The 15 things that HR should do (but doesn’t always)

Working as I do with small organisations, I’ll often read an article about some great new HR initiative or theory and wonder why we make things so complex. It seems to me that we frequently get so caught up in the processes, jargon and big picture stuff that we neglect what we are really all about. Employment is a relationship and we need to be clear about what it is that we are committing to, as our side of the ‘deal’. After giving it some thought, I’ve distilled it down to 15 points that define what HR should be doing to create a successful relationship (and where there is no HR, what senior managers should make sure they have in place) 

1.       We’ll pay you correctly, on time, and at a rate that is ‘felt fair’ by both sides.

2.       We’ll make sure that you have a safe place to work, with the right equipment and any required protective clothing

3.       We’ll make sure we comply with the law around employment

4.       If you apply for a job with us, we’ll make sure the process is clear and easy to follow, and keep you informed about your application.

5.       If you need training or other support during work, we’ll make sure that it is organised for you in a timely way.

6.       We’ll keep you informed about what’s going on in the organisation and how it affects you, and we’ll listen to your views

7.       If you do something that’s not right, we’ll make you aware of what it is and why – and do what we can to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

8.       If you think we’ve done something wrong, we want you tell us (and feel comfortable about doing so)

9.       If we do get something wrong, we’ll make sure it is put right (for the future, if we can’t correct it now).

10.   We recognise that there may be times when what individuals or groups of employees want may not be the same as what the organisation wants. We’ll always discuss the best way forward and try to reach a consensus if we can

11.   We won’t tolerate a culture where individuals are abused, belittled, harassed or insulted – whoever this is by.

12.   If we need to end your employment, we’ll make sure this is done with respect, professionalism and understanding.

13.   We can’t promise that every day you work here will be enjoyable. But we’ll try to make sure that the unpleasant ones are the exception, not the rule

14.   We understand that you may have things going on in your life outside work.  We’ll do our best to support you and, if we can, accommodate them.

15.   Above all, we recognise that you are a person too.

I’m conscious that I might be accused of coming up with a ‘best practice’ list – anathema to many modern-day HR practitioners. But I prefer to see it as a core set of principles – which can be adapted to virtually any business size, structure or sector. One thing’s for sure – could you say your organisation is doing all 15 currently?

The failure of HR

Well, after much speculation, and a weekend of leaks, yesterday saw the publication of the Taylor Review into employment, entitled “Good Work”. Much of the focus has understandably been on the Employment Law implications (excellently summarised by Darren Newman) and there has been a mixed reaction to the proposals.

But one of the key things that struck me from the report was the implicit failure of HR Management over the last 20-30 years, in allowing this situation to develop. Taylor’s concept of ‘good work’ would not look out of place in any CIPD document (and isn’t radically different to the ideas of a Victorian-era Pope). But the fact that Taylor feels it necessary to state that:

·         Flexible working is currently one-sided, in favour of the employer

·         A culture has grown up of insecure work and unpaid overtime

·         Employees and other workers are not listened to and often have no way to put forward their views

·         Not enough time or money is invested in training and development

·         The over-control of workers leads to problems with individual wellbeing

Suggests the reality – of what HR are doing – doesn’t match the theory.

So why is this? There seem to me to be five main reasons for HR’s failure.

·         Clinging on to outdated ideas – like “Best Practice” – a set of theories that derive from a discredited 1980s management study

·         A mistaken perspective, that sees businesses as some kind of corporate North Korea where dissidents (anyone disagreeing with the management viewpoint) are trouble makers to be removed, or re-educated via ‘employee engagement’ programmes.

·         Alternating between scaredy-cat approaches where we hide behind “policy says no” and “we might set a precedent”, and macho ‘business partnering’ where we try to act like the corporate equivalent of mafia hitmen.

·         Dehumanising people by referring to them as “human capital” (an oxymoronic term that reduces people to data on spreadsheets)

·         Becoming obsessed with the process rather than the outcome. I don’t care which “Applicant Tracker System” is best or about the relative merits of an ‘e-learning portal’ v ‘online facilitation’.  

I’m glad to see that the CIPD are having a review and consultation around our professional standards. But it’s how HRM is put into practice that worries me, and it seems we are way off the game in a lot of areas.

 

All the World’s a Stage

There seem to be a lot of HR related blogs on authenticity at the moment. The concept of “bringing your true self to work” has gained a lot of traction for what are very understandable reasons. If we are looking to improve productivity and get the best from committed and motivated employees, then we need to counter the “reverse superman” effect (a phrase coined by Organisational Development specialist Ali Germain) where people who are talented, capable and innovative in their non-work lives suddenly turn into lifeless corporate drones as soon as they clock in. And creating more human, people centred workplaces may well be the way to attract people to work for our businesses in future.
However, I’m not convinced we actually want real authenticity. Let me give you two examples.
Many years ago, I worked with a senior manager whose life was dominated by his hobby of yachting. His office was full of yachting memorabilia, including a sailing cap he always kept on his desk. People used to hate being summoned to his office because, after 5 minutes of business, they would be subjected to interminable (and to non-sailing types, i.e. most staff) tedious anecdotes about his yacht, sailing generally or his days in the navy. He was being totally “authentic” but the real him was a dreadful bore.
More recently, I had to deal with a disciplinary situation where an employee was constantly rude and aggressive to colleagues, but never in front of her manager. Following a particular incident, she was suspended and ultimately dismissed. During the investigation, many people commented that it was good that management had now seen her true colours. In her hearing, she argued that she had done nothing that wasn’t warranted and that she had always been like that – even using the phrase “what you see is what you get”.
But even if we want to get the “real person” in work I very much doubt we will. There have been numerous psychological studies about how people modify their behaviour in different environments – as Shakespeare put it “one man in his time plays many parts”. It’s one of the HR clichés that you don’t have to be friends the people you work with – and if you aren’t, you probably won’t be comfortable with showing your real feelings or personality in the working environment – no matter how much you like your organisation, job or get on with colleagues at a superficial or professional level.
When we talk about authenticity in HR, what I suspect we really mean is that we’d quite like people to show some of the nicer aspects of their personality in work, maybe with the odd idiosyncrasy thrown in, not their misogynistic or racist views or even their tendency to drone on about their yachting exploits at the weekend.

Let’s Settle This (Part 2)

In my last post, I looked at when a small business might want to consider a Settlement Agreement. This follow up post looks at some of the practical issues when discussing an agreement.

The first thing is making the initial approach to the employee. Some people find this quite difficult to do but often – especially where there is a clear dispute – the employee may well be expecting you to say something. It’s important that at this early stage you simply talk about the principle of coming to an agreement, rather than jumping in with an immediate offer.

Follow this up in writing – confirming that you consider your discussion a protected conversation under the Employment Rights Act. This means that any discussions will not be admissible* if things break down and you do end up with a Tribunal Claim. (*Unless in the course of the discussions you say something as stupid as “I’m only getting rid of you because you’re pregnant/gay/Muslim” etc, or try to bully or harass the individual, in which case they can be used in support of a claim). You may also want to add the words “Without Prejudice” to any letter/email although strictly speaking these words only protect lawyers.

Think about the offer you are going to make. The individual is signing away legal rights so will expect something more than their basic contractual payments. Like any negotiation, consider your opening offer and what you are prepared to go up to. Remember also that negotiations break down it may be 6-8 weeks before you can justify dismissal so you’ll be paying the person for this long anyway – so an additional cash amount might be cost-neutral. You can also think about whether there are any non-financial benefits you can offer – a good reference for example. Try to avoid thinking in emotional terms “I don’t want to give this person £££” and look at it commercially

It’s also now “expected” – though you don’t legally have to do it – that the employer will make a contribution towards the employee’s legal fees. The amount is usually fixed, but in my experience will depend on the particular solicitor – one of the advantages of the north of England is that they are often cheaper!

Finally, remember that the agreement is voluntary – you or the employee can walk away at any point and if this happens then you continue as if the discussions had never taken place. This might mean restarting a performance or disciplinary process.

The Clarkson Affair – what small employers really need to know

The suspension of TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear, after what’s been described as a “fracas” with his producer, has caused a huge amount of discussion, media comment and online debate. (If you’re one of my non-UK readers, or have been avoiding the news for the past week, here’s a summary of the story)

In adding to the already large amounts of discussion on this story, I’m aiming to provide a reminder for small organisations of the process for dealing with such a situation – while not all that common it happens more often than you may think.

Firstly, you need be clear to all staff about what behaviour is unacceptable. Most organisations would class fighting or physical assault as gross misconduct, which is likely to lead to dismissal without notice (people sometimes refer to this as “summary” or ” instant” dismissal – however as you have to undertake a proper process before dismissing, I avoid these terms as they imply that you make a knee-jerk decision). Many organisations would also class threatening verbal abuse as gross misconduct, especially if it has (as some versions of the story suggest) a racial element.

Even if you don’t classify it as gross misconduct, it’s unlikely to be acceptable behaviour and might well lead to disciplinary action – and if you have someone  already on a final warning (again, as Mr Clarkson apparently is), further disciplinary action is also likely to result in dismissal.

If you are considering gross misconduct, you should normally suspend the individual while you investigate matters. Someone’s job is at stake so it’s important that you talk to any witnesses or consider any supporting documentation. You may also want to talk to the individual themselves as part of the investigation although this isn’t always necessary. Make sure any meetings are documented. If your organisation is large enough, get someone to carry out the investigation who isn’t connected to the incident or who won’t be involved in the final decision.

At the end of the investigation, if there seem to be grounds for gross misconduct, call a disciplinary hearing and ensure the individual has access to all the allegations before the hearing. Remember, you must allow them to put forward their side of the story or any mitigating circumstances before you make the final decision.

And if you do dismiss, then the individual must be allowed an appeal, usually to someone not involved in the final decision – although in a very small organisation this isn’t always possible, but in this case you should allow the opportunity to request a review of the decision.

Without knowing all the ins and outs of the Clarkson case (we only have partial media reports), it does seem the BBC is doing things “correctly”, even if this upsets those who want to see Clarkson either back on TV or dismissed immediately. And it’s a reminder that no matter how valuable an individual employee is to the company, they aren’t above the normal standards of behaviour.

If your company needs help with handling a disciplinary case, why not get in touch?

(NB – some may point out that Clarkson is not a BBC employee but a freelance contractor. I understand that because of the large numbers of freelance contractors in the media industry, the BBC policy is to cover both employees and contractors. However, you don’t need to follow such a process with any freelance workers you use in your business, only those who are directly employed by you)

Updated 25/3/15

The decision has been made and it seems that not only have the BBC carried out a full and proper investigation of the issues, they’ve also carried out the process in a fortnight, which gives the lie to those who suggest that suspensions and investigations drag out things unnecessarily!