The Future of HR

HR’s Role: Advocate, Agent or Strategist?

“To often, HR’s role in the organization is to come in and shoot the wounded.”

-Kwame S. Salter

Over the past 20 years or so, HR’s role in the organization has gone through seismic changes. Before becoming Human Resources, we were Personnel; before we claimed we were a strategic function, we were satisfied with being administrative; and, before we sought to be respected as “partners in the business”, we were generally viewed as ‘aides- de –camps’ to the business leaders. In fact, in many organizations, the HR function was viewed as the final resort for employees who had plateaued or deemed incapable of making it in the metrics driven world of business. In fact, during interviews HR applicants often cited “getting along with people” as their primary qualification for the job. Granted, prior to technology taking over many of the processing and recordkeeping tasks, the HR function was primarily consumed with what I call ‘administrivia’. According to several experts, HR is still seen by many line managers as “clerical and lower level administrative aides to the organization.”

Yet, HR has always had three major roles in the organization—administrative, operational and strategic. Again, of the three major roles associated with HR, the administrative role was dominant. The operational role consisted of two conflicting realities that begged to be balanced—being an agent of the company and an advocate for the employees. Too often, the role of employee advocate consisted of setting up sham grievance procedures—be they 3 or 5 steps.  While these grievance procedures were designed to satisfy ‘due process’, the outcome was often predetermined—the employee would lose. Instead of functioning as an honest broker in the process, the HR professional always knew who ‘buttered his/her bread’—the company. Thus, employees begin to take a cynical view of the process and the HR professional. With the administrative and operational roles being so prominent, there was little interest shown in or time left for addressing the strategic role.

However, in recent years the HR function has attempted to repurpose it’s role as more of a strategic contributor to business success instead of simply the organization’s cat’s paw—concerned, primarily, with administrivia and keeping employees in line. Metrics have replaced morale as the measuring stick for a successful HR function. Today’s HR professional should be more focused on “devising and implementing strategy” rather than policing the employee base. Being strategic does not mean abandoning the administrative and operational roles of HR—it means rebalancing the time, effort and resources of the HR function to achieve business results.

Put another way, HR—if it wants to become a real partner in the business—must be clued in and contribute to the stated business objectives and goals. For example, if the organization has determined that new products and innovation is needed to survive and prosper, the HR function’s strategic role is to attract, select and place employees with the necessary skill sets and qualifications. This may sound simplistic. Yet, so often HR often lags behind the organization’s shift in strategy. As Peter Senge, author of the 5^th Discipline, stated, “the only sustainable competitive advantage a organization has is the ability of its employees to learn faster than the competition.” Therefore, the HR function/practitioner must be agile, nimble and responsive. Also, I might add, the HR practitioner must be business savvy, independent thinkers and courageous.

This brings me to my beef with current HR practices. Today, too many HR practitioners are more concerned with pleasing business leaders versus challenging them; with being flunkies instead of being independent thinkers; and, with rubber-stamping bad decisions rather than reversing them. To be strategic means to be fearless when moving into uncharted territory; it means to do what’s best for the business versus what’s best for maintaining a relationship with the business leader you support. HR may have gained a seat at the table—but, also has the potted plant sitting in the middle of the table.  The effective HR professional must earn the right to be heard and respected or be relegated to being a silent partner. To avoid the fate of being a silent partner, HR practitioners have to establish themselves by:

·      Improving their business acumen

·      Taking the long view and becoming proactive

·      Sourcing the right type of employees needed execute business strategies

·      Employing the right metrics that drive business success

In regards to metrics, let me share a thought from Albert Einstein, who once observed, “Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.”

Trust

By Kwame S. Salter

Be Careful

Be careful of your thoughts

For your thoughts become your words.

Be careful of your words

For your words become your actions.

Be careful of your actions

For your actions become your habits.

Be careful of your habits

For your habits become your character.

Be careful of your character

For your character becomes your destiny.

                                                -Unknown

As a student and teacher of organizational behavior, I have always been intrigued by the role a leader plays in galvanizing people to rally around his/her vision. The literature on leadership is replete with examples of different styles, approaches and philosophies adopted by successful leaders. By inference, it is suggested that all one has to do is study, learn and adopt one of these styles to become an effective and successful leader.

We have been introduced to the Authentic leader, the Corporate Mystic leader, the Situational leader and the High EQ (emotional intelligence) leader. By putting forth Diamond Leadership (one who is both a directional and servant leader) as another effective style of leadership. I have added to this list in my book. All of these styles are legitimate and can be effective, if practiced with sincerity—and in the appropriate context. Still, to be truly effective, leadership must go beyond styles and dive deep into the area of substance.

Substance is built upon one simple, yet profound, concept, i.e., Trust. Regardless of what leadership style you employ, without trust that style will not be effective over the long haul. People, your employees, will eventually see through the style mask. If they conclude that your real essence is something other than the style you lead with, they will not commit to you or your vision. In a word, once they no longer trust you the gig is up. They will still hear you but will not listen to you. They will still work with you, but not for you. Trust is the industrial strength glue that bonds the leader with their people. Gaining trust takes a long time. Losing trust can happen in an instant.  Regaining trust is a monumental undertaking. Trust is not a question of style. It is the result of being consistently truthful and impeccable with your word. Trust flows from character.

Character is whom you really are deep down inside. It is the combination of values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviors that define you at rest—when there is no audience or others to impress or manipulate. Character traits are revealing behaviors that expose your hard wiring. For example, a leader or person who likes to be in charge may have the following character traits: know-it-all, rude, pompous, conceited or bossy. Character is foundational for building trust. Flowing from a good character is Integrity.

Years ago, the New York Times newspaper had a one-page insert that proclaimed, “If you’re good when nobody is looking, that’s integrity.”  Integrity, according to the Dictionary is “adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.” Peter Drucker once said, “ There is no such thing as business ethics. Either you are always ethical or you’re not.” Clearly, integrity does not fall into the ‘situational’ category of behavior. Integrity is a constant. It is non-negotiable and immune to bribery or reward. Situational ethics is best summed up in an old Chicago political axiom—“if you accept the offer, it’s a reward. If you reject it, it’s a bribe.” A person with high integrity is rarely put in the position of having to accept or reject a shady offer. Still, if confronted with a questionable offer, they respond with the spontaneous right action—they reject it. Once you’ve rejected enough dubious offers, words gets around that your integrity is fixed and firm. Your reputation becomes both a sword and shield for dealing with the sly, the slick and the wicked.

Now, with your character and integrity firmly established, you are able to project an Authenticity that attracts people to you and that gives credence to your words. To be authentic is to be honest in thoughts, words and actions. In a word, to be authentic is to be genuine. Authentic leaders are dealers in truth. Sometimes, the truth is painful and, at other times, it is liberating. Yet, it is always a powerful communication tool. The truth minimizes complexity, eliminates needless drama, reduces cycle time and creates a culture of openness. If the leader can speak the truth, everyone in the organization is empowered to speak the truth. In other words, sales forecasts can be truthful, missed opportunities can be admitted and constructive criticism can be shared. If the leader lies to the shareholders and stakeholders about company performance, the employees will lie to the leader about his/her performance. Duplicity breeds duplicity. Authenticity breeds authenticity.  Out of authenticity comes trust.

 Trust is what we feel and accept about another’s real intention. Without trust there can be no peace or progress. Trust requires that we accept, unconditionally, that a person or group’s actions and intentions are honorable and supportive of our goals and actions.  For one human to trust another human, one must be willing to believe that their interests are held harmless and will not be subject to trickery or be undermined. Trust is the byproduct of high character, integrity and authenticity. An untrustworthy person cannot trust another person. Untrustworthy means there is always that doubt, that question and that concern about another person’s motive. Most untrustworthy people see trusting people as naïve and gullible. They pretend to be trustworthy only to gain an advantage. Trust is a tool of deception for them. Yet, in spite of their skill at acting to gain the confidence of others, they are incapable of respecting those they dupe. Their reasoning is simple. They feel as though they are transparent and those who can’t see through them are slow and deserving of being exploited. In other words, they don’t trust themselves and are astounded when others trust them. Leaders who practice building ‘false trust’ are inevitably found out.

Trusted Leaders are static free, fair and even handed, comfortable in the own skins and clear (no BS) communicators, while always being truthful when speaking or writing. As former Presidential Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer once said, “Everything truthful need not be said. But everything said must be truthful.”

Who Plays the Race Card?

The Growing Trust Gap

By Kwame S. Salter

Robin Williams, the brilliant late actor/comedian, once remarked, “Reality! What a concept.” When the discussion comes around to race relations in America, we seem to have a difficult time dealing with the reality of race. On both sides of the racial divide, opinions seem to be set in quick drying concrete. Many whites feel that any mention of race is an attempt by blacks to justify or excuse some action or reaction. On the other hand, too many blacks believe that no white person can be trusted to be fair and objective in encounters between the races. In reality, the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. Clearly, not every compliant by blacks is frivolous or a blatant attempt to obfuscate by playing the so-called “race card.” And, in spite of the sordid history of social injustices, political disenfranchisement and state sponsored terrorism in the guise of the Klan and other white supremacist groups, many brave and courageous whites have stood up for both our civil and human rights.

The recent phenomenon of rewiring racial injustices to be viewed as something other than reality has been aided and abetted by the talking heads of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh et.al.  Some whites have a problem with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and, even, President Obama injecting themselves into race issues. However, more blacks find the right wing rants of the Fox commentators both insulting and a gambit—as they, not so subtlety, use race as both sword and shield to boost their ratings and line their pockets. Jon Stewart, the insightful and comic genius anchor for the Dailey Show (http://youtu.be/n-cfi-zzNzM.) assembled and dissected a block of videos from these media agitators. After viewing the Stewart video, I am sure you will agree that facts to these guys get in the way of their goal of whipping their fan base into frenzy. While selected and isolated so-called facts are introduced with glaring graphics and amplified by angry guest commenters, the objective reality doesn’t support their position. In their worldview, the only race that counts and should be acknowledged as legitimate is a NASCAR event. Yet still, they raise issues that must either be countered or addressed-- not only by blacks, but also all of America.

Issues such as black on black crime and the scourge of vicious black criminal cartels loosely referred to, as gangs must be faced up to and discussed. Approximately 12%-13% of the American population is African-American, making up 40% of the almost 2.1 million male inmates in jail or prison (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009). Crime, whether committed by blacks or whites, has become pandemic in our large urban centers. What are the contributing factors; why is our criminal justice system so efficient in the capture and incarceration of black offenders; and, how many are in prison due to being targeted in the putative War on Drugs?  “Too many,” as George Wallace was said to have quipped when asked, “how many blacks are there in America?” But, why are we so protective of so many of the truly bad guys who live in and terrorize our black communities? Is it that we don’t trust the police? Many of the police patrolling these black communities are themselves black. Are these black officers quid pro quo better or fairer than their white counterparts? Some are and some aren’t.

Just recently, a highly commended black Police Commander in Chicago was stripped of his badge and gun while facing two felony charges. This top cop allegedly put his gun in the mouth of a black suspect. DNA test verified the presence of the gun in the suspect’s mouth. By the way, this cop, over the years, had been the subject of many citizen complaints. What comes of the complaints from black citizens against these black cops? According to records, only two citizen complaints resulted in discipline. Is this behavior by a black cop surprising? No, not if you consider that during WWII the Nazi’s used Jewish prisoners as “Kapos” or prisoner trustees to watch over and brutalize their fellow Jewish prisoners. The more brutal these Kapos the more rewarded by the SS Guards. As I pointed out in my piece of Ferguson, what we need is not, necessarily more black officers—but better officers. Attracting, developing and retaining better police officers is the key to tamping down some of the potential of violence by and against police. Having a close relative that was a police officer who was shot and blinded in the course of duty, I know their job is not an easy one. Every split second is over loaded with information and data that must be correctly deciphered—their life and the suspect’s depend on it. This is the reality of the situation.

  

Having discussions aimed at bringing about positive race relations appears to be a topic that America is not eager to put on the table. America, we have a problem. This is not a new problem; it is not even an isolable problem; still, it is a wicked problem. According to the Australian Public Commission, a wicked problem is one “that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize. The term "wicked" is used to denote resistance to resolution, rather than evil.” Improved race relations in America can be achieved by applying our unique American “can do” attitude. We have a blueprint. That blueprint is the Kerner Commission formed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1967 to understand the root causes of the urban riots that plagued our cities from starting in 1964. Johnson rejected the Commission’s recommendations. Still, the Commission’s findings, known as the Kerner Report were spot on and prescient.  The Commission stated that the nation was “moving toward two societies, One Black, One White—Separate and Unequal.” Moreover, the Report warned our country faced a “system of apartheid in its major cities.”

Obviously, we have not heeded the warning. Today, the concentration of blacks in the inner cities remains more fixed than fluid; the predicted racial divide has widened; and, poverty is more structural than generational. We need President Obama to issue a call to action, much like President Johnson did over 40 years ago. Thus, my modest proposal is for the President to create the Biden Commission on race relations. Joe Biden, our straight shooting Vice-President has both the street cred and needed gravitas to lead such a Commission—his 2007 primary gaffe, notwithstanding, of describing Obama thusly: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." I’ve heard worse and Biden has more than atoned for that politically incorrect statement.

  

Finally, I would also highly recommend that Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh be invited to join this august body. Why not? They always seem to have the right answers.

Talent Trumps! ™: 5 Blame Shifting Tactics

Talent Trumps! ™: 5 Blame Shifting Tactics:  The Blame Shifters by Kwame S. Salter   "Change is inevitable, Growth is Optional" In today's world, we often...

5 Blame Shifting Tactics

 The Blame Shifters

by Kwame S. Salter 

"Change is inevitable, Growth is Optional"

In today's world, we often encounter people who have perfected shifting the blame -whenever things go wrong for them. We see them in the ever popular 'reality shows' on TV, in the workplace, shopping, driving or even, more intimately, at home.

What I've noticed is that these 'blame shifters'  use one, if not all, of the  tactics below. Their objective is to throw you off, to buy time or simply to avoid taking any responsibility for their actions-or lack thereof.

In the workplace, these tactics are usually employed during performance evaluation or a feedback session where constructive criticism might be necessary. If successful in use of these tactics, they leave the other person feeling guilty or insensitive. 

However, what is important to understand is that we must help them get back in touch with reality. The reality is that no one is perfect. We all make mistakes. Yet, until we acknowledge our mistakes or shortcomings, we will never improve ourselves.

Based on my observations, the 5 most popular tactics used by the 'blame shifters'  are the following: 

  Denial—"I didn't do anything wrong!"

                         

  Deflection—"It’s your fault I feel this way because…"

                                                        

 Derailment—"Stop what you’re doing and deal with me and my issues."

                                                 

       Disruption—"I will throw your routine off unless and until you deal with me and my issues."

   

         Depression—"I feel bad and hope you feel worse."

The best way to deal with these tactics is to be clear, consistent and confident in communicating your expectations. Avoid negotiating with the 'shifter'; never argue with them regarding their statement; and, always ask them to explain what they really mean; and, why they feel the way they do? In closing, ask them what do they want out of the situation and how do they plan to reach their goal?

Finally, ask them if how they are feeling has anything to do with the current situation-or are there other issues they are dealing with? Don't expect a coherent answer to any of your questions. You are basically giving them something to think about versus reacting to in the moment.

If none of the above works, consult a professional therapist.

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones...

But Names Don't Bother Me?

By Kwame S. Salter

Incident

“Once riding in old Baltimore,

Heart-filled, head-filled with glee;

I saw a Baltimorean

Keep looking straight at me.

Now I was eight and very small,

And he was no whit bigger,

And so I smiled, but he poked out

His tongue, and called me nigger

I saw the whole of Baltimore

From May until December;

Of all the things that happened there

That’s all that I remember”

By Countee Cullen

Countee Cullen was a leading voice of the prolific Harlem Renaissance period during the 1920's. His powerful poem, above, masterfully displays the confusion, hurt and bewilderment every black child experiences when first assaulted with the N-Word. Perhaps the most poignant line in the poem is… “And I smiled, but he poked out his tongue and called me nigger.” It is a sad commentary on American society that every black parent, still, must either prepare his/her child to expect this assault or be ready to explain to the child why they were assaulted in the first place. How this word gained such destructive power requires that we remember the ‘peculiar institution’ of American slavery. Although humankind has enslaved one another for thousands of years all over the planet, it was the insidious and dehumanizing character of American slavery that set it apart in history. 

In America, not only was the black slave considered chattel property by the owner but also was, naturally, to be considered inferior to all whites—even the poorest and most disenfranchised white person. American slavery both dehumanized and marginalized the enslaved African and forever defined the relationship between whites and blacks in this country. And one word, nigger, was used to remind both groups who was in charged and who was fully human. The word became both a command and a curse. For whites, the word became a vessel for succinctly communicating disdain, hatred and innate superiority over blacks. For blacks, the word felt like a sharp stick being used to pick open a festering wound. Ironically, like so many other ethnic groups, blacks began to use the word as either the ultimate put down with each other or, as some maintain, as a “term of endearment.”

   

Yet, I still cringe when I hear a Polish person refer to another Pole as a “polack”; an Italian casually labeling someone a “dago;”or a Mexican refer to another as a “wetback.” Back in the day when I was growing up, the worst thing one black could call another in a fit of anger was “a black nigger.” During the 70’s and 80’s a slight twist on the use of the word surfaced. Black men, among themselves, begin to refer to their best friends and running buddies as “my ace boon coon” or just simply, “my niggah.”  On the surface, this new usage seemed to drain the word of some of its invectiveness. Still, even with the sense of hatred and insult minimized, the concept of ownership persisted-e.g.,Bobo is “my niggah.” Today, rap artists, athletes and some movie actors use the term in public forums with such ease and frequency that some whites claim that they have become confused. They want to know why you can refer to yourselves with such a vile term; and when is it appropriate for them, as whites, to use the term in describing you? Well, that is a good question. 

Should today’s whites be given a pass if they end the word with ‘gah’ instead of ‘ger’?  My response is no. In fact, we as black people need to, effective immediately, stop using either form. I have heard the ‘context argument’. In other words, if the white person is using the term, like Riley Cooper, in a threatening and violent context should they be condemned and/or sanctioned. What if a black person uses the term in an identical context? Should they be punished?  My answer in both situations is yes. When used in a threatening and/or violent context, the term because material evidence of assault. The legal definition of assault is a “physical or verbal attack: a violent physical or verbal attack threat of bodily harm: an unlawful threat or attempt to do violence or harm to somebody else.” Given the legal definition, the use of the N-Word simply identifies the target of the intended assault.

 What if, as Paula Deen maintains, the term was used in a fit of anger because of an assault against her? Same answer from me, No! Why would you think to classify the assailant using a derogatory racial term?  Paula Deen is a southern woman and knows the how the N-Word has historically been used by her forefathers. She was not giving a description of the alleged assailant—but rather giving vent to a deep seeded sense that her superiority had been violated.  The Philadelphia Eagles’ Riley Cooper’s videotaped rant about “fighting all the niggers” was both racist and absurd. Outside of the security guard, why would his anger extend to “all the niggers?” He sounded like the old Massa who declared he was going to ‘whup all dem niggers’ because one of them stepped out of line. And, most recently, Richie Incognito of the Miami Dolphins, apparently, bullied his black teammate  and used the N-Word with impunity in the Dolphin's locker room and during actual games. His black teammates were fine with his behavior because they  had made him an "honorary brother!" Go figure. Now, if the NFL tries to reduce/contain this latest incident to a specific team's locker room, they are are being duplicitous. As Malcolm X once observed, "if your closet is dirty, your entire house is dirty."

  

Why, you might ask, is this topic  important enough to write about it in a Human Resources oriented blog? Well, for me, the challenge facing black people in all walks of American life is how are we really viewed—as individuals or as a racial monolith? Are we ever truly seen and/or evaluated as individuals and judged by the “content of our character?”Knowing the historical legacy of the word, how can we hope to compete on a level playing field? What images do you conjure up in your mind when you think of a nigger? At what point does the constant use of the word in the workplace reach the level of harassment? Or, is sexual harassment the only harassment that counts in the workplace?

Racial/gender epithets are dangerous shortcuts to thinking. Would you refer to your mother, wife and/or daughter as “bitches” just because you hear it used so easily on ‘Real Housewives of Wherever ‘or in a rap song? Would you say to wife you were using the B-word as a term of endearment? Try explaining to a high potential female employee that you and your team have had some bad experiences with ‘bitches’—and, thus would prefer not to work with one?  I don’t think so. Recruitment, hiring, assignment and promotional decisions are all influenced by racial myths, traditions and stereotypes. The casual use of the N-Word is more pernicious and damaging to how we are viewed and treated in society than we realize.  Wake Up Everybody!