If you follow my recent postings over on my company blog, you may have seen a couple of posts on HR vocabulary (ambiguity and emergent). I am trying to better communicate the vagaries of the HR struggle through the use of single words hoping to better cement these ideas with HR people.
The first two words were ambiguity and emergent. I felt that those words describe the business world of today. A ton of ambiguity in what we are tasked with accomplishing, and most of the time our objectives can’t be mapped out and planned for—they emerge. Once one thing happens, another unexpected thing happens—and the time frame between the changes are so fast we have little ability to set any kind of process in place to manage it.
And that is foreign to most of us. We are taught in school and in our formative training years at most companies to handle things systematically… logically. The only place I see companies really “manage” business today is within some of the new startups. They began in a world of ambiguity and emergent issues… and continue to compete in it. I think that is why so many of the new ideas in HR seem to—wait for it—emerge from those types of companies.
Vocabulary Lesson #3
But today I offer another vocabulary word for HR folks… Consistency… and the need for creating processes and procedures that are consistent.
HR is the department of consistency. It is the center of the “consistent” universe. If a policy is to be written—it is to be written to apply to all or to none. If we have office furniture, everyone gets the same color. (See my FOT post from 4 years ago, “HR Plays too Much Defense”.)
But if you accept that the world is more ambiguous—and that many of the problems HR encounters are emergent—then the least likely success strategy is one of consistency.
Consistency is the enemy in today’s business world… and the enemy of human beings in general.
Humans are diverse. Humans are ultimately variable. Humans chafe under conditions of consistency. Trust me on this one: if you have more than one child just try to make things consistent—it won’t work. And, now that I think of it, it really doesn’t work well when you treat them different either. (Face it—kids are a whole different issue.)
I know there will be a bunch of you that will raise the red flag and suggest that consistency is required to avoid lawsuits and problems. I know. You’ll tell me it is easier to create a policy that is consistent. I know, you’re right. You’ll tell me that it makes your job and your managers’ jobs harder when there is more latitude in the rules. And you are so right on that, as well.
But none of that matters.
You can be consistent in the face of ambiguity and emergent problems—and worry about keeping talent and recruiting talent (which is hard, too) or you can work harder at being less consistent and take on the additional workload of making it work.
Either way, you’re going to work harder. You just have to choose at which end of the equation—the beginning or the end.
I think it is better to work hard at the beginning and figure out the best way to tackle the issues of change with more imaginative policies than deal with the stink-eye from the CEO and CFO when turnover and recruiting problems arise.
To sum up, I’ll just drop in a quote from one of my favorite quotables…
“Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.” Oscar Wilde
Based on the HR pros I know—they are hardly unimaginative. I know they can do this.
What do you think? Is being consistent easier or harder in the long run?