Guest blogger Mark Herbert discusses Building Relationships

handshake isolated on business background
This weeks blog is a guest blog:

I would like to introduce my business partner in the US, Mark Herbert (LinkedIn). Mark has over 30 years of combined corporate management and consulting experience in industries, ranging from high technology and financial services to healthcare and eco-tourism. His most recent corporate role was as Chief Operating/Relationship Officer for one of Oregon’s largest credit unions.

Mark is a Principal for New Paradigms LLC (www.newparadigmsllc.com), a management consultancy specializing in helping organisations effectively and successfully embrace change and engages their workforces.

Mark and I often discuss many subjects around leadership, trust and this week, Mark discusses building relationships.

I don’t know about you, but I have found that one of the longest journeys I have ever taken is that journey of introspection when I have faced significant milestones in my career and life and had to determine which path to take as I approached the crossroad.
As a child who was often ill I got the opportunity to spend a lot of time in my own company, much of it in hospitals and a good deal of the time away from pediatric wards. For much of my adolescence the effects of my health conditions followed me. I didn’t get the opportunity to enjoy some of the normal activities that kids do like little league, pee wee football, etc until much later. Even then I wasn’t terribly athletically gifted or inclined.
I did become very good at observing people. When you are a child late at night in a hospital you become part of the surrounding infrastructure. People carry on conversations and interactions as if you weren’t there. They aren’t being rude; they just kind of forget you are there.
I loved the Mary Stewart trilogy about Merlin and Arthur as child as well. I could especially relate to Merlin. As the bastard son of an unknown father Merlin became an observer. He was not destined to be a warrior like his cousins and though later it was determined that he had a legitimate claim on the throne he recognized that it was his destiny to advise kings rather than occupy the throne personally.
That is a persona that I have co-opted for myself. I advise kings and princes, but I have little interest in occupying the throne myself.

Mark Herbert - Paradigm LLC

The dark side of that observational ability is you see people hurt and flinch where others miss it.
This week I got to see that play out several times. I don’t manage to see it purely as an observer; unfortunately for me I feel their hurt as well.
In one case it played in my own family. We are an interesting group. To a large extent my father had an enormous gift of self confidence. He never seemed to doubt himself or his opinions. In an interesting paradox he was very sensitive to his own feelings, but almost oblivious to the feelings of others. He wasn’t intentionally cold or unkind, he just didn’t relate to being wounded by a word or action.
That kind of set the tone in my family. In many ways we are quite gifted. We have all enjoyed great success professionally. We also find ourselves enormously competitive and to an extent guarded. In my family you rarely if ever reveal your feelings, especially if you feel slighted or hurt – that reveals weakness.
My choice of profession and how I practice it still remains an enigma to my immediate family. To create space for myself, I moved away for several decades, so to my nieces and nephews I think I represent a bit of a stranger. My family is proud of my professional accomplishments; they just don’t entirely get me.
Even though I am kind of an outsider when one of them hurts the other, I feel it vicariously, as if I was the recipient.

In another situation I have a colleague who is a true philanthropist, not by profession, but by vocation. He works in an organization where his role as chief philanthropical officer is taking on increased importance to the sponsoring organization. He and I have spent the last many months trying to create a new philanthropic vision for the organization, defining philanthropy not as a transaction or simply a charitable contribution, but rather an investment in critical societal infrastructure.
It is a bold vision and creating a model where there is room for the grateful donor, the philanthropist, and the philanthropical investor is an interesting challenge.
As a gifted development professional he also lives in the world of relationships rather than transactions. This can be difficult when the sponsoring organization feels the tyranny of the urgent. They want dollars, cash dollars and optimally the sooner the better. Building the bridge between donor and recipient can be a time consuming process. Sometimes your initiatives don’t resonate with the donor base. Sometimes the focus of the donor doesn’t fit into the strategy of the organization. Trying to bring the parties together is not easy or simple.

In the third situation I have a dear friend who is on her own journey. She is a wife and a mother, but she also has goals and dreams about creating her own business that she has put on hold for a number of years. She is at the point now where she would like to be able to balance the investment of her passion and energy into her goals as well as her commitments.

Like in most relationships this changes the status quo. The other parties in our lives often don’t see anything as broken. They assume that those ideas and notions we had when we are young will just go away, especially if they were not the ones who had to subordinate their goals.

The common thread to me in all this is the importance and power of relationships.
I believe that the ability to build and sustain relationships is the key attribute that ultimately defines individual and organizational success and is the most important dimension of effective leadership.

As a former human resources professional and now a management consultant I speak and write on this topic frequently, maybe even obsessively.
This week I watched the stock market plunge because Congress and the President could forge a meaningful compromise without a deadline looming down on them.

Employee dissatisfaction with their jobs is at historical highs, and nine out of ten Americans in a recent survey expressed distrust for the senior management of the organization they work for – nine out of ten!

If you ask: does that matter, I would submit it does.

• Studies show that 40% of new or newly assigned managers and executives fail within the first 18 months of their assignment with the key reason not being ‘technical competency’, but rather the ‘inability to build effective relationships’.
• The Department of Labor estimates that employee turnover costs the U.S. economy close to $3 trillion annually.
• Presenteeism, the phenomenon where people show up to work, but fail to engage represents another $200 billion of leakage.
• U.S. organizations spend an estimated $100 billion on training annually. Studies indicate that the knowledge transfer after 24 months is less than 10%.
• Health care delivery costs us 12% of our GDP in 2010 with a substantial portion (approaching 20%) directly or indirectly related to depression, stress, substance abuse, accidents and injuries and other factors that deal with environmental factors like job dissatisfaction and anxiety about economic and emotional security.
• In 2010 the average compensation of the C suite went up 32% while the average compensation for regular workers went up 2%. Unemployment remains over 9%.

Outsourcing, lean systems, and trickle-down economics are not going to solve this problem.
There is no such thing as human capital: there are only people and relationships. Perhaps the sooner we recognize that and start our journey to build relationships based on mutual trust, respect and personal competency, the sooner we can arrive at a much better place….

Is HR an elusive value proposition or can HR deliver real value to its employees?

human-resources

My business partner in the US, Mark Herbert wrote a very interesting blog a few weeks ago, named HR’s Elusive Value Proposition: newparadigmsllc.com/blog/2016/1/28/hrs-elusive-value-proposition – Mark maintains a very strong service offering and ethic across human capital development within fortune and SME organisations, he really understands the dynamics around business growth and development and we have had many conversations around where is the value in company’s today.

Mark’s research was incredibly interesting, in summary the final analysis he produced showed HR does not manage human capital, and ever worse there was no master compliance. So where are the values across teaching company organisations and people more importantly how do we create an environment where people engage in the vision, mission, values up rather than just comply and deliver the satisfactory, I decided to review this subject further as, non emotional productivity can only end up with a company declining in revenues and needing further investment for sustained growth.

There are an incredible number of pressures on today’s organisations. To name a few: environmental pressures such as increasing globalisation, rapid technological change, and tougher competition; organisational changes such as new organisational alliances, new structures and hierarchies, new ways of assigning work, and a very high rate of change; changes in the workforce, including employees’ priorities, capabilities, and demographic characteristics. Within these pressured organisations, there is a need for the human resource function to play a critical role in helping organisations navigate through these transitions. In order to play this role, however, HR will have to increase its real and perceived value.

The role of human resources has been evolving for some time. The shift from “personnel” to “human resources,” for example, was part of the movement to acknowledge the value of employees as an organisational resource, and was an attempt to remove some of the stigma that was coming to be associated with slow, bureaucratic personnel departments. This shift in label was accompanied by a call for HR to become a strategic partner with the leaders of the business-to contribute to significant business decisions, advise on critical transitions, and develop the value of the employees-in short, to have a seat at the table.

It seems almost everyone has a negative story about how their workplace’s human resources department failed to support them when it comes to the “human” part of workplace antics like, conflict-resolution with colleagues, bosses, or subordinates, career tips, or interpersonal strategy.

Leadership is incredibly important to the solution, why? Leadership has access to potentially powerful, game-changing ideas. Its easy and tempting to change to a new transformational practice, a new expert, or new research that seems to provide some relief or a solution to a problem. What is potentially harder, but far more valuable, is to be motivated with the problem, what happened to a renewed focus on emotional intelligence as a driver or KPI for leadership and through the management ranks, a focus on values and culture as a company differentiator?

This can be a problem for many company’s in the business world. Research has clarified why forced rankings were undermining the desired culture of trust, collaboration, and risk taking. It provides another angle for exploring the complexities of culture, values, and talent systems in organisations.

Classic management science has defined four management functions: planning, organising, motivating and controlling. According to research, the classic definition is missing a key function, namely; aligning. Sustaining high business performance is a product of continuous strategic alignment. Strategic alignment is a function of political alignment. It is how well the teams communicate and work with each other. Simply put, strategic alignment is getting all the people in an organization rowing in the same direction — imagine the force and speed when they are rowing synchronized in the same direction and imagine the performance and wasted of energy when they are not.

Management by its nature is a highly political role. The first key management function is planning and resource allocation among competing business needs and departments. Managers must balance the conflicting interests among their stakeholders, including the investors, board of directors, employees, customers, suppliers, and governance.

Technical managers that get promoted into business management positions, learn, the hard way that they cannot function, if they do not have the political skills needed to deal with never ending conflicting views, interests and personalities. The organisational life is full of conflicts, ranging from minor differences of opinion to major political wars. Learning how to manage workplace politics is critical to professional and business success.

Common organisational politics and management behavior:
• Most managers have natural tendencies to hoard resources and build empires to gain more control power and status within the organisation.
• Most managers play territorial games. They will resist or delay change, if they do not fully understand the impact on their territory
• If the manager does not agree with the plans, he or she are more likely to play passive-aggressive games
• Some managers will sabotage the leader’s plan, if it threatens their interest
• The higher the stake for the manager, the higher the risk of unethical political behavior
• Even fast-growing and profitable companies can develop bad internal politics and unproductive work habits that will eventually lead to declining performance.
• The larger the organisation, the more susceptible it is to the breakdown of communication, the emergence of management silos and misalignment.
• Many of the smaller companies also suffer from similar problems, but to a lesser degree.
• When management tends to focus so much on one management area, e.g., sales, and has no time to manage the internal organisational challenges, dysfunction creeps in and takes hold.

To build and sustain high-performance teams, the leadership and human resources managers should distinguish between functional politics and dysfunctional politics in every part of the organisation.

The subject of leadership has been greatly covered by scholars, academicians and consultants, yet building and sustaining high-performance teams remain elusive to most companies. Leadership is the most important competitive advantage of a company, not technology, finance, or anything else. Leadership formulates the company’s business strategy and builds its assets, including its people and operations.

A failed business is the result of poor performance. Poor performance is the result of an incompetent or dysfunctional leadership team.

Med Jones, the president of International Institute of Management, once said:

“The leadership team is the most important asset of the company and can be its worst liability.”

In summary, its about delivering value. Although this is not a new challenge for HR, it remains a critical one. HR is still perceived by many within today’s organisations as simply a non-revenue generating function. It is important to make apparent the value provided by working with the management team to hire the right people, manage them well, pay them appropriately, and build a working environment that encourages success.
Beatty and Schneier (1997) extended the concept of delivering value within the organisation by arguing that HR must deliver economic value to the customers, as well as to employees.