Relocation as a Strategic Tool

One of the things I try to get across to students in the classes I teach is to view human resources in their company as a SYSTEM. Most of them have a tendency to think in terms of PROGRAMS. When you think in terms of "programs", such as compensation program, safety program, benefits program, performance management program, you imply a discreteness that does not actually exist. What actually occurs is that changes in a program have an effect in the system. And if you are not aware of that you may be setting yourself up for some unintended consequences that could end up being problems. Sometimes very expensive ones.

One "program" that I have not thought of in awhile is relocation. I had never really thought of relocation as a strategic tool. But the fact that it is, especially in today's marketplace, was made much clearer to me in a conversation with Jill Heineck, a new blogger who writes a blog called Inside Relocation. In a new post entitled Relocation: Strategic Planning Leads to Top Talent Jill makes the statement "When asked when was the last time they reviewed their relocation strategy, most say, “Strategy? What strategy? You mean program. We look at that all the time.” No, I am not referring to the policy or program, but the strategy, in that the way it is used to attract and retain top talent, and adding to the bottom line."

The fact that a strategy approach should be used, rather than a programs approach, is shown in her statement "... to provide more predictable results ... plan how to leverage your relocation strategy creatively, by collaborating with the executive teams that are impacted by relocation, such as Talent Acquisition, Talent Management, Marketing and Finance."

My experience as always been that relocation is an after-thought. It is something touted up front in a simple statement of "we offer relocation" and worried about the recruitment is done. Only then do you discover the problems. Jill has an example of just such a problem. "...They had made the offer and he had accepted. But there was a hitch. Relocation benefits were never discussed, and once they began to delve into the candidate’s real estate situation, they then delved into his financial situation. And then they realized it was a bust. The company wasn’t prepared to spend the kind of money required to help the candidate make the move." And as it turns out the candidate could not afford it either. NO PLANNING = FAIL and loss of money.

Since relocation is not an issue most HR folks have any expertise in I suggest that if you deal this you subscibe to her newsletter. It can be found at Focus Relocation. (And in case you are wondering, I have no financial stake, or any other stake for that matter in her business. I just think it is an area few of us HR types know anything about so I wanted to point out the resource.)

Unintended Consequences: Is Your Comp Program Killing Your Employees?

In the classes that I teach on the HR I talk about the importance of understanding that HR is not a set of discrete programs, such at the comp program, the training program, the recruiting program, etc., rather is is an interactive system where activity in one aspect of the system may have, or most likely have, an effect somewhere else in the system. Sometimes these effects are intended, but sometimes they are not.

As reported on Wallet Pop the desire to help the families of workers who have committed suicide while on the job may have had the unintended consequence of actually promoting suicide. Using a number of different sources blogger Aaron Crowe reports that the families of workers receive the equivalent of 10 years worth of the worker's wages if the worker commits suicide. This was meant to help the families, but instead it appears that in 13 cases it may have actually lead to the suicide. Caught in a deadend job and trying to help aging parents workers may see this as an opportunity to repay ol' mom and dad. (Not exactly well thought out, but.. who knows.)

It does make you stop and think however. What unintended consequences do our decisions in HR have downstream somewhere else in the system of HR? What compensation decision has affected morale in a way unthought of? What recruitment decision has affected the ability to attract talent? and so on and so on...

Just food for thought.

Tell me about unintended consequences that you have seen in the past. If I collect enough examples perhaps I will repost them.

Reasons Some HR Departments Make Disasterous Decisions

I have just finished reading Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond. The book is an excellent and eye-opening discussion of how societies, both ancient and modern, have determined their own fates. Some have disappeared and some have survived and thrived. The book ends with a warning about where we as a global society are headed today. I heartly recommend it and thank an unremembered Tweeter for suggesting it. But my purpose today is not to talk environment or history. As with many things I read I try to apply the lessons I learn to business and human resources. And there are a couple in this book I will be posting about.

The lesson for this post deals with Diamond's four reasons some societies make disasterous decisions, and as you can see my title for this post is a take-off on his chapter heading. The four reasons are as follows:

• Reason 1- Groups may do disastrous things because they fail to anticipate a problem before it arrived. One of the lessons I try to teach in the PHR/SPHR certification classes I conduct is that HR should be viewed as a system and not a collection of programs. There should not be a comp program, a recruiting program, a safety program, a training program, a retention program, etc. There needs to be an HR system the interweaves all of those pieces. Failure to do so can lead to unforseen consequences, such as a bonus program that leads to decreased morale due to perceived imbalances in the way it is administered. Having a system mentality may help you anticipate disasterous results and avoid them.
• Reason 2- Failing to perceive a problem that has actually arrived. There are three reasons this may occur. First, the origins of some problems are literally imperceptible. Second, distant managers who are not on the scene may fail to realize there is a problem. Third, the problem has grown at such a slow trend that the people in the midst of the problem do not see the problem. Decreased morale leading to a slow talent leak may be a good example. Onsite managers do not perceive there is a problem because "that is just the way things are" and distant managers do not visit often enough to perceive it. Perhaps no one is tracking the people losses or lack of productivity close enough to notice.
• Reason 3- Failing to attempt to even solve a problem once it has arrived. There are several reasons for this that fall under the term "rational behavior." These include: feeling unempowered to make a correction; thinking it is "not my problem", or even more insidious, "it is in my best interests to not make a correction" or being selfish. I once did a post on the Munchausen Syndrome, where managers make problems in order to solve problems. I know many HR "professionals" who do not feel empowered enough in their jobs to suggest solutions and some that even avoid doing so because they fear for their jobs and don't want to "make waves." Other rational behaviors include a clash of interests between upper management and front line managers or HR.
• Reason 4-  Even though we perceive a problem we still fail because the problem may be beyond our present capacities to solve, a solution may be prohibitively expensive, or our efforts may be too little and too late. Decreasing productivity, turnover leading to a brain drain, massive safety violations, major FLSA violations, class action discrimination or union activity are all examples that might fit into this catagory.

Diamond's discussion of these reasons as it applies to society is much more thorough than is my discussion here of how it applies to HR. I suggest you read Chapter 14 of this book (if you are not reading the book) to get a further analysis.

The good news is that none of this has to happen. It however requires couragous leaders and couragous people. For a Human Resources professional to meet this challenge they must do the following:

• Be educated in ongoing HR issues and have a SYSTEMS mentality.
• Be aware of trends in the community, the workforce and the industry in which they work.
• Have a broader perspective than just the "immediate".
• Be aware of how other organizations have addressed and solved, or failed to solve, problems of a similar nature.
• Be courageous. Have a VOICE. Don't be afraid to address the "rational behavior" that is counter productive to the success of the organization.

I hope you follow my advice and read Diamond's book and apply his societal lessons to your workplace. You will be a better HR professional for it.

Want to Improve HR: View HR As A "System"

Yesterday consumer advocate and radio and TV personality Clark Howard had a show segment on a hospital (I believe it was Geisinger Health System and their ProvenCare system) in which he discussed their system approach to providing healthcare. He talked about how they have a protocol for ensuring that patients get the proper treatment, which includes a strict checklist that must be completely checked before anyone gets operated on. This "system" they have put in place has been so successful in reducing relapses and thus greatly reducing costs that they now give 90-day warranties on certain procedures. This means that if you need further care within the 90-day period there is no additional cost to you, the patient. It has increased the "wellness" of the patients and has reduced costs by 15%.

This got me to thinking about HR and the fact that it is a system and as such could probably benefit from a strict protocol similar to what is used at Geisinger. I know many HR departments have checklists for various procedures, yet many are not followed. We have a checklist for hiring, yet many times I-9s are not completed. We have checklists for terminations, yet many times a form is missing or ignored. These checklists, often poorly done, are for discrete segments of HR and could use some improvement. If we used them strictly we might avoid bad hires, bad terminations, poor reviews, missing reviews, undocument promotions or demotions, expired visas or missed enrollments. Think about that. Anything you can improve in your shop?

But a bigger picture comes from thinking about HR as a system and realizing that things we do in compensation, e.g., also has an impact on recruitment, promotions, employee relations, terminations, retirement and benefit costs. I think it would be a major change for many HR departments to sit down in a working session and go through a checklist asking the question "If we put this in place how will it affect ......?" This might help some of us avoid problems caused by implementation of "programs" where we have not thought about the impact on a bigger system. It would also help companies that have a tendency to implement the "HR or management program de jour". You can ward off managers and executives who bring you "the newest and the best."

Who knows, this approach might lead to better care for your "patients" and reduce your operating costs as well.

If you are reading this and have such a system in place PLEASE leave a comment and tell the rest of us about how it works (or doesn't). Let us learn from you.