Listening to Kevin Cashman this week on the update of his well-known leadership book offered a chance to reflect on the extent to which the climate in which HR (Human Resources) operates is changing… or isn’t. Interesting that Cashman’s writing retains its Zen flavor, something one might think wouldn’t sell well in the corporate world, but he’s been consistent for more than ten years now.

Cashman updated his book to include more research and case studies that confirm the value of its recommendations – that to create change, a leader must first change him or herself. It’s a message more leaders need to hear. In fact, in my piece for Canadian HR Reporter, I make the point that this is why there are so many bad leaders, a question we constantly hear. A leader who thinks their role is to tell others to change, but has no intention or expectation of changing themselves is a bad leader and there are lots.

Cashman’s point with the update is there are many companies beginning to notice this principle and use it to hire or promote better CEOs who in turn create and lead better executive teams, who in turn lead more effectively for results. The problem is that “many” is a relative term. Where before there might have been a handful of such companies, now there are twice or three times as many – still a handful compared to the vast number of organizations out there.

Listening to Cashman and knowing he’s been stumping the world at conference after conference for years makes one wonder how many of have to push this message out before it becomes everyday stuff for leaders in organizations. Somewhere there is a tipping point, to borrow Malcolm Gladwell’s book title and concept. It can’t come too soon for all the people who continue to struggle in companies that haven’t picked up on this message.

As it happens, it’s my pleasure to MC a Gladwell book launch event shortly after his new book, Outliers, hits the shelves finally next Tuesday. I’m grateful to have this opportunity to finally meet him as well as hear directly what he has to say. Of course, I’ll be posting about it shortly after that.

Times are really changing for leadership and HR when such information is absorbed so readily and more people seek to put it to use. How Outliers is received will be the next measure of how much.

Presenting this week to a class of MBAs taking an HR overview course, I had a chance to ask them what they were doing and why. Several mentioned they’d taken HR undergrad, but switched to marketing. I asked why. One said, “HR seemed to be all policies and rules. Marketing is more creative.” I chuckled, but I could see heads nodding around the room. I couldn’t let that go.

HR, done right, means figuring out with people what to do to make them more effective in the varied and challenging situations they encounter daily. It shouldn’t be about consulting the policy manual and telling them what the rules are. If that’s all it is, you can be sure we’ll soon see “Why We Hate HR 2″ written with even more negative accusations that the original.

Nothing, absolutely nothing is more creative than trying to figure out individuals’ idiosyncrasies and what strategies they can pursue to get what they want while ensuring everyone else has a shot at their goals, too. Rules truly are made, if not to be broken, at least bent, stretched, modified, turned to everyone’s advantage. And HR is the primary place that should occur. How else can we keep some sort of logic and balance in the midst of constant surging forward?

I purposely chose HR because I thought it was the greatest creative challenge, not the least and certainly not less than marketing, which always seems to boil down to trial and error based on focus groups and surveys. Sure there’s creativity in the pieces - the art, ideas, copy-writing and so forth, but mostly they evolve from earlier attempts and testing new materials. The elements of HR are often more constrained - union rules, CEOs orders, financial requirements, etc., but being hemmed in makes the challenge of finding a creative solution even greater.

In  most non-HR situations there’s usually time to test. With HR, you rarely have that luxury. You need solutions today or tomorrow. You need a true sense of what makes people tick… and the variations that exist in your particular culture, organization, unit, team and more. Figuring out how to align all that for everyone’s benefit is, to say the least, the most complex sort of challenge we ever face… so much so that many people just ignore it because they can’t face the creative struggle it often requires. So tell me you like marketing because it has rules, concepts or patterns that can evolve and room for new ideas, but don’t tell me it’s more that way than HR. It’s may not be your chosen field; you don’t have an aptitude for it, but not ‘uncreative.’ If that’s what we leave people with as an impression of HR, we deserve all the condemnation we’ve been getting.

There’s that magic word “or” again. John Haggerty was lamenting this week on Workforce Management that  most of the HR people he meets lately are “business partners” – generalists who sit in the business next to business leaders and help them implement general HR solutions. He asks whether we shouldn’t expect these individuals to be specialists in at least one of the HR “silos” – compensation, benefits, labor relations, etc.

You probably know my take on “or” by now. It should almost always be “and.” Yes, generalists should have a specialty… and specialists should also be generalists. No matter how long they’ve worked in their specialty, no matter how much time they spend on it and intend to spend on it in the future, they should NOT fail to review what they do and propose in generalist terms. Will the average line manager understand and value what they’re suggesting, will the business “in general” benefit?

The reason HR is often perceived as isolated from the rest of the business is exactly this problem. Generalists sitting in the business side with line managers in viewing most of what comes from central “centers of excellence” as we now call them as being too ivory tower oriented, not workable in the real world. Specialists on the other hand tear their hair out wondering why the line never adopts programs fully (and then complains they don’t work).

But isn’t this a challenge in almost every area of a business. The marketers don’t want to step over to get experience in HR. After all they know for a fact that marketing is much more important and so that’s where they want to spend all their time. They complain those finance guys limit their budgets because they don’t understand. But the finance guys don’t want to get any experience in marketing and certainly not in HR because, after all, finance is the ultimate key to the business… right… sigh.

So let’s hear it for specialists who are also generalists and generalists who have a specialty. I mean for real, not simply some silo’d wonk who thinks they understand the business better than the people who work at it day to day or vice versa. At some point in every career, people need at least a bit of experience in both… or very good empathy and imaginations to understand what it’s like to walk in the other person’s shoes. Being one or the other simply isn’t effective; we need to think “both.”

I must be even slower than I thought at marketing. It dawned on me today that every email pitch for a webinar, seminar or program is suddenly adding something about “in troubled economic times” to the end of their usual program titles.

To wit: Talent Acquisition… in Troubled Economic Times” or “How Training Eliminates the Talent Gap… in T.E.T….” Get the idea? So I guess mine are “Effective Leadership… in T.E.T….” or “The Five Easy Skills for Success… in T.E.T….” (Repeating this so often on a page would probably not make Google happy, but apparently readers have an insatiable appetite for it.) This sounds suspiciously like “find the pain and offer to fix it…” plus our natural tendency to want to check every news or blog item that might have something intelligent to say about a situation that defies answers.

Personally I’m sitting on what I own and feel lucky I’m not so leveraged that I have to dump things at today’s loss prices. I’m not enough of a risk taker to go get a big loan and buy up what look like really good bargains at the moment, but I believe the market will come back… just no idea when.

The bottom line for leadership, though, is that we need to be better every day, rain or shine, good times or bad. It’s consistency that wins in the end, not temporary panic fixes. If we wait for “T.E.T.” to get serious about doing the right things, we’re missing a lot of boats along the way. Ah, human nature.

Under the heading Management buy-in key to learning, the UK’s widely read Training Zone (free) newsletter reports this (which applies worldwide): Lack of line management buy-in is the key barrier to learning retention, according to 40% of people who responded to a World of Learning on-line poll. The survey also revealed that 37% of the 300 respondents believed that the lack of follow-up further hindered the success of learning retention. Another 25% felt that lack of coaching/mentoring negatively affected the effectiveness of learning and development opportunities. A similar proportion – 24% - felt that lack of learner buy-in was a major issue.

Of course, these are really the same four issues. Buy-in by managers would mean they would follow up their staff’s training with coaching and mentoring thus producing learner buy-in. So how do we get this? The most successful answer is to start at the coaching-leadership end of the chain. If managers work in a culture where they’re expected to coach and they have some experience (and training) in how to do it, it becomes natural for them to be following up regularly with how people are doing.

When you lead by coaching, you work in a pattern of coaching all the time as the primary way of managing every issue. On daily coaching rounds with staff, you naturally ask, “how’s it going” and hear about their experience at training. You enquire what they plan to do with it – “what they really want” from it and that would lead to mutual objectives that you would be asking about in future conversations. This is far from rocket science as they say.

Experiences employees have, whether in training, attending meetings, conferences internally or externally, working on teams and projects and so forth all are things a great leader keeps up with, asks about and takes an interest in. When follow up is just “the way we always do things here” we have a culture of effective leadership. Questions about “buy-in” just don’t arise. If managers and staff aren’t bought in it’s because they have no mutual interests in what’s going on daily.

A benefit of being invited to speak at events, albeit as a last minute fill-in, is you get to hear other presenters. At the Conference Board of Canada HR 2008 annual conference last week, it was a pleasure to hear Bill MacKinnon, CEO, KPMG Canada, discuss how he’s helped them embrace great leadership as a true objective throughout the organization. He keynoted the main conference theme – Influential Leadership - anchored to how this improves results.

He kicked off with the emphasis on why paying attention to leadership is becoming so much more important – because organizations, the challenges they face and the tasks of managing and leading them have become so much more complex. He proceeded to virtually itemize the same five key elements I build on.
Most striking of all, he very much emphasized the importance of leaders remaining “calm” (to use his term) in the face of the daily onslaught of challenges we now face. In other words, developing and maintaining the skills of balance in the midst of furious activity ended up being the point he stressed more than any other. I couldn’t agree more.

And balance, of course, involves including all the elements that must be balanced together so you don’t get blindsided by something you’ve forgotten about… like people’s attitudes and engagement, for instance, while you are nonetheless pushing for results. “Both/and” becomes a big challenge of complexity that many managers struggle with. Practice makes perfect. It was great to hear a CEO of a major organization put it in such a “must have, every day” light!

Highly successful US retailer, Kohl’s, recently announced promotion of their President to CEO, duties until then held by their Chairman who now takes on direct responsibilities for… wait for it… HR, legal and real estate.

Industry observers correctly pointed out Kohl’s strong performance hardly suggests this is punishment for anything. It is exactly what the company says: great succession planning, keeping two strong performers growing. It’s even greater insight into what ensures the long term future of the organization – people!

You can bet the Chairman isn’t taking work away from the existing VP HR. The move is to give HR the top level, long term profile - and clout - it deserves.

This is a potentially visionary move in so many ways besides text-book succession planning it has to be copied by others. First it creates a logical separation between the roles of Chair and CEO, a fundamental under all the Sarbanes-Oxley accountability furor.

Second it separates the focus on shorter term, core objectives and the shorter term thinking that inevitably entails from longer term planning for growth and continued health. CEOs naturally tend to make personnel decisions with an eye to more immediate results. Separating that particular set of decisions reduces the tendency to judge mainly on immediate ups and downs in results and who can impact bonuses and instead takes into account the need to slowly rotate executives over time necessary to develop great leaders.

Third (and there are undoubtedly more potential benefits) it emphasizes team work among Board, Chair and CEO on these issues, exactly where more heads are better than one. It is notoriously hard for managers to select people for their own teams in isolation and promotions inevitably improve when more people are involved in the judgments. If the Chair is directly involved you can be sure others will aspire to be, too.

From a purely HR view, this is a huge step for an organization to maximize the value that it ought to be getting from this area of the business. You can be certain it will raise the profile of the VP HR, not lower it.

Now it only remains to be seen whether it will actually work. Moving toward broader team work isn’t a slam dunk. It takes patience and insight. You can be sure the learning challenge for everyone will be solid. But setting up the opportunity is an immense step forward.

It seems as soon as you write something like “let’s not change the name of HR” as I did just a few posts ago, the idea comes back to bite you. My point was the name “HR” reflected a true step up from Personnel and the limited administrative duties that implies, but there seems to be no step up intended in changing the name HR to People Department or something like that. Instead what most people want is simply that HR live up to its promise of drawing together everything that would make people happy and productive into one place.

I’ve rethought that. There is another step strategically for HR to take and I think it would be reflected in a term like Human Process. If HR becomes the Human Process Department and we rename its leader to VP, Human Process, I believe there should be a different strategic meaning attached.

The missing strategic step is that bosses can conveniently forget they are involved in human process every single day, that humans carry out the work and they operate according to processes that need to be understood and managed every single day… but not by the HR department, which certainly cannot be everywhere at once.

The problem with the term HR was fundamental. It implies, not too subtly either, that one executive and department owns and is responsible for everything to do with people in the organization. So if something is wrong, call HR to demand a fix. This is as dumb as saying Finance “owns” all the numbers; call finance to fix sales or cost.

We understand that every manager owns his or her own numbers. sales numbers, cost numbers and so forth, while Finance simply helps with the strategy and systems. But with HR countless employees and bosses seem to expect HR to magically fix everything - “go tell my boss” or introduce a new salary or bonus plan, a training program or, worst of all, a brand new performance appraisal system… won’t that surely take care of shortfalls in performance or better salary increases??? And HR falls into the trap time and again.

HP on the other hand would seem more likely to imply an executive with specialized knowledge and supports for human processes everywhere, but make it clearer that HP does not “own” these processes from start to finish. They must inevitably occur throughout every operation. Bosses carry out a continuous performance management process. Do they know how? Are they up on best practices? Are they managing it every day as they do with their budget numbers? Can they just turn it over to HR to create the perfect form and then fill in the blanks? Not if we understand it is a “process.” In other words, someone has to take an employee through a process to get a better result. That someone is not HR, nor is it a lock-step, check here process, hand back the form process.

So unless you expect HP to take over your department, be there every day and manage your employees, you don’t see HP as the owner of results. But you might expect HP to assist you in understanding how best to manage your employee processes based on the systems set up - the salary scales, the bonus plan and, yes, even the performance appraisal system, presuming these are designed to fit the organization, its culture and objectives.

What do you say?

A steady stream of items reflecting progress in human resources arrives every week now. Momentum is picking up. Each step takes us further on the way to full recognition that HR is, in Jack Welch’s words, “the second most important job in any organization.”

Widely reported in the past week, major retail jewelry operator, Zale Corporation, promoted it’s EVP of HR, Legal and Corporate Strategy, Theo Killion, to President. Now you might expect as in years past this would be a legal expert serving as in-house counsel who makes deals and plans strategy from a legal-financial perspective and, oh yes, happens to have HR tucked under his wing. In this case Mr. Killion is a 30-year HR veteran who worked his way up to over-see the other jobs. HR is first in his background. Moreover he is tasked in part with continuing to promote diversity, which he personally exemplifies - a forward-looking strategy for results as well as doing the right thing.

Then the mail bag brought the latest “People & Strategy” - the journal of the Human Resource Planning Society - filled with a series of articles about CEO succession (and pay).

No great news on managing pay better I fear. Boards continue to struggle with the best ways to pay CEOs. Although the theory is firming up they should be paid for on-going performance once they’ve been attracted with a competitive base salary, the problem is how to measure the connection with performance. One article proposed a system that was then nearly universally dumped on by a half dozen experts.

So, what’s good on the horizon for the future?

As an aside, I hear from sources in various industries that top HR salaries are getting into the ozone, too, giving CFOs some concern they might be eclipsed pay-wise. The same group noted they are seeing more MBA students who have chosen the HR track in the belief this is where the action will be. They are right. Hopefully they are getting that advice from their MBA schools, too. The goal really isn’t to get paid well just for the money, but to see HR and what it does for organizations recognized and given the clout at least on a par with other senior roles.

The four main articles on succession were right on, backed up well, agreed on the same key points and made sense. What really stood out were two listing competencies for CEOs of the future - among them both explicitly emphasized a heavy dose of humility along with confidence - in balance. It was refreshing to see it clearly spelled out as a specific requirement!

CEOs need courage to take risks in rapidly changing environments and at the same time the ability to listen, absorb advice and ideas from others in the Board and the organization and meld all of that into best guesses. All this requires the humility to understand no one person has the ultimate right answer to any situation any more and Boards seem finally to be getting that. Complexity is the driving factor and makes the ability to assimilate diversity of opinion, knowledge and experience increasingly crucial.

And why is humility in a CEO such a gain for the HR perspective? For a dozen reasons including primarily that people work best when they are included, listened to and worked with cooperatively. HR struggles to promote this in vain in many organizations where the whims of individual leaders take precedence over team work and cooperation, where the majority of senior executives quite often follow the (bad) example of the CEO. With the right choice of CEO, having senior execs copy the new behavior would be a huge advance.

While making new attempts to convince an audience in a speech yesterday I found myself clarifying convergence between HR, leadership and people skills in ways I had not fully thought through before. Sometimes when you talk and think about ideas for a while they suddenly start to make sense in entirely new ways. Conversation drives insight. This led to more ideas later that will cause me to revise my presentations to emphasize where we are in “the state of the art” today.

Several very different factors are evolving rapidly in society, having begun 30 or 40 years ago, now becoming visible in many places. Best known, most obvious is the impact of the PC dating from the first Apple computers built in Steve Jobs’ garage in 1975. Not only have these changed world history, but we don’t yet know how much or what the most powerful impacts will be. From pure record-keeping to social networking the story is far from finished.

Less well known, but now quite clear in direction, we can date recognition of the amazing power of effective HR from the takeover of GM’s Fremont, California car plant by Toyota, who were able to double production with the same people, machines, suppliers, etc., in just two years and have continued to boost productivity steadily since - for 25 more years - a management/human resources process that in incredibly powerful.

Then Complexity theory, with roots in biology and mathematical systems, least well understood, tells us that complex situations behave in similar ways in all endeavors, all challenges from physics to human behavior. HR - or human behavior - is the most complex area of all.

Complexity theory tells us that thousands or millions of “independent agents” working on problems will evolve rapidly to produce amazingly powerful, unexpected answers that turn out to be based on simple principles. Of course this is exactly what we’re seeing on the Internet… and at Toyota’s Fremont adventure called NUMMI - notice their simple principles: teamwork, equity, involvement, mutual trust and respect, and safety.

With blogging and social networking conversations, often truncated, halting and confusing, by millions of people someone will stumble on answers and ideas that will change the world in dramatic ways - and some of those will be further clarity in HR and leadership.

We now know HR process can revolutionize results. What we don’t fully understand yet are the simple principles that work together to create the right framework for this to occur in the widely varied organizational situations we face. We know what work on auto assembly lines.

Hospitals are struggling to apply complexity theory directly, a confusing path based on the concept of “positive deviance” or “copying the successful people from thousands of attempts” at solving a problem like rampant, drug resistant infections. More of these efforts are being tested world wide. The potential to solve political and organizational problems never before resolved logically is enormous. Those whose conversations lead them to the best solutions stand to reap equally enormous benefits.