Development or growth?

I recently attended a seminar around Human Resources. This was organized by Hays Consulting inviting a guest speaker. It was interesting to see how Japan is ranked in terms of talent resources. For instance, Hays Consulting claim that Japan is worst ranked in Asia Pacific in terms of the mismatch of the talents. If I remember my old days at a Japanese company, this claim does not sound surprising at all. But, I am not sure if this is true because I am not aware how the data has been obtained and collated.

Having said that, I have found the report quite interesting. I do not intend to argue the credibility of the data. My point is actually related to the presentation made by the guest speaker. Piotre Feliks Grzywacz is an HR professional. He was Regional Head of People Development APAC at Google. He has already written a book: 0秒リーダーシップ:「これからの世界」で圧倒的な成果を上げる仕事術

He mentioned that the current organizations are based on promotion but that the future organization should be based on growth. Gen Y values personal growth more than promotion (https://www.pwc.com/m1/en/services/consulting/documents/millennials-at-work.pdf). This is when the term ‘growth’ started to resonate in my mind.

HR professionals know that development has to be discussed when the line manager conducts performance evaluation. Let’s review what the employee has achieved and let’s see what they need to achieve. The Line Manager is supposed to assess the employee from talent and potential perspective and discuss development needs. But this has a fundamental impediment. When the term ‘development’ is used, the employees tend to expect that their employer offers development opportunities and interventions. This typically means off-the-job training. Is this the right thing to do?

If you are a football fan, you must have heard young players interviewed after a match. All the talented young players say that they enjoy very much here because they feel that they are growing. They learn a lot from their coach, from the other players and from the games they play. Their joy refers to an environment supporting growth. But at the same time, their words confirm that they are responsible and committed to their own growth. They never expect others to take the lead to develop their skills. They know that they are the one who owns their development leveraging on the environment and their own passion for growth. This is possibly influenced by the highly competitive situation and the pride they take in the job they perform.

Let’s apply this to our business context. Let’s use the term ‘grow’ to the business persons. Let’s discuss growth rather than development. Let’s start to review the growth the employee has achieved. Then let’s discuss the growth the employee wishes to achieve. Let’s see what the line manager can do to help the employee grow. When I say all of this, I can pleasantly feel the sense of ownership and the coaching approach. This is a huge difference compared to the case where the term ‘development’ is used.

This may be just a matter of terminology. But we know that words are powerful. I think growth is a powerful word from HR perspective and management perspective.

Culture change

Culture change is one of the most important agendas in HR and Management. This also makes your CV brilliant if you have a successful case around culture change as HR Business Partner.

https://hbr.org/2016/11/hr-cant-change-company-culture-by-itself

This article was written to argue the ownership of culture change. The article claims that culture change does not work if it is solely owned by HR. The business leaders have to own culture change in order to drive the change successfully.

I could not agree more. But I want to introduce this article because the article summarises what a culture is. Let me give you an extract:

True culture change means altering the way the organization lives and breathes. It shapes the way people make decisions, get their work done, what they prioritize, and how they interact with colleagues, clients, and customers.

To summarise, a culture shapes behaviours around

• The way people make decisions
• The way people get their work done
• What people prioritize
• How people interact with colleagues, clients and customers.

This is why work around culture change is difficult. Let’s look at decision making. Decision making is influenced by a few factors. The major factors are 1) decision making quality of leaders 2) approval process of an organization. You can influence or alter decision making quality of leaders possibly through offsite training and/or on-the-job experience. This is a classic product of HR. However, approval process lies in the field of Organizational Development and most of HR Business Partners are not trained as OD specialist. It will be much better to combine interventions on the above two factors, but the second factor can easily be ignored because of the above limitation. As a result, the impact will be likely to be undermined.

So what do we need? I think that an internal workshop around OD for HR Business Partners will do. Any thought on this?

How to retain the talents

There are questions that compel an answer. For instance, you will get a unamious Yes from the participants if you ask: “Does retention of the talents matter to your organisation?” “Does it matter to your organisation to get away from high employee turnover?”

I read the following article with anticipation and curiosity:

http://blog.achievers.com/2016/11/how-to-protect-your-company-from-high-employee-turnover/

However, I lost the interest soon. Why? Because the article talks about what seems to be techniques to retain employees rather than the principle around retention. Besides, it is written assuming that there is no problem or issue with the line managers. But who has confirmed that the line managers have nothing to do with employee turnover? Actually, the turnover has very much to do with the line managers.

We all agree that employees leave their organisation usually for more than one reason. Occasionally, employees leave their organisation 100% due to their family reason (the employee’s father passed away and the employee has to take over the family business). In this case, there is only one reason the employee leaves the organisation. But this is rather rare and usually people have a few reasons to leave the organisation.

I have always thought that the following model can apply: there are three factors affecting the decision to leave or not unless force majeure (the case above is included in the force majeure):

• Job or assignment
• Compensation
• People

Job or assignment

If you find the current job or assignment interesting or exciting, or if you learn a lot from the current job, this serves as retention. On the other hand, if you are bored by the current job, this forms one of the good reasons to leave the organization.

Compensation

If you are satisfied with the current compensation, this serves as retention. You do not have to be well paid, but you have to feel that you are paid in a fair manner. But if you feel that you are not paid enough for what you do, or if you discover that your pay is significantly below the market standard, this forms one of the good reasons to leave the organization.

People

If you can respect some of the people you work with, or if you learn a lot from the people you work with, this serves as retention. But if the workplace is full of people you cannot respect, or if the people you work with are far from role model and actually an anti these, you do not want to stay with the organization.

The beauty of the above model is that the three factors can function as a barometre. If you are unhappy with all the three factors, there is no reason for you to stay with the organisation. But if you are happy with all the three factors, you are embracing your professional life. Here is how the barometre works:

• Green: None of the three factors show concern. There is no reason for the employee to consider leaving the organization.
• Amber: One or two of the three factors show concern. I am assuming that many people have one of the three factors show concern.
• Red: All the three factors show concern. Under this state, there is no reason to stay with the organization.

Let me add a final touch to the above model. I think that the most influencing factor is people. Working is a human interaction. If you have to work with disgusting people, you are highly likely to consider leaving the organization; job or assignment can change and the compensation can increase or can be compromised. But it is difficult to compromise the people you work with.

Even if the onboarding process is excellent, and your colleagues are friendly, you will eventually consider leaving the organization if your boss is utterly disgusting. If we want to discuss retention, we need to discuss the leadership quality and management capabilities. More specifically, we should ask if our managers are people that deserve trust.

Ideal organization

Bob Sutton Work Mattersを読んでいたら、彼が組織行動学(Organizational Behaviour)を教えてきた経験について振り返る記事がありました。組織行動学には興味があるので食いつくように読んでいると、こんなくだりに出会いました。

My favorite part of the organizational behavior class is the final exam. Students learn the question on the very first day of class: "Design the ideal organization: Use course concepts to defend your answer."

理想的な組織をデザインして、コースで学んだコンセプトを使って自分の回答を正当化しなさいというものです。これは二つの意味で興味深いですね。まず、学生ではなく、人事部での実務経験がある人が描く理想的な組織とはどんなものだろうということ。人事部長またはHRジェネラリストは少なからず組織に対して参照や不満や懸念を感じるもので、どれくらい言語化するかは別として、経験の中で理想の組織というものを心の中で描いているはずです。それがどんなものか知りたい。

二つ目の点はコースで学んだコンセプトを使って、理想の組織を理論武装するというところ。大学等でHuman Resourcesを学んだ人なら、理論武装はありますが、そうでない限り、実務経験が理論武装するときの武器だ。現場のHR Professionalはどのようにこの点を克服するのでしょうか。Bob Suttonも言っていますが、これは経験ない学生にはとても難しい。経験をもっていても難しいと思います。

言ったからにはやろうじゃないかというので、理想の組織を考えて見ました。作文は自信がないので、箇条書きに特徴を書くことにします。

My ideal organization should:

• See fairness as the principle. もし、組織のトップマネジメントが人に関する判断でUnfairな行動を取ると、組織はモチベーション落下へと向かうのみです。一方、トップマネジメントが人に関する判断を行う際に、Fairnessを具現化しようとしている場合には、いわゆる「psychological safety」が保証され、社員は組織に対して信頼感を抱きます。
• Recognise desirable behaviours and punish unwanted behaviours. たとえばハラスメントに対して何のアクションも取らない組織は求心力を失っていくでしょう。離職率があがるのを止めることは無理になります。一方、ハラスメントに対して真摯に取り組み、組織として望ましい行動を認める組織は、成功のファウンデーションができていると思います。結果はおのずと出ていくのではないでしょうか。
• Be practicing the learning culture. 環境は変化します。変化する環境に適応できない組織は「適者生存」の法則に従い、滅びていくしかありません。組織も、組織ではたらく社員も常に学び続ける場合、組織は生存し続けるはずです。
• Be embracing power of abundant communication. 組織にとってコミュニケーションは、身体にとって血液と同じです。血液が流れなくなったら、細胞は死ぬしかありません。同様に、コミュニケーションがなくなったら、組織は死亡＝崩壊するしかありません。もちろん、コミュニケーションがまったくなくなることはないでしょうが、これが悪い組織は、血の流れの悪い人と同じです。いつ病気になってもおかしくありません。組織の健康診断を受ければ悪い箇所がいくつか見つかるでしょう。一方、コミュニケーションのいい組織は血の流れがいい人と似ています。とても健康的で、病気にかかることもないでしょう。

書いてみて思ったのだが、自分は組織を身体に喩える傾向があるようだ。それと、これしか書いていないのにずいぶんと時間が必要だった。言語化していないことを言葉に落とすのは大変なパワーが必要らしい。

ついては、上の組織の理論武装については別の機会で行おう。

オープンオフィスはいいのか？

オープンオフィスというのが流行っているそうです。従来のオフィスというのは、座るデスクが決まっていて、部署によっては隔離されている場所もあります。たとえば、人事部は気密性の観点から隔離されているのが普通です。

これでは、コミュニケーションが阻害されるという考えのもと、壁を取っ払い、さらには定住するデスクもなくすことで、ダイナミックに社員が交流するのを期待したい。その結果生まれたのがオープンオフィスです。

もし、願った結果が得られるのなら、これほどいいことはないでしょう。でも、実際はどうなのか？　科学的に考えるとするなら、コミュニケーションという測定しにくいものを何らかの方法で定量化して測定する必要があると思いますが、実際にはどうなのでしょう？

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/30/google-got-it-wrong-the-open-office-trend-is-destroying-the-workplace/?utm_term=.a9d9d6d28ad8

定量化したわけではまったくないのですが、上のブログでは、率直にオープンオフィスの罪について語っています。簡単に言うと、自分のデスクのそばにうるさい同僚が座るようになってしまい、集中ができない。彼らが夕方になっていなくなって初めて仕事ができるというものです。

オープンオフィスはマクロ的観点から生産性とコミュニケーションにアプローチしたものですが、上の例を見ると、マクロの利点がミクロの欠点で打ち消されています。やはり、オープンオフィスをつくるよりは、社員が素敵なオフィスと思うようなきれいで明るいオフィスが速いのかもしれません。

ぼくの直感では、10年もしたらオープンオフィスなんて誰も言わなくなるのではないでしょうか。どうも表面的すぎるし科学的根拠もないように思えるのです。ひとつの部署が50名と大きくてコミュニケーションが悪いから、部署の大きさを5名にすればコミュニケーションはよくなると言われたらみなさんは信じますか？　ぼくは経験上、絶対ありえないと思います。5名になると人間関係がより濃厚になるから、中にいやな人がいると、コミュニケーションの問題はより浮き彫りになるだけです。 やはり、マクロの利点がミクロの欠点に消されてしまいます。

Design Thinking

There are two types of people: some people learn little from their experience; other people learn a great deal from their experience to get themselves better or get things better. I am not sure why and I don’t intend to analyse the cause, but this is translated into a habit of seeing an opportunity in every activity/event.

Once I had an unpleasant onboarding experience. There was a process in place, but something was wrong. So I decided to look at the on-boarding process more closely. A usual approach is to review the actions and the steps which form the on-boarding process in order to see an opportunity for efficiency. I decided to bring a different perspective: experience. On-boarding is the first exposure to a new organization. This is what we call “first impression”. Everybody knows that the first impression is important. There is no use claiming that you should not judge a person based on the first impression because eventually people make a decision instantly and it will take extra efforts to change the perception that was formed based on the first impression.

You will agree that first impression will be critical to motivate those who join an organization. If the on-boarding experience is the first impression, then, it makes sense to ensure that new staff remember the on-boarding experience with smile and excitement.

Peter Drucker wrote that work is impersonal but working is human. Similary, a process is objective, but experience is human. If we wish to improve the on-boarding experience, it is not enough to look at it from engineer perspective. We need to add another perspective. That is experience.

For instance, if you say "on-boarding process", that gives you an opportunity to improve efficiency around the process. This is good, but this is not excellent. Why? Because on-boarding is a personal experience. If you say "on-boarding experience", you will eventually put yourself into the shoes of those who join the organisation. This will turn your attention to what the new staff will feel when they go through the on-boarding process. Creative ideas can start to come to your mind such as "what can we do to impress the new staff that we are organised?" "what can we do to turn frustration into joy when new staff start to learn the policies and processes in the organisation?"

http://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/focus/human-capital-trends/2016/employee-experience-management-design-thinking.html?id=us:2el:3dc:dup3021:awa:cons:hct16:dcpromo

When I came across the above article, it was a bingo feeling. What I did while focusing on experience was actually design thinking. I did not think this was a big theme, but according to the article, this looks like an initiative which can have a huge impact on the entire organisation. This can make sense to us because we have promised to be more efficient. Robust processes are important to protect the organisation. Who operates the processes? It is certainly not robots, but human beings. If processes give you painful experience, who will care how robust the processes are? This is where "design thinking" can interfere and make a difference.

What do you think?

家内から学びたいコミュニケーションスキル

家内を見ていて思うのは、コミュニケーションの難しさだ。

先に断っておこう。彼女はコミュニケーションの天才と言ってもいい。たとえば、飲みに行くとしよう。いつの間にか近くの人達と仲良くなっている。お店の人とも仲良くなっている。楽しい人なんですねと言えばそれまでかもしれないが、実は、これはとんでもないことだ。

そもそも、飲み屋では、バックグラウンドの違う人達が集まる。性別も違えば年齢も違う。業界も職業も異なる。つまり、コンテクストがかなり違うということだ。その上で、どういうコンテクストが初対面で聞き出すことは難しい。

そのような限られて条件で、仲良くなるというのはとてつもなく難しいことだ。同じ会社という恵まれたコンテクストでさえ、ラポールを築くのは技術と経験が必要とされるのに、そうでもないのにどうしてそんな芸当ができるのか。

彼女を見ていると思うのだが、それは、受け答えがうまいからだ。彼女は聞くのがうまい。相手に話をさせるのがうまい。ただ話をさせているのではなく、反応をしながら、相手が話しやすいような環境をつくっていく。

そして、話を聞いているときの表情も豊かだ。

つまり、何を話しているか、どう話をしているかというよりは、場をつくっているのだ。

コミュニケーションは、植物のようなものなのかもしれない。コミュニケーションが成立するには、その土壌が必要なのだ。彼女はその土壌をあっという間につくってしまう。だから、彼女はいつの間にか知らない人と仲良くなってしまう。

問題はどうやってその能力を身につけるかだが、それは次回に考えよう。