HR principles sometimes counter-intuitive
HR deals with human relations in general. What works best can often be counter-intuitive, which is a key reason many line managers struggle with HR approaches. The demonstrations in June at Toronto’s G20 venue provided interesting examples.
Legitimate protesters are stuck in a puzzling situation. They can continue to hold marches during G20 meetings, thus providing mass cover in which a handful of criminal agitators can hide and do maximum damage — and guaranteeing no one hears their messages.
Or, a better solution might be to hold as big a rally as possible one week or so prior to a G20 or G8 in a safe location, where organizers could videotape sensible statements of protest and logical arguments and alternatives to give to leaders ahead of the meetings. Vandals rarely show up where there’s nothing to vandalize.
There would be less media coverage but the messages wouldn’t be lost. Larger numbers would turn out since additional protesters wouldn’t fear arrest or violence. Demonstrating how many people are concerned about alternate solutions would likely get more reasoned attention from leaders instead of protesting when their attention is fully occupied. Would it work? Can anyone say clearly from what we saw on TV what the messages were? Almost any alternative would be more successful.
At least in HR we have research that proves counter-intuitive approaches are typically superior.
In day-to-day HR, for example, many line managers hate whatever pay system is in place because they don’t understand the core purpose is fair pay and huge increases are counter-productive to their objectives. They want to pay their best people more and evil HR stands in the way. They’re certain if they can’t fudge the system, they will lose those very top employees. Wrong on several counts.
First, if every manager does this, it will create a race to the top, extremely high pay for everyone, disengaging both top and mediocre employees. (Wait, isn’t that what’s happening with CEO pay, especially in the United States where publishing pay scales has had the opposite of its intended effect?) Second, based on subjective evaluations of who is “best,” other employees become severely upset unless their pay is also raised nearly as much — oops, more of the same problem.
And, third, of course, line managers pay no attention whatsoever to the tons of research showing money isn’t the prime motivator — recognition is. Yet many managers continue, year after year, to say hardly a “thank you,” let alone a positively reinforcing “good job” despite the fact this free option has been shown to have a far greater effect on results than dangerously raising pay, expectations, claims of favouritism and all the problems unmanaged pay systems create.
As to pay, if employees at Toyota happily produce more than one-million profit-improving suggestions per year for about $50 to $100 each, why do we think big bucks are needed to motivate our people?
Dave Crisp is a Toronto-based consultant with a wealth of experience, including 14 years leading HR at Hudson Bay Co. where he took the 70,000-employee retailer to “best company to work for” status. For more information, visit www.crispstrategies.com. He also contributes regularly to the Strategic HR blog on Canadian HR reporter’s website.
