Stop Spreading the Peanut Butter and Start Feeding the Eagles

"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as escaping from the old ones." ------ John Maynard Keynes

I wrote an article here six months ago on the need to differentiate among employee groups --- how companies should manage their workforce like a portfolio of investments.  And how some employees, like investments, pay a much higher return than others.

This subject still bugs me.  I don’t think I hit it hard enough.  So I will try again using some head-whacking 2x4’s. Here’s a quote from Laurie Ruettimann --- the high priestess of “whacking”:

“Here’s what I’d love to know: At what point in time did it become common place for every freaking single person in business to believe that they had to treat all employees in their organization equally in every situation? Here’s the truth. That’s what was made up by lawyers and adopted by HR people as an easy rule of thumb to play it safe against the itty bitty possibility that you’d get your butt sued. Over the years it’s gone from a concept used to protect against gross discrimination of gender and race to a concept used to create policies for everything from bereavement leave to bathroom usage. It’s out of control.”

Laurie makes Richard Beatty --- HR thought leader ---look positively “genteel”. Here’s what he says:

"HR wants to treat most employees the same way, and they spend considerable time trying to defend or fix poor performers, taking on the St. Bernard role.  Low turnover isn't necessarily a good thing.  Think about where you might want to disinvest.”

HR is also behind what Beatty calls the "silly" idea that a company should try to be the "employer of choice."

“If you are the employer of choice, who's going to be applying for your jobs? Everybody and their dog's brother. You want people who are excited, enthused, and understand how to contribute to what you do, as opposed to those who simply want to find a good place to hide out."

WOW!  Is your head ringing from the 2x4s yet?

Much of the above boils down to HR’s penchant for risk avoidance and the need/ease of treating everyone equally.  HR needs to move away from risk avoidance to risk leverage. Just as top management finds it critical to balance the risk and reward of their strategic decisions, HR also needs to incorporate risk into their thinking. This new mindset will help them not only understand the full range of HR risks, but determine which risks are worth taking.

Mr. Jesuthasan of Towers Watson, in the Oxford Economics Global Talent 2021 survey, says:

“Being risk-averse is no longer a viable approach.  Risk awareness is not just about identifying the risks you don’t want to take, but also the risks you do want to take.”

It’s all about risk management.  Will doing X increase the likelihood of getting Y?   Is doing A too big a risk to take in order to get B?  Every day it’s about weighing relative risks against relative opportunities.  

Do we spread the peanut butter --- risk averse?  Or do we feed the eagles --- risk leverage?  There must be some HR programs that are "adequate" and that's OK.  There must be some HR programs which are "good enough" and that's really good enough. (I may hear about this one.)

HR needs to focus on equity instead of equality; on engaging the right employees, not necessarily all employees; on hiring choice employees, not becoming an employer of choice; and finally, on special rewards for certain groups of employees, not all employees. There’s not enough time, energy or money to do everything for everybody.

If top management sees HR as part of the team, someone who is working to grow the business and help them take smart risks, they’re going to be far likelier to run things by HR – and far likelier to listen when HR tells them “no”.  

Do you have an "equality" mentality — spreading the peanut butter?  Or do you have an “equity” mentality--- feeding the eagles?   

Head whacking is over.  I feel better now.

Jacque Vilet, President of Vilet International, has over 20 years’ experience in Global Human Resources with major multinationals such as Intel, National Semiconductor and Seagate Technology. She has managed both local/ in-country national and expatriate programs and has been an expat twice during her career.   Her true love is working with local national issues.  Jacque has the following certifications:  CCP, GPHR, HCS and SWP as well as a B.S. and M.S in Psychology and an MBA.    She belongs to SHRM, Human Capital Institute and World at Work.   Jacque been a speaker in the U.S., Asia and Europe, and is a regular contributor to various HR and talent management publications. 

Comments

[John A Bushfield]

Jacque - I like head-wacking, probably because I need it on a regular basis!

The subject you've touched upon couldn't be more relevant to the HR function today. Proper risk orientation is a fundamental requirement for successful HR practitioners. Unfortunately, risk aversion is much more prevalent, due to fear of legal action, and also because it's easier, and safer, to rely on the 'equal treatment' fallacy rather than actually evaluate the issue in the context of the business.

Of course, taken to the extreme, risk tolerance can become dangerous, and that line can move depending upon the situation. The safe way is not always the best way.

[Jacque Vilet]

Thanks for the comment John. HR is not the only function that is risk averse. CEOs suffer from the same syndrome --- especially when the "we've always done it this way" approach has served them well in the past. Being willing to take risks is scary.

BTW --- head whacking is the only way I learn sometimes!

[charleshgreen]

Very right. Thanks.
But help me, how do I get of the image that's now stuck in my head of eagles eating peanut butter?

[Jacque Vilet]

LOL!

[Jana Zavala, GPHR]

Really liked this article, thought & emotion provoking. Liked it enough to share on the SAHRA (Sacramento Area HR)group last week. Not a single like or comment. Posted to another Sacramento group I'm a member of today...hoping that someone would be interested. I'm not a super frequent poster/liker/commenter to groups, but really on LinkedIn to share, encourage and advise. I'm dismayed that no HR folks displayed just a bit of interest in this concept. Maybe it further solidifies my feeling of isolation in this area in the HR profession - lots of compliance, government workers, labor unions and mostly boring companies. I miss Silicon Valley!

[Jacque Vilet]

Hi Jana ---- Many of the HR articles today have to do with making sure a candidate "fits" with the company culture. Cultural "fits" don't cause trouble, are low maintenance, go-along-to-get-along ---- and often don't offer many ideas, etc. to move the company forward.

BTW I miss Silicon Valley too!

[Jacque Vilet]

Jana --- if it's any consolation --- the Dallas SHRM chapter wouldn't understand this either.

Not only that but when they hear "global" all they think about "expatriates". :-(

[Howard Risher]

I've argued for identifying the stars and turkeys in a number of forums. And I have not had peanut butter for years.

But Jacque's argument ignores an important and largely ignored issue. Salary management is a zero sum problem. There are roughly 70% of the workers who are perfoming at a solidly acceptable level. The more we grant to the A players, the less that's available for the B players. I want them to feel they have been fairly treated and continue to get the job done.

There is also the emerging importance of collaboration that's undermined by an aggressive pay for performance policy.

I wish I knew the answers.

[Jacque Vilet]

Howard --- thank you for comment. I strongly agree with you that all company employees who perform solidly should be rewarded. But "eagles" can be rewarded in different ways than the solid performers. And it doesn't have to be money.

There are situations that we have today where organizations make differentiations. In pro football, all players acknowledge that the quarterback is usually worth more to the club than other players. And as such they tend to be rewarded at a much higher level. Everyone accepts that.

It is no less different in private industry.

This is where the balance in risk is important. With budgets continuing to be tight (in spite of all the profits companies are sitting on CFOs are keeping tight hold of the purse strings) companies cannot afford NOT to differentiate.

HR needs to understand risk and strive for balance. The C-suite has to balance risk and HR needs to as well. Let's face it, in today's enormously competitive market, we should know that while all employees are important -- there are those that provide a better rate of return than others.

[Bay Jordan]

I think you have fallen into a trap that too many people make: Failing to distinguish between equality and equitability. Nobody in their right mind expects to be treated equally. They do, however, expect to be treated equitably. Thus good performance and bad, both need to be addressed, but in the same manner. It is not a case of special rewards for some and not others; it is a case of proportionality. Why should executives get a 50% bonus (often when they fail to meet all their targets) while the lower echelons get 5%? And why should employees be held accountable when it seems executives seldom, if ever, are? Or if they are, are allowed to move on as though they had done a great job and will be missed?

Its all very well to blame lawyers, etc, but HR has allowed this to happen, and have failed to take steps to ensure there is a balance. The problem is not trying to make all people equal, but a failure to balance rights and obligations at all levels - organisationally and in society at large.

[Jacque Vilet]

Thank you for your comment Bay.

You talk about the difference between equality and equity. I did as well.
I think there are many in HR that do not understand the difference -- and frankly I have not heard anyone in HR use the word "equity" except in talking about stock.

The point that I have tried to make is that HR is risk averse --- and I do think that a lot of it comes from lawyers coaching them so much on the liability of mishandling terminations, etc. And as a result of this risk aversion there is a practice of offering the same programs to all employees.

I am not talking about the difference in performance among individual employees. I am talking about jobs with many employees in the same job. I'm talking about a spectrum where support jobs/core jobs are at one end and critical/key jobs are at the other.

As HR becomes more attuned to business, they must learn that there are some jobs --- not employees --- that are more critical than others. And yes they will need to get more attention --- separate rewards, very well monitored career development, etc.

I am not saying that people in other jobs should be neglected. They should be rewarded. But those in critical jobs are special, they are critical to the company's success and they bring a higher return on the company's investment.

I hope I have addressed your concerns. If not please feel free to contact me personally at: [email protected]
Thanks.