The 12 things HR can do for your business

Last year, I published a post which outlined the 15 things that HR should do – at a minimum – for the people who work within a business. Although I’d argue that doing these things for workers has a positive impact on employers as well, a more sceptical businessperson might wonder if and how their company would benefit from HR. After all, why would you pay for something if you aren’t getting something in return? So here are my 12 reasons why a business would want HR:

1. We’ll make sure that not only do you comply with employment laws, but that we implement them in a way that fits the business strategy and culture

2. We’ll make sure that the business is able to get the right people, in the right number, at the right time.

3. We’ll advise you on the ‘people consequences’ of any business proposals, so that you are taking decisions on the future with full knowledge of all the issues (not just the financial ones)

4. When problems occur with individuals, or groups of employees, we’ll look to find sensible, legal and effective solutions to minimise the damage to the organisation

5. We’ll be your experts in the labour market, knowing what outside factors will have an impact on helping us to deliver – or which need to be overcome to deliver – point 2 above.

6. When changes happen, we’ll understand the best way to minimise disruption and achieve what you want to set out.

7. HR isn’t your business conscience – but we will remind you that you have ethical responsibilities (and normal human emotions) that need to be factored in

8. We’re not your police either – so if we need to put in policies, systems, or procedures,  we’ll make sure they are there for a clear and understandable reason and that everyone understands the consequences of not complying

9. We’ll manage training and development, so that people in the business get the skills they need to do their jobs in a way that’s cost-effective.

10. We’ll use our specialist knowledge to support managers to manage people more effectively

11. If a problem needs a long-term solution, we won’t just offer you a quick fix

12. If there’s a new idea floating around, we’ll look for evidence that it will actually improve things before recommending you implement it

human-resources-1

Human Resources by Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 Alpha Stock Images

Overeducated and Underskilled – is it Recruiters’ fault?

Yesterday’s report by the Office for National Statistics that “31% of graduates are ‘over-educated’ for their job” has attracted a lot of attention, especially given the apparent conundrum that businesses are constantly complaining that people lack the right skills for the jobs.

There are a lot of issues here – including the question of whether the education system’s purpose is simply to provide trained labour for business; the consequences of the expansion of the university system; and even the philosophical question of whether it’s possible to be ‘over-educated’.

However, I want to concentrate on one factor which business has direct control over: recruitment. It seems to me that part of the problem is either laziness or ignorance on the part of those who manage recruitment.

The ONS report makes what I consider the same error as many businesses – to confuse education levels with skills. And as a result, we get what the CIPD’s David D’Souza describes as ‘weak signals’ in the labour market.

Too many recruiters will simply add in the phrase “degree-level educated” as an easy way to sift candidates, without even thinking about whether the skills or knowledge a degree brings are relevant to the job being advertised.

Take for example a recent job I saw advertised, for a Project Manager. It was in a very specialist sector and yet the first requirement in the person specification was to hold a degree. Not a specific, job related degree, but any degree. Given that many companies use automated sifting systems as part of their recruitment process, they would presumably reject someone without a degree but who had very relevant experience, but someone with a degree in a totally unrelated subject (let’s say Mediaeval History) would make it through to the next stage.  When they came to review the shortlist, hiring managers would no doubt tut about the shortage of good candidates.

Degrees are important in certain situations – particularly when we want people to demonstrate a certain level of independently verified knowledge of a subject. But in most cases we need to be understand what skills and knowledge a degree demonstrates; whether our job role actually requires these; and if there are other ways candidates can demonstrate that they possess these skills and knowledge.

Of course, this takes more time than the simple “just put out the advert on the job board” approach. But as I’ve argued repeatedly, recruitment is a major investment decision (especially in small businesses) and it’s worth taking a little more time to get the right person rather than making lazy assumptions.

College graduate students

You scratch my back…

You scratch my back…

Much has been made of the deal between courier firm Hermes and the GMB union which gives self-employed ‘gig economy’ workers various benefits, such as holiday pay, provided they sign up to follow delivery routes laid down by the company rather than simply set their own delivery route.

One interesting side debate that has occurred among some HR professionals is whether this deal is indicative of the lack of trust that businesses have in employees, and the underlying assumption that employees are inherently less productive than the self-employed unless they are controlled.

It’s an opinion, but one which I think is incorrect. It seems to ignore that work is a complex relationship, with economic, psychological and sociological aspects, which has at its heart a ‘bargain’ – I (the worker) will give you (the business) my time and skill in return for pay, a safe environment and fair treatment by the employer. The power in the relationship usually lies with the employer although there can be times when the employee has the upper hand.

The nature of any bargain is that if I give something up, I expect something in return – otherwise it’s not ‘fair’. So in this situation, the employer giving extra money to individuals wants something back for it – in this case a higher degree of control over the working arrangements. It doesn’t necessarily suggest a lack of trust (the existing system of drivers setting their own routes seems to have worked well enough for both sides) but a recognition that the relationship has subtly changed – and crucially still feels fair to both sides.

Think about it this way. When you are dating someone it’s a fairly loose arrangement, a little like true self-employment. When you’re not with your boy/girlfriend, there’s a certain element of trust (you assume that they are not dating others when you’re not around) but generally you don’t bother too much about what they are doing. When you move in together, the relationship changes –  you give up certain things (the ‘right’ to come and go as you please, watch what you like on TV, decorate your room in a particular way) in return for other benefits. No-one is suggesting that loss of control over the TV remote or letting your partner know where you are implies a lack of trust or an inherent belief that single people have more freedom than the cohabiting. You each make a bargain to give certain things up in return for other things, in order to preserve fairness and balance.

So rather than examine the specifics of the GMB-Hermes deal, look at it in the round – it’s about maintaining equilibrium in the relationship.

(If this all sounds a bit theoretical and airy-fairy, there  are some real practical implications in the world of work –  find out more here)

people walking on street between concrete buildings

Photo by Irina Iriser on Pexels.com

 

In (slight) defence of Dave Ulrich

HR guru/thought leader/influencer Professor Dave Ulrich of the University of Michigan has copped for a bit of a kicking from many in the profession, for this tweet issued at the end of last week.

 

On the face of it, it’s an easy comment to criticise. Apart from the fact that not all organisations are driven by the profit motive, we can all point to companies that are “winning in the marketplace” in part by employment practices that are dodgy if not illegal – Ryanair, Amazon, Deliveroo, Sports Direct etc. It also has echoes of the 1980s attitude of ‘what’s good for the business is good for employees’

But there is an important point hidden in a badly worded tweet. We can have a bigger impact on employee wellbeing by promoting long term job security, decent wages and good working conditions than we can by well meaning but ineffective initiatives. All the “Employee Assistance Programmes” in the world won’t help the staff at House of Fraser. Organisations need to be financially secure and successful (however you define success) to be able to offer these – and HR’s role is to contribute to this, even if it’s not the most exciting or sexy part of our work.

One of the things I often challenge my CIPD students is to justify why they are making recommendations that may cost their organisations a lot of money,  if they cannot clearly articulate the benefits of doing so – and that in many cases this justification needs to be quantifiable in financial terms. Too often, we resort to hopeful statements about ill defined outcomes.

Nor is it an either/or position. Contributing to successful organisational outcomes is not at the expense of supporting employee well being. As the new CIPD profession map points out, HR professionals need to be Principles Led and Outcomes Driven. Each is as important as the other.

Maybe Dave did have a point after all?

Radical or Bureaucratic? Why Labour’s HR proposals may be both

With the current political turmoil in the UK, and the possibility that we may see a change in Government in the near future, this post looks briefly at the HR and employment related announcements made this month by the opposition and consider their effects on the profession. I should stress that I’m not looking at this from a political view – HR professionals (and businesses more widely) have a responsibility to ensure our organisations work within the law, whatever our personal views of a particular piece of legislation.

Five key announcements have been made by Labour’s John McDonnell in recent weeks, in a series of speeches.

1.       Ban ‘zero hours contracts’. I’ve written before that this probably wouldn’t solve the underlying problem – since employers would either go down the route of full casualisation, or offer ‘1 hour per week with the option to do more’ contracts. But from an HR perspective, other than the admin time caused by changing existing contractual arrangements, it might cause businesses to rethink their reason why they use these types of contracts.

2.       Raise the minimum wage to £10 per hour. Not really an issue from an HR perspective, as the current Government have previously said they want to raise the level to £9 per hour, this is more a political argument as to what level the minimum wage should be.

3.       Sectoral Collective Bargaining. Collective agreements still exist on an industry wide basis – not just in the public sector – in some sectors. (I still need to dig out my ‘pink book’ – below – occasionally). But given that union membership is at a low level, doesn’t exist in certain sectors and employers aren’t currently obliged to participate in sectoral bargaining even if they do recognise unions, this seems to be more of a long-term aim than a change that will have an immediate impact on the way companies interact with their staff.

4.       Right to paid leave for victims of domestic abuse. I don’t think anyone would disagree with the principle behind this (and we will shortly have to implement paid leave for child bereavement, so it’s not really an extra administrative task). But I can see a whole host of practical difficulties. Will individuals have to pre-declare to their employer that they are in an abusive relationship? At what point will the right kick in (physical abuse? Mental cruelty?)? What evidence will be needed? This isn’t to make light of a very serious issue, but it is a subject that requires sensitive handling from HR and simply setting it up a ‘procedure’ doesn’t seem to be the way forward. (I haven’t seen a policy document, simply the announcement, so if there is more detail on how this would work I’m happy to link to it).

5.       Compulsory Share Ownership for Employees. This issue attracted the most media attention, primarily because employers with over 250 staff would be ‘forced’ to give employees a percentage of shares (up to 10% over a period of time), allowing them to earn dividends on top of their wages. Employee shareholding is not a new concept, there are many companies that operate schemes that allow some or all employees to be given shares in the organisation. Nor are ‘compulsory’ schemes anything unusual – companies are already required to enrol employees in a pension scheme and to make financial contributions to it, while a chunk of profits is already taken from larger companies in the form of the apprenticeship levy. In one sense the idea is simply a different approach to that taken by the Cameron government, but with the same aim – to allow workers a greater stake in their employer. From an HR perspective –  having spent several years working in an employee owned business – the major immediate challenges will be for learning and development professionals who will need to devise training on the different roles and responsibilities of an employee and a shareholder, and responding to the argument “you can’t sack me, I’m a shareholder” in disciplinary hearings.

And while we shouldn’t undersestimate the possible cultural effects of these proposals, the devil will be in the detail for most of them. Will they go the way of the ill-fated “Statutory Dismissal and Grievance Procedures” introduced – and quickly abolished – in the early 2000s? Or will they become just part of the regulatory environment for HR, like maternity leave or compulsory redundancy consultation? Only time (and the result of the next general election) will tell.

IMG_0036