This post has been bouncing around in my head for a while with no home. An itch I couldn’t scratch, a sound with no location, a pixelated picture I couldn’t make out. Until now.
In the November issue of CRM magazine is an article entitled “Six Sigma: What Went Wrong?“ The subhead to the article is “A 60 percent failure rate suggests process change requires behavior change.”
Hmmm…. process change requires behavior change.
Who Should I Talk to About People Issues?
I’ve spoken to more than a few clients about how to use rewards, incentives and influence techniques to increase the adoption of new processes and technologies resulting in a better overall return on those expenditures. It only makes sense. The sooner I can get people to use the CRM system, or the new enterprise knowledge sharing platform, the sooner I realize the benefits – ergo – savings! But, in most cases, the advice is brushed aside and (the CIO in most cases) goes on about how easy the software is to use and how folks will get it. Or in extreme cases, the employee is simply told – “do it or lose your job.”
What has bothered me – and what caused me to have that unsettled feeling that ended up in this post, is that someone in the organization should have seen the logic of instituting a behavior reinforcement program along side any major change in the process and requirements of the employee’s job function.
I have to ask, who is responsible for making sure the resources that use the tools are prepared and engaged with the change? Who, in an organization, has the responsibility for the resources that are human within a company. Who? Hmmm, who…?
Then it hit me… HUMAN RESOURCES is!!!
That’s right. Under our collective noses is a group of folks whose charge, responsibility and raison d’être (reason for living, for those of you in Rio Linda) is making sure the resources that are human, perform best.
Yet, it is rare that HR would even be involved in the process. If manufacturing was to change the process for putting together the product on the assembly line, I’m sure there would be folks there from facilities to make sure it’s set up correctly. I’m sure Maintenance would be involved to make sure they understood the impact on service, cleaning and repair.
But, whenever there is a change in the process that involves people – (cricket chip sound effect here) – nothing. I find it hard to believe that a million dollar installation of new accounting software, a million dollar installation of a CRM system or something like Windows SharePoint wouldn’t be discussed in a fairly high-level meeting, around some mahogany table on some top floor of a building. When the heads of all the departments got together to chat about business, did they discuss the new software or the new process being considered, implemented, installed? If so, where was the person from the department that is responsible for resources that are human?
Why didn’t their hand go up and say…”Excuse me, but I think I can help the transition be simple, easy, accepted AND save the company money.”
There have been a lot of posts out here in the ether about HR having a seat at the table. Having a seat is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Expand the HR thinking from managing the paper that surrounds the people to managing the environment that surrounds the relationships people have to the company.
HR is about resources that are human – how do you define your role when you change the order of the words?
Paul – GREAT post! A theme I repeat time and time again on my own blog is that HR’s sole purpose in an organization is to make sure employee behaviors align with the organizational strategies.
In the context of your article, that means that if there’s a new system or process being implemented, it’s essential that HR play a major role in ensuring employees are motivated to adopt the new system.
When you speak about incentive programs, what do you recommend? To you integrate expectancy theory and the sources of motivation model? Other, more specific recommendations? Case-by-case basis?
Great read – thanks again!
- Chris
Thanks for the comments.
As far as motivation goes, I subscribe to the “Hebert” theory of motivation which is – each theory has something that will resonate with someone.
I don’t believe any one theory (such as Vroom as you mention) can adequately capture the drives in people. Circumstances, timing, history, etc. all play a role in how we respond to specific inputs. One week we might be more motivated using Vroom – the next it could be the McClelland’s Three-Need Theory. They all, at their core, have something that will help motivation. My goal when developing an influence strategy is to incorporate as many of the theories as possible (without complicating it too much) and also look at other psychological influence techniques (behavioral economics, social psychology) that can help break inertia and guide behavior.
I don’t like to think that a proper strategy will work like Pavlov and his dogs – people are much more complex and can think – so I’m not a big believer in the Antecedents, Behavior, Consequences approach – but people can be influenced and guided.
Again – ethically applied and aligned with individual and corporate goals.
Really interesting post as the ‘seat at the table’ angle has been repeated so often (I have done it myself). I see it sometimes as a prioritization issue, any problem that can be classified as ‘compliance’, ‘payroll’, or ‘let’s try and be sure we aren’t going to be sued’, takes precedence over more creative, innovative or transformational efforts.
Paul -
I’m glad you shook this one out of your heard. Great post and right on. Any major change needs a change plan, which requires a solid understanding of human behavior.
wow! Seriously nailed it. Yet another example of how HR can add real value if they choose and how much better will companies be for it (or worse for the lack).
Paul, to do what you want, HR needs to be a strategic function. It’s not, and that’s why HR historically has done a poor job converting its seat at the table into a meaningful voice in the company.
A CFO is a strategic thinker with a financial mindset. A controller is a tactician who makes sure that money flows smoothly. Most HR departments top out with the “people” equivalent of the controller; the title may be CHRO/VP HR, but the person in the role is a tactician. (Conferring the title does not a strategic mind make.)
So I sort of agree with you. In principal, it’s HR. But in reality, it’s a void that has yet to be filled in many cases.
What would help to fill the void is a new vocabulary to help us more narrowly define the nuances of human interactions and explain our own expertise. Financiers have a robust vocab to distinguish from ROI to NPV to IRR… all specific elements of closely related concepts. HR has no such language, and so cannot differentiate between strategic and tactical work, and so cannot vocalize its value, and so doesn’t get invited to the discussion!
Congratulations! This post was selected as one of the five best business blog posts of the week in my Three Star Leadership Midweek Review of the Business Blogs.
http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2008/11/26/112608-a-midweek-look-at-the-business-blogs.aspx
Wally Bock
Hello Paul,
Funny how things never change. I was an early player in the CRM field, but focused on organization and process changes needed to actually get a business benefit.
I once had a call from a black belt asking if there was any research on tolerance and call abandonment based on IVR setup. In other words “how badly can we treat our customers and get away with it?”
Sadly, CRM is a textbook example of failure owing to a desire to buy what it takes hard work to get- organizational change. The worst of it is that the technologists won. The promise of competing on customer loyalty was lost in favor of wringing cost from the channel. the irony is that those who actually looked at CRM as a strategy and culture change won big.
Everything old really is new again. Here is a link to articles I wrote for Destination CRM in 2001 that are echos of your post. http://www.destinationcrm.com/Search/Default.aspx?Query=barry%20goldberg