Some human resource departments have maintained an old command and control mentality, where they see their jobs as making sure managers and employees are doing what they are supposed to. Is everyone on time? Why not? What about sick leave? Are all the rules being followed? It’s not that these departments are misguided, because some rules, (e.g.. hiring practices, safety, harassment, etc.) ARE important and need to be handled centrally by a company. Or, certain programs and procedures may best be handled by a central department because of the need to coordinate some actions across the entire company. Problems arise, however, when the HR departments forgets that it’s purpose is to serve the needs of the company, the managers and the employees, to help THEM get the work done.

After all, is your company’s human resources department a PROFIT CENTER? Of course not. The HR department doesn’t produce anything or sell anything but it can help the rest of the company make things or sell things by smoothing the path on some matters.

What sets apart good HR departments from bad is that the bad ones lose their service orientation, and forget that if they don’t help others get their jobs done; they won’t get cooperation from those they should be helping. The good ones recognize that while they are obligated to do some regulation of some processes, that they can play important leadership roles in the organization. And that does NOT mean dictating but balancing off the needs of the organization with the needs of the managers and employees.

What would this look like? Let’s take an example: performance appraisal. Poor HR departments go about performance appraisal this way. They devise a set of rules and forms on their own, then go forth (if they have executive support) and TELL managers and employees what they SHALL do. They tend not to consult, or if they consult just forget to listen to the people who have to use these sometimes monstrous procedures. What happens is that since HR tends to be somewhat distant from the users of the system, the process misses. Managers and employees see the process as another hoop to jump through, and stall, or avoid doing what they are supposed to. What happens is that HR then has to move into the police or enforcer role, to try to coerce managers to do what they are supposed to. That gets everyone frustrated and drives wedges between HR and the rest of the company.

The good HR department goes about it differently. While they recognize that performance appraisal needs to be, in some respects, a central organization process, they also recognize that if the process isn’t responsive to at least some needs of managers and employees, it will never succeed. So rather than dictating the procedures, forms and minutiae, the smart HR folks create (in consultation with both managers and employees), a skeleton outline of the process. This skeleton outlines the basic components, but leave the details to the managers. So rather than telling managers they much use the twelve page form provided, they simply say that managers must document the performance discussions, and forward them to HR at least annually. See the difference? The shift here is from dictating details to providing a framework and helping people work within that general framework. It’s a SUPPORTING function, and not a lead actor.

Everyone benefits (including the HR staff) by backing off and recognizing that one can both support and lead at the same time without dictating. The bottom line is that the more HR dictates and plays enforcer, the fewer managers and staffs feel they need to take responsibility for the functions HR is dictating. The more dictation the more resistance from the rest of the company.

So, HR folks. Look to providing frameworks, rather than details. Look to serve rather than to command.

David Dell, research director for capabilities management and HR at The Conference Board, has observed, “Both HR and IT have many new issues to address and many decisions to make and implement. But the speed of change in both areas makes the challenge more difficult as it increases the promise.”

Why do people resist change? Leslie Smith, a clinical psychologist and former Web designer in McLean, Virginia, outlines these reasons:

• Fear of making mistakes or looking foolish.
• A lack of understanding or confidence about the new system and its benefits.
• Anxiety about doing more. Employees often feel overworked already, and resist learning something new when it’s layered on top of their existing duties.
• Change fatigue. Once people learn something new, they’d like to stick with that new knowledge and take a rest.

Jeanie Daniel Duck, author of The Change Monster: The Human Forces That Fuel or Foil Corporate Transformation & Change, writes, “The knee-jerk answer (to failed change efforts) is the people ‘resist change,’ as if ‘resistance to change’ were some kind of sorry genetic code that, if it could be reengineered, would magically produce people instantly eager to do things differently whenever anyone asked. The ‘resistance to change’ answer… is appealing because it takes the blame off the leaders and puts it on those ‘no-good followers.’”

Leaders must take charge of change. There are many things that you can do to ensure a more successful initiative, including:
Communicate. Explain what benefits you expect from the new system and how people’s roles might change. Also make sure that change is championed from the top of the organization and communicate that support.

Collaborate. Involve prospective users in change decisions and choices. Duck says it’s not the change that’s the problem, but the way it comes down. “People are changing all the time, but those are changes of their own choosing,” Duck says. “People resist being told they have to change.”

Demonstrate. As Duck observes, people are powerfully motivated by self-interest. Technological change is likely to be more successful if people are shown what’s in it for them. “When they’re motivated, it’s amazing what people can do,” she says.

Evaluate. Look at the whole corporate culture, not just IT, to determine how many other changes people are being asked to deal with at the same time, such as a merger or reorganization. Perhaps it’s time to give them a breather.

Commiserate. Let people know it’s okay to complain, Duck advises. It provides a useful outlet. Although IT may feel like the corporate whipping boy, “that’s the nature of the beast. IT departments have a checkered past,” she says. “They must accept that and be more careful.” Further, allowing complaint and disagreement might enable you to measure resistance before you spend millions of dollars on that new initiative.

Don’t denigrate. Mary Lynn Pulley, Ph.D., is a faculty member at the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina. She maintains that the learning curve is upside down: “It’s more of a valley than a hill,” she says. “Whenever you learn anything, your performance actually declines before it improves.”

She refers to that performance dip as the Valley of Chaos, and urges learners to remember that chaos and creation go hand in hand. “Things have to fall apart or disintegrate in some way so that they can come back together in a new way.” Managers must make it clear that mistakes are okay and avoid any kind of punishment for error in a learning environment.

Eradicate. “You must allow for the notion of un-learning as people abandon old ways,” Pulley says. Know that people have to rid their minds and routines of that which no longer works, but be aware that getting rid of the old and familiar can engender fear and confusion.