The best policy
Seven occasions when HR isn't quite as honest as it could beHands up who was shocked by recent findings that showed some candidates lie on their CVs? No, me neither.
The HR community maintains a dignified silence on the topic. That could be because the HR profession is included in the statistics, and potentially contributes towards that 25%.
But it could also be because, deep down, HR knows it is in no position to preach about honesty – given much of its own activity involves a significant degree of opacity.
Actually, many areas of HR’s work could certainly benefit from a bit of candour…
Who are you there for – employee or organisation?
Yes, that old chestnut again – and it’s the one that sits at the heart of most of the points discussed in this article.
As much as HR might frame itself as being there for its people, when it comes to the crunch we all know its priority is the organisation.
And that means most decisions – from minor, day-to-day moves to big strategic ones, will take its people in the direction the organisation wants them to go.
It’s not like anybody will be remotely surprised by this revelation: it’s just time for HR to be open about where its allegiances lie.
Confidentiality
If HR is to be believed, its secret-keeping skills are on a level with MI6.
But everyone likes a sneaky chat around the kettle – is HR any different? No. HR folk like a gossip just as much as colleagues from other departments do.
So, when an employee comes to you with an issue – regardless of its size or severity, can they be entirely confident their secret is safe?
In the worst case scenario, a serious issue could find its way straight up the food chain, much to the disadvantage of the hapless soul who first asked you for that ‘confidential’ catch-up.
Ask yourself – are you always as discreet as you should be? And if so, how are you communicating this to your employees?
Dealing with grievances
Like the above but on a more serious scale, employees should be able to come to you at any time to voice their concerns about an issue that troubles them.
However, what often prevents this from happening is the fear that they’ll get a big blot in their copy book, a reputation as a troublemaker and their days at the organisation will become numbered.
It links back to the central question about who HR is there to serve. If employees feel HR is inclined to focus on the company’s will rather than on their needs, they’re less likely to approach you to highlight problematic issues.
Think about the kind of business you want to work for. The way in which you handle situations like this plays a big part in the organisation’s culture.
By treating your people fairly and honestly – and more importantly, by ensuring the right outcomes – HR will be able to ensure an ethical approach wins out.
Unequal pay
A fix for the gender pay gap is long overdue – across the majority of industries women earn less than men, for equitable roles even when skills and experience are matched.
By failing to play an active role in increasing transparency around pay, HR could be accused of being complicit in this inequality.
What makes this worse is that HR is a female-led industry. Surveys typically suggest women make up around 70% of the HR profession.
So why isn’t HR leading the way in restoring some sort of balance in gender pay?
HR should be carrying out regular equal pay reviews; ensuring promotions and reviews are carried out fairly; and calling for transparency as standard in corporate pay structures.
These activities might be going on in some corners of industry, but the fact that the gender pay gap is as glaring as ever suggests more needs to be done – and HR needs to accept a greater role.
Redundancy ‘consultations’
Along with the claim that ‘these redundancies came as a big surprise’ (they didn’t), there’s a lot about the redundancy consultation process that employees find difficult to trust.
Of course, it’s an inherently secretive process due to the need for a degree of confidentiality. But to employees, it feels like a behind-closed-doors duck shoot with a pre-determined outcome.
It doesn’t help that in the most egregious cases that often achieve media coverage, entire redundancy processes are fabricated in order to cull staff from the payroll.
Usually, only the most savvy employees with the time, resources and union support are able to fight such cases. And more often than not, the business has its way, with only the sugar coating of a redundancy package helping to make the process more palatable.
Redundancies aren’t pleasant for anybody involved, but there is room for far more openness around the process. A greater degree of transparency, increased communication and boots-on-the-ground presence from HR can help to reduce employees’ fear and discomfort during a tense time.
NB – at the other end of the hire-and-fire spectrum sit sham interviews, taking place when you already have a preferred candidate lined up.
These formalities require candidates to jump through all the hoops of an application and interview process, when it’s a pointless exercise from the start.
It’s amazing this still goes on, unchallenged by the industry.
Everyone gets treated equally
Hmm, not always true.
A stellar performer is clearly going to get preferential treatment to a struggling colleague who doesn’t offer the same level of value to the organisation.
Again, this isn’t a shocking revelation, and any reasonable employee will understand the logic behind this. But organisations need to be upfront about the fact.
Star performers get bigger sweeteners, fewer dressings-down and generally more freedom to plough their own path, because the organisation wants to keep hold of them.
Is there anything wrong with pointing out that the best employees get the best deal? It makes perfect sense to all concerned – but HR needs to encourage organisations to stop telling porkies about how ‘everyone gets their chance to shine’.
Inductions
Remember the process HR is supposed to rigorously follow for every new hire – the one that’s supposed to be an integral part of recruitment? And the one that’s never followed through?
Perhaps it’s time to just retire the induction process altogether. What new hires usually experience is no good for anybody.
Too often it involves leaving your new joiner in the hands of a weary old-timer who’s the only person with the spare time to show them where the toilets and canteen are.
This also allows the old hand’s inevitable cynicism to rub off on your new recruit within hours of them entering the building.
The gift of an out-of-date employee handbook doesn’t offset the risk of a new hire having a thoroughly disillusioning experience in their first few hours.
If inductions were as important as HR says, they’d be given more focus by all the relevant stakeholders. As it is, nobody seems to think they matter – and it’s up to HR to change this.
Honourable mentions:
Some untruths were bubbling under the big seven. Here they are.
“No, we don’t check candidates’ social media profiles. That wouldn’t be right.” Correct – it’s not right, but we still do it.
“You’ll hear from us soon.” No. No, they won’t.
Family friendly working: Sure, let’s allow a handful of people to work flexibly. But not all of them, right? That would be madness.
Training and development: Never given the focus it deserves. Despite claims otherwise, it’s frequently overlooked in favour of the day-to-day.
Disciplinaries: Is there ever going to be an outcome to one of these other than the one outlined at the outset by the business? It doesn’t matter how hard you pretend to listen to the employee’s side of the story, it won’t change anything. Stop wasting their time and give them a bollocking so they can move on.
Interview bias: We all know you’ve made your mind up on an interviewee within a minute of them entering the room. Why not tell them the egg-stained tie and odd shoes have blown their chances. It’ll save everyone an hour.
About the author
