You can’t sit with us anymore – giving people the boot. 

Sometimes people turn into sour grapes. They start shiny, they are amazing but it goes to sh%*. Maybe it was you, maybe it was them. 

Whatever the case the fit is all wrong and it’s time for them to move on.They are miserable, you are grumpy – but they aren’t a terrible performer. What do you do? You can’t fire someone for having a “bad attitude” that’s not really substantial.

You start to see the writing on the wall, the manager is getting more hands on, said grumpy employee gets the point and eventually, one way or another the employee departs or sabotages their own opportunities.
Everyone is left with a bad taste in their mouth.

What if we helped people to leave, what if that was the norm. What if we had services internally which allowed people to confidentially access career coaching in a broader sense.

They could get reasonable flexibility to go to interviews, free resume feedback, interview coaching and LinkedIn advice.

What if we were honest and said “yknow what, you hate it here, I can see it in everything you do, so let us help you leave before it goes down a path that neither of us want to be a part of”.

This isn’t revolutionary, I believe company’s who are a bit more forward thinking have similar programs. I want to know why it isn’t the norm.

Nobody wants to work with people who don’t want to be there. So why not give them the option to leave, help them do so. It might even turn around people who realise the grass isn’t greener.

Managers spend a lot of time “managing out poor performers” – why don’t we just call a spade a spade?

Advertisements

OD is just HR grown up

Organisational Development (OD)  is what I consider the younger, cooler, more out spoken and rebellious version of HR. OD is inhabited with HR specialists who said HELL NO to boring HR practices and wanted to take on a much broader view of the business. OD specialists are problem solvers and always ask the question “should it be like this?”  and “why are you doing it that way?”.

The evolution of your HR role into an OD role comes from not blindly accepting the status quo. Any HR professional can lift their game and work in the OD space! In my opinion, you are an OD specialist if your role requires you to work accross multiple business units to make work more efficient and improve the employee experience. OD is about developing an organisation to be bigger and better than it was before. Any time you do this it will invariably require some kind of HR Development experience (whether it be knowledge of legislation, adult learning, change management etc).

If you look at OD through my definition then really I do not see that OD deserves to be a separate discipline. I think it’s just HR evolved and eventually OD and HR will be one in the same.

The days of businesses paying for HR specialists to tick boxes are on the way out. We can outsource that stuff – we are now about solving problems. If you are not solving or working on solving a problem everyday, I would start to question the value you add.

I recently read an article in the Industrial and Commercial Training Journal called – Waking ourselves up! Re-examining the role of OD practitioners – a challenger perspective. I would recommend reading it if you’ve got the time. It is written from the point of view of an OD Consultant and provides a bit of a framework for getting people to be effective OD Specialists.

It talks about the Challenger Spirit – which is about standing up against the status quo and finding out who is blocking the path to change, echoing some of my initial thoughts. Some of the qualities of the challenger include:

  • taking a broad business view;
  • understanding commercial realities;
  • being prepared to experiment and improvise; and
  • causing some kind of purposeful disturbance.

Sounds just like what HR should be doing, right?

Further Reading

lare Southall , (2014),”Waking ourselves up! Re-examining the role of OD practitioners – a challenger perspective”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 46 Iss 4 pp. 182 – 187 – http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ICT-12-2013-0083