a faulty product, you can't just ask for a refund!

How can HR facilitate innovation?

I listened to an interesting podcast recently from the CYA Report team - "How HR is Killing Innovation with Hitendra Patel" Sure the title is a bit sensationalist, I personally don't think HR is killing innovation but poor HR certainly can.

Hitendra Patel is Managing Director for IXL Centre, an innovation consulting firm among other interesting positions such as Professor of growth and innovation at Hult International Business School.

There are a few thoughts and quotes from Hitendra that I'll draw out and discuss. It sounded like Hitendra was calling in via phone rather than in studio which made it difficult to catch each word however i'll do my best to capture Hitendra's statements when quoting him (apologies if this isn't a direct word-for-word).

Organisations tend to have people who fall into two categories; employees who diverge in their thoughts and employees who converge in their thoughts.

Staff who diverge tend to bring new ideas from outside the organisation into a discussion and are quite comfortable (and even enjoy), conversations taking creative twists and turns as ideas are explored. This could be sparked from an article they read, a new website they discovered or a fresh experience they had over the weekend.

Staff who converge tend to enjoy structure and focus. This can be formulating lists, plans and clearly executable action items on next steps. You might see them frustrated with meetings that lose focus or take too long and may actively cut them short to bring things back on track.

"We need the person who diverges, because those sort of people look beyond the boundaries of the organisatoin for dots, new dots, new ideas and eventually you'll need more dots than the dots that exist in your company but you'll eventually have to connect the dots. 

The person who converges doesn't like that space as much and will compress it but the person who converges is necessary because sometimes we do have to shut up and move forward and this can bring discipline to the process. Put those two people in the same room and we will have a fight but we have to teach each other how we will work with each other to collaborate." - Hitendra Patel

It's about building an organisational culture that allows both traits to co-exist and add value to the organisation in their own way; the people who create the dots and the people who connect them. Hitendra rightly points out we have a habit of hiring people just like ourselves and so it's important to make a conscious effort to consider if the organisation has a healthy balance to stimulate innovation (and make it stick!).

Innovation is about an experimentation cycle and iteration cycle

Experimentation cycle

This cycle is where an individual innovates and tries multiple different approaches. Think of a scientist or engineer who might not know exactly where the answer lies and so will test several options at the same time to see where they lead. This will inevitably lead to failures but that's the point of the experimentation cycle.

Hitendra talks about how many organisations stifle innovation by punishing failure, rather than seeing it as part of the experimentation (i.e. learning) process.

Iteration cycle

This is when a wining idea or process is found and resources are then spent on a continuous improvement initiative. This is a standard process within organisations as they look to streamline processes, refine procedures etc. However an iteration cycle without an experimentation cycle can open the risk of people barking up the wrong tree to begin with.

"When we look at most other functional jobs within companies, sales marketing, operations - we only give people one chance to do their work. We don't design in multiple cycles of experimentation and when you don't do that your staff are only going to take low risk and only do things that are 'right' or what you have done yesterday because you have not designed in opportunities for learning." - Hitendra Patel

Overly prescriptive position descriptions stifle innovation

This was an interesting point because in my experience position descriptions tend to have a surprisingly small impact on actual work performed. All too often I have encountered PD's covered in proverbial cobwebs reflecting a time and place sometimes years back. I'll assume then that here Hitendra is more so referring to an organisational culture that builds strictly defined position limits.

People need room to move, grow and change. To look beyond their day job and ask 'What's next?' 'What if?'. As mentioned above, if employees always do tomorrow exactly what they did yesterday they're not going to innovate. There's a useful metaphor mentioned in the interview where Hitendra talks about basketball players - given their experience they don't have to expend all their mental energy dribbling the ball (representing their day job). They instead focus on who they will pass the ball to, where they will play the court, the next decision they will need to make - future focused.

The Star Model

Today's post is dedicated to Jay Galbraith, an American organisational theorist who lives on through his Star Model framework for organisational design.

The Star Model

In reading up on the Star Model one of the main elements I connect with most is it's appreciation that you can't just pick up your desired culture off a shelf and insert it into an organisation. I believe culture is an emergent property of the organisation in which it resides and so what leaders can do instead is build the strategy, structure, processes and reward systems etc which then act as the foundational framework for a culture to form. 

One critical element is the type of people that reside inside the system. People are individuals and act with their own motivations, behaviour, skill sets as well as strengths and weaknesses (relative to the system). Part of picking the right person is 'culture fit' however from Jay's examples below it's clear that there is also a strong element of hard definable skills that contribute to suitability.

Flexible organizations require flexible people. Cross-functional teams require people who are generalists and who can cooperate with each other. Matrix organizations need people who can manage conflict and influence without authority. - Jay Galbraith

When things go wrong (or right!) it can be easy to point directly at a particular structure or process for responsibility however there is merit in considering how those elements exist inside the organisational system as a whole. Perhaps there is more than one element out of alignment or there may be other elements influencing the outcome that on the surface were overlooked. Make sure you take a moment to assess if your energies are being focuses in the right place (or places).

Most design efforts invest far too much time drawing the organization chart and far too little on processes and rewards. Structure is usually overemphasized because it affects status and power, and a change to it is most likely to be reported in the business press and announced throughout the company. However, in a fast-changing business environment, and in matrix organizations, structure is becoming less important, while processes, rewards, and people are becoming more important. - Jay Galbraith

The quotes above were from a whitepaper on the Jay Galbraith website that provides a great, high level summary of the Star Model. Also below is a short video on the model, as well as Kates Kesler's Five Milestone Design process.

Active Talent Management

I had the opportunity to speak with a Talent Acquisition Partner with one of the Big Four (banking) recently and got some interesting insights into best practice human capital acquisition and development.

The main item I got out of the discussion was that turning what some organisations do passively into an active and planned process can bring a wealth of benefits. By active and planned I am referring to not simply considering these items at recruitment time but having these as ongoing processes that exist alongside other business functions.

Below are some thoughts:

1. Understand and (know how to) seek out the company values.

There's a difference between simply stating the values and ticking a box to having a conscious criteria in order to identify and select talent that displays them. Talk to senior leaders to unpack what the core values mean to them - you might be surprised. In any case it's important that the business is consistent in its understanding when it builds culture around a values piece.

I was listening to a podcast this morning on HR Examiner where Jason Averbook (thought leader and CEO of The Marcus Buckingham Company) referred to engagement specifically driving performance. Here he was talking about measuring engagement however in relation to my point here - if a company's values are a true representation and platform from which the company culture grows; then one should be able to successfully identify talent that will engage with those values.

2. Understand and assess managers' needs. 

A natural progression from the point above. What does the manager need tactically and strategically in order for this role add further value to the team and the organisation? When a vacancy arises, this is an excellent opportunity to move things around with greater ease than you can with an incumbent already in the role. However going back to my point on being active around talent - this shouldn't only be considered when a vacancy arises. It can involve development plans for current employees.

Through a manager considering their human capital strategy, they can paint a better picture of what talent they have now and what that needs to look like 12 - 24 months down the line. With that knowledge a talent professional can then integrate that into their function when screening, providing gap analysis support, advertising to candidates etc (Whatever their touch point in the function happens to be).

3. Build a talent pool both internally and externally. 

Expressions of interest for non-live roles can be a useful way to assess the market both internally and externally in the organisation. Just make sure that you are honest and upfront about the process however so you don't unwittingly mislead external candidates or internal employees.

Having a talent pool internally allows you to identify high performers and act on development opportunities within an organisation. If we take a hypothetical example, let's say Manager A is has an upcoming project and you know Employee B (situated elsewhere) is keen to develop in this area and has relevant, transferable skills. This could be a great opportunity for development via a secondment across the business however it may not have eventuated if systems were not in place to identify and capitalise on it.

Sure Manager A would have solved the issue one way or another but it may have come at the expense of an internal development opportunity. Let's not forget that this can also foster cross pollination of skills within the business.

5. As a side point on Graduates - Look beyond just the grades.

Finally, an as an aside to the flow above... this is something I assumed however it was nice to hear it from another professional in the field. Graduates are interesting because they often (due to their very nature) don't have the same amount of work experience to build off when justifying their competence. Given this, a natural point to turn to can be academic grades.

Is academic ability important? Certainly. However academic grades are one dimension of picking a successful candidate and shouldn't come at the expense of the correct values and culture fit. A disengaged employee is a disengaged employee regardless of their Distinction average.

Graduates are an investment an organisation wants to make over the long term - which would explain why so many graduate processes are particularly rigorous!

Don't give CPI increases - do something more relevant

This post was inspired by the CYA report podcast I listened to the other day around salary increases and bonuses. This seems to be a topical time as well given we are heading in to the end of the financial year where these things tend to be reviewed.

I've worked in systems where a simple CPI increase is issued as well as systems where more complex guideline increases are issued. For the former, the US term seems to be issuing COLA's (Cost of living increase).

In this post I'd like to outline a few of the many benefits of going with a guideline model and that CPI is only one part of a much larger remuneration system.


First of all - what is CPI?

CPI stands for 'Consumer Price Index'. It's released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and is a "measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by households for a fixed basket of goods and services." (ABS).

It's important to note that there is not one CPI, there are many CPI's and it all depends on what the CPI is representing. Is this the Sydney CPI, or weighted capital cities?  Is it for a particular quarter or the whole financial year?

What I'm getting at here is that CPI is a very specific and overly narrow indicator when it comes to using it as a sole basis for remuneration reviews. What it really should be is a data point that sits alongside other information when organisations make a decision about remuneration.


A more sophisticated approach

A much better approach is to look at a range of relevant data points alongside CPI.

How is the business tracking against its financial targets?
What is the state of the industry at the moment?
Do your competitors have published increases such as EBA's? If so what are they doing?
Do you have access to remuneration surveys? If you do, where do they get their data?
Have you mapped salaries internally with reference to each other? i.e (similar positions in different states, or similar level roles in different fields or teams).
Do you have systems in place to measure performance and can you integrate that into the remuneration review decisions?

In conjunction with finance and business leaders within the organisation, a much fuller picture can be formed around what the organisation can afford, how it is tracking against the market and what tactical options are available internally.

After asking these questions the organisation may come up with a specific percentage increase for the organisation or departments and then managers can use their discretion in applying those increases within their budgets.

Larger percentages can be given to higher performers or good performers who fall below banding. It's important to consider hover that great performers can still be overpaid. An administrative assistant is only worth so many dollars, regardless of how excellent the individual is. Remember to also look at the performance of the individual against the work actually performed and their compa-ratio against the market.


Communication is important

Much of the value from remuneration changes comes from the communication piece. Its all well and good if HR knows Joe Bloggs received an above average increase but does Joe know? And did Joe's manager communicate that effectively to link Joe's performance with his remuneration?

Managers have a very critical role to play when it comes to communicating the meaning behind increases. Given this HR should consider the resources in place to assist them in doing that effectively.

The last thing you want is all your hard work to fall down at the last hurdle!

Hungry for HR Podcasts? Here's a free meal... actually two

I've searched for HR Podcasts before without much luck however I gave it another shot this morning and came across two I'd like to share.

I've just listened to an episode from each and will now definitely become a subscriber. Both are based in the US.

1. The CYA Report with Fistful of Talent

I really enjoyed the episode I listened to which was Power of Money (When Motivating Employees). It inspired me to write my next post on the benefits of moving beyond the traditional 'CPI' increase some organisations still use.

The podcast was quite structured and focused, where Kris Dunn (Host) spoke with a single HR Consultant throughout the show.


2. HR Happy Hour

The HR Happy hour as the name might imply was slightly more casual and the episode I listened to (Putting the Fun into Analytics) had a group of professionals engaged in a panel discussion.

It was a nice contrast to the CYA episode to hear from a number of different perspectives on the one topic.


I discovered these through coming across an article which highlighted the Top 10 Human Resources Bloggers You Must Follow. I'll be checking out those blogs too - hopefully I can pick up some tips to improve my own!

I'm still on the lookout for an Australian HR Podcast. If you know of any, let me know - I'd love to check it out.

Safety trumps privacy when it comes to drug testing

In a win for employers, Commissioner Cambridge has upheld an employer's right to randomly test employees for drugs and alcohol by both oral and urine sampling in Forestry Mining and Energy Union v Port Kembla Coal Terminal [2015] FWC 2384

Ashurst has written an article "Best of both worlds" - Urine and saliva testing in the workplace on the case. They also acted for the employer in this instance.

Below are some of the outcomes from the case in relation to the Commission's stance.

1. It is recognised that combined, randomised drug testing is the superior deterrent compared to either method used in isolation.

2. In an either or scenario, oral fluid would probably be preferable to urine sampling.

3. Detection at levels meeting the relevant Australian Standard "expunges innocence". Even though the drug could have been used several days prior, the Commission is "unable to accept that a positive result would "in no way affect" capacity to perform work safely". This however may be a different case if an employer sought to impose a policy with cut off levels below the Australia Standard.

Below are statements from Commissioner Cambridge's conclusion:

[67] A detailed analysis of the competing positions has led me to conclude that the benefits that would be obtained by the adoption of both methods of sampling in random combination significantly outweigh any privacy detriments that could be identified.

[68] There are a range of important benefits that are derived from the random operation of both oral fluid and urine sampling. The use of both methods overcomes the scientific and technological deficiencies that each method cannot avoid if one method is used in isolation. Further, the use of both methods provides significantly enhanced deterrent properties. Against these significant attributes the alleged privacy intrusions are matters of little realistic consequence.

[69] In summary, a blunt distillation of the contest in this case and its determination can be described as a choice between private lives or saving lives and I have opted for saving lives. - Commissioner Cambridge

Ashurst, in their summary notes the importance of this case in relation to any future challenges to urine sampling. They also note also that the Commission takes the welfare of the employees above privacy of the individual which may potentially have some interesting cross over implications into other employee privacy matters.

Commissioner Cambridge decided that while positive oral fluid and urine samples tend to indicate different things, each test still has advantages. He also found that if it comes to a choice between the welfare of employees generally and the right of an individual employee to privacy, employee welfare should be given priority. The reasoning is compelling. Absent any significant developments in the science associated with drug testing, and provided there is no modification of it by a Full Bench, this decision is likely to be the benchmark in any future challenges to urine sampling. - Geoff Giudice

Australian Industrial Relations - A Brief History

ABC Radio National's Rear Vision recently broadcast a useful and informative episode titled Bosses and workers in Australia.

If you're not aware of Rear Vision, it's an ABC Radio National program that's free to podcast and each week "...puts contemporary events in their historical context, answering the question, 'How did it all come to this?'". 

It's certainly one of my favourite podcasts probably because I've learnt so much from it! Rear vision knows no bounds covering a diverse range of subjects such as finance, geopolitics, technological advancements, business and culture.  

This episode investigates some of the key movements in industrial relations in Australia from the late 19th century to today. I suggest you listen to the episode if you get the chance. Here I'll draw out some items and quotes I found particularly interesting.

Australia and New Zealand are unique:

The system of conciliation and arbitration that evolved in Australia from 1904 onwards was very unusual by international standards. The distinctive feature was that minimum terms and conditions were governed by awards made by an independent tribunal required by law to take into account public interest. They did so on the basis of representations made to them by employers and their representatives, and employees and their representatives. Apart from New Zealand, no other developed country went down that path. - Kerry Phillips 

Probably not too surprising but interesting nonetheless. One item I found particularly unique was when I compared Australian employment law to Singaporean employment law in my client groups. In Australia the Fair Work Act 2009 has almost universal coverage (barring some exceptions). However in Singapore, the Employment Act does not cover anyone in a supervisory, managerial or executive position earning more than $4,500SGD per month (around $51,000AUD PA). I'll admit I'm certainly not an expert on Singaporean employment law however in my experience this situation puts an even greater emphasis on the use of contractual terms driving employment conditions. 

Looking to Europe and the United States also shows a very different industrial environment to Australia.

What they tended to do, particularly the European democracies, they tended to use legislation to lay down minimum terms and conditions. There are some countries in Europe that do have minimum wage mechanisms where there are periodic adjustments by independent tribunals or by government on the recommendation of independent bodies, and the United Kingdom would be an example of that. But there are still countries that don't have any minimum wage mechanism at all. Germany is one. There is in fact considerable debate in Germany at the moment about the adoption of a statutory minimum wage. But the German system has relied on collective bargaining, and particularly on collective bargaining at the industry level rather than at the workplace level. So you would have a collective agreement that applied to the entire coal industry or the metals industry rather than agreements that applied to a particular workplace. And that system is breaking down and that's one of the reasons I think why they are looking at the possibility of introducing a statutory minimum wage.

In some developed countries, most notably the United States, they didn't use legislation either, so workers in the United States, in many jurisdictions, have very limited legal protections of their terms and conditions of employment. So in the United States there is a minimum wage, it is set out in an Act of Congress and it is very, very rarely increased. So it tends to be very, very far behind community norms. - Professor Breen Creighton

Enterprise Bargaining can be a cause of inequity:

There's a great complexity of opinions emerging. My own opinion is that the degree of significance that has been given to collective bargaining is unfortunate. Unfortunate because it means that wage earners who are represented by strong unions have done significantly better than wage earners who are not so represented. And this has created inequities within the wage structure. There are people—and not a few people, quite a significant number—who rely on the minimum wages set by the Fair Work Commission, and these are falling further and further behind the people who benefit from the bargains negotiated by strong unions. I certainly wouldn't advocate the abolition of collective bargaining, it would be a senseless thing to be advocating, it's not going to happen. But I think that the degree of emphasis that's been given to it is unfortunate and I've said that in my submission. - Professor Keith Hancock

This is something I agree with. I continue to be taken aback by some of the conditions and clauses found in enterprise agreements, particularly when compared to award free employees. Uncapped redundancies, superannuation of 17%+, warning letters which expire after 6 months.... these are all items that you can find if you go looking.  Certainly enterprise agreements can serve a useful purpose in modifying an award to suit a local business context. However, in many cases they can also cause union's to leverage their bargaining power to push unnecessary conditions and restrictions causing business to divert resources from their high performers and constricting their capacity to implement change.  

The Fair Work Act 2009 significantly simplified the Australian industrial relations system:

By the late '80s, early '90s, the award system was an absolute mess. In the federal system, there were well over a thousand awards. And there were thousands of awards in the various state systems. And very often, with the best will in the world, it was hard for an employer to know whether they were bound by a particular award or not.The Howard government purported to put in place a mechanism to review the existing mess and try to rationalise the content and the coverage of awards. They failed. To their great credit the Rudd/Gillard government succeeded in that. And that mass of awards was reduced to 122 modern awards, and that was a major achievement. I don't think that the government or the Tribunal get as much credit for that as they deserve. That was a very significant achievement, and those 122 awards, plus the national employment standards, that's what's now the safety net.And you engage in enterprise bargaining, moving on from the safety net, and subject to the BOOT test, that is the test that says that for an agreement to be approved by what we now call the Fair Work Commission it has to be shown that workers covered by the agreement are better off overall than they would be under the otherwise applicable award. - Professor Breen Creighton

I was fortunate enough to enter the HR world around the birth of the Fair Work system and so I was able to avoid most of the complexity that existed prior. I experienced some of this complexity when I worked on a workplace advice line and advised employers who may have been bound by throwback redundancy provisions or Long Service Leave. The throwback redundancy provisions ended 31 December 2014 and now employers can look towards the 4 yearly review of the modern award system for future changes. This review is occurring now.

I look forward to the current award base being updated. While the 2010 awards were a great step in the right direction, they also had some issues, inconsistencies and in some cases confusing for employers to fully understand. It seems like these items are being rectified with the insertion of pre-calculated rates into the new awards.

As a side note, one item I found interesting when working with multiple awards is the way they each had their own subtle style in how they described what might be effectively the same clause. My take is this was the work of individual unions and industry groups which injected their writing style into the awards they were making submissions for.

You can find out more about the 4 yearly Modern Award Review at the Fair Work Commission here.

Feeling swamped? Try this technique

I'd like to share a technique I've used when faced with a project or task which at first glance may seem overwhelming. By overwhelming I am referring to what may initially feel a lack of direction or overpopulation of potential sub-tasks.

Basically this technique involves mentally teleporting yourself to the completion of the project (or just beyond it) and asking a hard hitting question - 'What would cause me to define this project as a success?' 

By asking this question you can hopefully clarify what may be a cluster of semi-defined tasks, challenges, opportunities and resources into very clearly defined primary and secondary KPI's/goals, In addition you should be able to identify distraction tasks.

I'll elaborate on these below and provide examples from a project I worked on where I engaged with an organisation in setting up new business unit in New Zealand. Below is also a simple model I put together to help visualise the process. 

Primary KPI's/Goals: 

These goals are critical to the project and define success or failure. In other words, they are the fundamental achievements by which you can look back on a project and say "Yes, this was a success." If a project can still survive without one of these being completed, it may be secondary goal. 

Example:  When opening a new overseas business unit: 

1. Staff have legally compliant contracts to be employed on

2. Staff are able to be paid accurately via a payroll function

3. Resources are in place to provide base level HR support

4. Capacity for expansion and integration into the group function

Secondary KPI's/Goals:

These KPI's are not irrelevant, they add value to a project and can make the difference between a satisfactory result and an exceptional one. They may even be quite important, however these goals alone do not define success or failure of a project. It may even be that they are a secondary stage of a primary goal and so require that to be completed as a prerequisite. In the ideal world, a project will be resourced to achieve the primary goals and some secondary goals - but this isn't always the case! 

Example: 

1. Systems in place for HR metrics capture i.e an HRIS or equivalent

2. Resources in place to provide higher level HR support (complex queries requiring local knowledge)

Distraction Tasks:

These items may only add low value to a project, or worse be value neutral or reduce value. They may be easy to achieve and can be falsely veiled as quick wins. Probably best described as busy work, while you may feel like you're being productive by completing them, at the end of the day they have not assisted in boosting the success of a project by a worthwhile margin.

To be clear, some of these tasks may have value down the line at another place and time. However they need to be assessed in the context of the project now and the resources at hand.  

Example: 

1. Tidying up the presentation of organisation charts (aligning boxes and formatting colours)

2. Producing policies which may unlikely be used at this stage or duplicate local industrial law

I'd like to think of my comments here and diagram as a first draft so I look forward to coming back to it at a later stage and refining it further. 

The Leadership Code

I'll confess right now I'm a Dave Ulrich fan. Aside from the fact he's consulted and done research for over half of the Fortune 200 as well as being formally recognised as an international HR thought leader multiple times, I'm just really attracted to his focus on HR being measured by the value it creates for an organisation.

Today I'd like to highlight the model presented in The Leadership Code: Five Rules to Lead By. Dave summaries his research in the video below however if you wanted to read a little more, a google search of title actually produces a few extracts from the book.

"60-70% of what any leader, anywhere has to know and do is the same basic stuff."  - Dave Ulrich 

1. Strategist - "Where are we going?"

An effective leader needs to have vision that adds value. As a leader you need to know where you are taking your team, your functional unit, your organisation. I like the term strategist because it implies thoughtfulness and purpose to achieve a long term goal and so that's why I think it's more than just vision. Dave uses the term 'practical futurist' and points out that not only does a leader need to create a future pragmatically but also ensure that their team understands that direction as well. 

2.  Executor - "How do we get there?" 

An effective leader needs to be to get things done by turning plans and strategy onto action. This is a competency that requires discipline and accountability. I'd also say this involves the ability to prioritise resources and think tactically in order achieve relevant outcomes working across business teams.

3. Talent Manager - "Who goes with us?" 

An effective leader needs be able to engage people, to motive them and make them feel like part of a team. Importantly however, the energy that a leader generates among their team needs to be directed towards building value in the organisation. An experienced talent manager can identify, build and direct skills to ensure people are performing at their peak. 

4. Human Capital Developer "Who stays when we're gone?" 

An effective leader needs be able plan for what talent needs to exist in the future. Here talent moves from achieving short term results to meeting to future strategic needs. In one sense a slightly selfless thought process that views talent beyond the individual and instead focuses on the organisation and the next generation. I'd imagine strong crossovers here with succession planning competencies. 

5. Personal Proficiency - A common, core factor. 

While Dave's research as part of the RBL group found most HR practitioners tended to naturally associate themselves with one of these quadrants, all leaders had to master a core factor - Personal Proficiency.

"It's not a role, it's a set of personal competencies that allow you to be trusted by those you lead. Personal Proficiency deals with insights about yourself; with your ability to know yourself, to learn, to have integrity, to have emotional intelligence, to exercise good judgement..." - Dave Ulrich

I'm not surprised that the personal proficiency quadrant is given a high importance in this model. This quadrant contains universal elements you would expect in a leader and I would also argue acts as a foundational personal and intellectual framework form which the other quadrants can stand. 

The Leadership Code: Five Rules to Lead By, By Dave Ulrich, Norm Smallwood, and Kate Sweetman.

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.