In the post-layoff era, many HR professionals are struggling to be relevant to the needs of their organizations.  This is particularly true because many HR people were victims of layoffs themselves.

 I think there is an interesting connection between the evolution and future of HR and the concept of transactional analysis (TA).  Probably some of you remember the concept and the book that popularized it – “I’m OK – You’re OK.”  Those who are really into it recall that the basic concept (parent – adult – child) came from Freudian theory (Id – Ego – Super Ego)

 One way to think of the evolution of HR is this Parent – Adult – Child frame of reference.

 When HR began (it was called personnel then) in most cases it was in the “child” mode.  It basically did line management’s bidding with out a lot of value added.  As in, “put this person on the payroll,”  “give this person a salary increase,” etc. etc. etc . . .   In some cultures – mainly in developing countries or in very low tech organizations it is still there.  The result of HR being put in a “child” role is basically putting HR people in a one-down, subordinate relationship to managers – they become second class citizens.

 The next step in the evolution was the “parent” phase.  In the US, HR got a lot of clout because of government regulations and intervention in business practices.  Labor laws and equal employment laws were examples.  HR became a function that acted as a check to make sure the organization did not get sued or loose government contracts.  This phase was accentuated in high technology firms by promoting the best engineer or technical person into management roles.  They became dependent on HR to “manage the people issues.”  The result of HR assuming the parental role is that they end up in an artificial control oriented one-up relationship.  The power is artificial but seductive and line management ends up seeing HR as pesky cops as opposed to helpers.  This is still the case in many organizations.

 The third phase is an adult/adult relationship where HR is seen as in an equal helping relationship to line management.  This is not as easy as it seems because it requires HR to learn consulting and helping skills and resist acting as a child or assuming the artificial seductive power of a parent.  I think the future of HR is in this adult/adult phase.  HR functions that don’t assume this role may not be “abolished” but they certainly won’t fulfill their potential.  I also think the line between external consultants and internal HR functions is not all that clear in terms of role.  Lots of external consultants focus on a small number of clients and actually do much the same work as internals.  The reason they are successful in this is that they approach their role in an adult/adult relationship.  Said differently, internal HR functions that want to be relevant to the needs of the business and not be replaced by external consultants need to drop the “child” and “parent” role and learn how to partner in a consulting role.

I recently talked to a member of a search committee who was disappointed that the person that was hired a year ago to lead a non-profit had not done enough to change the culture.  He was considering demoting the person and starting another search.

 I think his response is typical of our cultural expectations (the US is the most individualistic off all cultures).  We are too quick to praise or blame the individual and too slow to look to the group and the underlying system.

 Cultural change is a collective, not an individual responsibility.  The top person plays an important role but will fail unless the cultural change takes root within the system.

 In terms of Kotter’s model, the most important leadership role seems to be creating a sense of urgency and stimulating the development of a strong coalition of key influencers and missionaries for the new culture. 

 The next most important leadership activity involves removing obstacles.  Policies and structure are relatively easy compared to dealing with people who are sabotaging and blocking the cultural change.  It is ironic that organizations needing to change their culture to accommodate the post-layoff new psychological contract sometimes have to resort to firing people to facilitate the change.  In my experience, the most effective leaders have little patience with cultural saboteurs or blockers.

I have a background in organization development and, when helping organizations respond to the negative effect of downsizing, I use an OD approach.  Recently, a person posted a question on a Linked In site asking advice as to whether to spend the time and money to pursue an masters degree in OD and wondering how that would help with job prospects and compensation.  I believe that OD is a unique field and too many people get into it for the wrong reasons so I’m posting my response to that Linked In question.

 OD is, in its essence, a value based field based on participation, openness, trust, and a humanistic perspective.  Applying this value orientation to today’s business world requires grounding in both process skills and faith that teamwork, participation, and diversity will result in long-term sustainable business outcomes.

 There is a basic difference between an MBA degree and masters in OD.  Unfortunately, some universities have tried to meld the two and it has resulted in watering down both degrees. 

 I would advise that you go into an OD masters program only if you want to hitch your wagon to the faith based perspective in the value of an OD orientation.  If not, get an MBA.  For sure, I would not go to the expense and trouble of pursuing masters in OD in order to enhance your employment prospects.  You will do better in that regard with an MBA or masters in instructional technology. 

 I’m not trying to be pessimistic – just realistic.  I have an MSOD from Pepperdine and a doctorate in OB and OD from George Washington and have taught graduate programs in both OD and at the MBA level.

 I have also made a living as an OD practitioner for many, many years and love the field.  If you truly want to facilitate long term change and are willing to pay the price in terms of personal growth and resisting the demand from clients for short term results and quick fixes at the price of long term sustainability, then by all means go into OD.  I’m just cautioning you that to spend the money and the time to get an OD degree with the purpose of making more money or getting better job offers will not only disappoint you but also will make you angry.  Not that you can’t make a very good living as an OD practitioner.  There are many that have.  There, however, are some who have not.  There are a lot more who call themselves OD consultants but are really doing other types of consulting.

 Again, OD is a wonderful field, albeit one that is taking some hits in today’s task oriented, short term, economy where managers are biased against “touchy-feely” OD stuff.  However, “touchy-feely” is the currency of the OD realm and if you want to learn how to apply it to organizations by all means go for it.

Bureaucracy bashing is an artifact of the post-layoff culture.  Managers, consultants, politicians, and taxpayers all have embraced the politically correct mantra that “bureaucracy must be stomped out!”  Unfortunately, the majority of those calling for an end to bureaucratic evil support and reinforce values that are central to the philosophy of bureaucracy.  We are deeply, often unconsciously, conditioned to connect with our organizations from a bureaucratic frame of reference. 

 As originally articulated by the German sociologist Max Weber, bureaucratic organizational systems were conceived as a way to instill merit and base promotions on performance rather than birthright or charisma. From it came the basic notion of separation of the office from the officer, which, in turn, led to such recognizable management staples as job descriptions, merit pay, succession planning, policies, procedures, and uniform “objective” administration and management processes. 

Many of our values concerning loyality, motivation, and commitment also have their roots in it.  Our notions of long-term employment and equating pay increases, promotion and perquisites to organizational loyalty rather than professional competence are grounded in classic bureaucratic assumptions. For those of us who spend our lives in organizations, the shift from a fixed, long-term bureaucratic connection with our organizations to one that is more fluid and flexible is gut wrenching.  In order to let go of the old, no-longer functional bureaucratic connection with our organizations, we need a new vision, something to hold on to.  The creation of this post-bureaucratic vision is no easy task.  As is the case with all fundamental changes in worldview, there are aspects that are guaranteed to hook our feelings, emotions, and deep-seated beliefs.   Consider your reaction to this vision of an organization operating outside the bureaucratic paradigm:   

 There are no job descriptions, no merit pay steps, no clear hierarchy or direct connection between responsibility and formal authority.  The focus is external – to the customer, the community, and to society – there is very little internal focus.  The learning organization is a literal concept: organizations are communities of learning and, thus, individual decision-making is subordinated to the wisdom of the collective.  Although some people may stay for long periods of time there is no long-term job security.  Employees are attracted to the organization because of the work and when the work is no longer a manifestation of their human spirit, they will leave.  Unlike bureaucracy, there is no separation of the office and the officer – the organization is shaped and tasks are assigned based on individual talents and not on filling a pre-defined role as in the bureaucratic job description.  Feelings and emotions are not controlled or suppressed but are encouraged and stimulated.

 The above description passes the emotional test of a paradigm shift and most of us get at least one of our hot buttons pushed when we consider such an organization.  That’s why bureaucracy is so hard to bury.  The organization of the new paradigm will be a human system, filled with all the messy, gooey, stuff of humanity. Difficult though it may be, we must learn to accept it and live with it.

The difference between those organizations that make it in the new millennium and those that don’t will be leaders with the ability to facilitate transitions:  their own, the organization’s and those of their fellow employees.  What follows are ten very specific and prescriptive activities that will facilitate the development of these essential skills.

• Get involved in the leadership of a volunteer organization.  Pick one that does not receive funding or support from your organization.  Helping manage a volunteer organization is a powerful feedback and developmental experience.  It removes you from your positional power base and allows you to assess your true impact. 
• Take evening courses or sign up for special programs that teach helping skills..  The macro-leadership competency of the future will be the ability to help yourself, your organization, and your employees facilitate change and transition  Management will is a helping profession and managers  need the same kind of helping skills as other professionals in the field. 
• Complete a professional 360-degree feedback instrument.  By professional, I mean that you should use an instrument that has a history, validity standards, and norms.  Have the results interpreted by someone trained in helping you understand what it means and dosen’t mean.  Some organizations have their own 360-degree instruments and others use instrument licensed and certified by external vendors.  There are also some excellent external organizations you can hire to administer such instruments. 
• Attend a professional leadership training program.  This type of training is different from a program on marketing, quality, or performance management.  It should focus on intra-personal insight, inter-personal skills, and the systems perspective necessary to develop a culture that leads to organizational learning.  There are some very good in-house programs and many excellent external offerings.
• Find a Truth Teller.  It is particularly important for top managers to cultivate and use truth tellers.  A truth teller is someone in the organization you can rely on to, as is said in baseball “call them they way they see them.”  Truth tellers provide unfiltered feedback. 
• Attend Laboratory Training.  These sessions used to be called T-groups. Yes, this is sensitivity training, and yes, it is “feely” – but it probably won’t be “touchy.”  The bottom line is that this kind of laboratory training is a very powerful way to get the depth of feedback that will lead to self-awareness. 
• Become familiar with future search technology.  There is a movement out there, using labels such as “future search,” and speaking of “getting the whole system in a room.”  These large system-change processes go for the jugular in stimulating the learning organization.  If you want to jump-start your understanding of learning in the colle3ctive, you need to get on the bandwagon; the technology is growing faster than it can be codified.
• Learn how to have a dialogue.  A dialogue is different from a discussion, an argument, a debate, or a business meeting.  The dialogue process is very important in developing learning organizations and is central to collective learning.  There are seminars and workshops.  You can also find some consultants who can teach you and your organization dialogue skills.
• Get active in your professional association.  Don’t just attend the national meeting – become a worker, serve on committees, pass out the literature, do time in the information booth, set up the chairs!  The higher up you are, the more the value of the grunt work.  It forces you to see an organizational system from a different perspective and helps you rethink your own skills and assumptions as to what constitutes value-added.
• Set up an intensive personal feedback project.  One option involves retaining an external consultant to nearly overwhelm you with feedback from a wide range of data points.  This is a very powerful process.  You can’t escape valid data, and a skilled consultant will help you understand it and do something about it.