HR - 'aka The Fluffiness'

I wonder if there is a way to reposition this slightly - or redirect it - to allow your contribution to be recognised.

I have frequently shared your frustration with HR being perceived in this way. But the longer I've done this job, the more I recognise that spending time with people and building trust, enables me to achieve a lot more with strategic and operational plans than the most beautifully crafted documents. If that time spent establishing trust (which could be supporting people when they need it the most, taking time to understand their career ambitions, or sorting out a grievance before it gets to a formal stage) makes me 'fluffy' then so be it - I am also firm enough to be clear about what needs to be done and why.

And just to ask the obvious, would they ever refer to a man in your role as 'fluffy'? And assuming they would not, challenge them on the language they are choosing and using, and why.

Good luck!

Thank-you Nina, great feedback - and I agree with the final comment. I have worked in two male-dominated industries many of which in meetings I have been the only woman at the table. It does place that question in my mind when reflecting on the conversations. I will challenge the language moving forwards and request them to expand then and there.

Thank-you Nina, great feedback - and I agree with the final comment. I have worked in two male-dominated industries many of which in meetings I have been the only woman at the table. It does place that question in my mind when reflecting on the conversations. I will challenge the language moving forwards and request them to expand then and there.

Hi Annabelle

Well used personally to this syndrome in past working environments. Came to realise that most management colleagues therein have to cope daily with potential disasters and to interact with and to achieve influence in a Hobbesian ‘nasty brutish and short’ working world. No automatic respect; no social niceties - you need to convince them that you can be effective in helping them survive in their world, which may well be somewhat alien to your own. Doing so can take some time and / or get pretty ‘eventful’ but stand your ground / give as good as you get and you may well eventually become part of the team.

Like those running many companies (particularly larger ones) the presumption of this Board seems to be that people don't enjoy working, so need to be driven, and anything that makes their time at work less arduous is thus both unnecessary "softness and fluffiness" or counter-productive; HR practice being a quasi-subversive influence merely there to administer leave and take notes at hearings, and/or to "paint over" the bits of socialist political nonsense that "real" business-people (-men) have to ignore to "get the job done".

Countering this can be a slow and frustrating process, but the key is pointing out that in reality HR's apparent "soft and fluffiness" saves time, money, reputations, and also contributes significantly to functional efficiency and smooth business-operation.

You can even put numbers on the financial benefits if you look beyond what is normally considered as relevant.

For example: Well run recruitment and induction reduces the numbers of times the process has to be re-run because of poor selections "dropping out" or "failing probation". What is the cost of the doubled recruitment process and the loss of production during the repeated inductions? Or what is the net cost of making one set of people with particular skills or experience redundant to recruit anew, (and the re-runs leading from that, as above) when some strategic forward planning of HR needs could instead save costs by retraining/reskilling and retaining workforce already tested as reliable "known quantity" employees?

How much does it cost in management hours and unproductive effort each time an investigating officer and hearing panel (etc. etc.) have to work through a Disciplinary or Grievance process to resolve some issue that could have been avoided by a manager not harassing, discriminating against, or victimising an employee, or an employee not being frequently late for trivial reasons (and then adding on the costs or replacements etc as above if they are wantonly dismissed when a lesser sanction could have been applied effectively....) ...And don't forget to add on the time-costs and legal fees to defend the application they then make to the ETS... and if they win, the cost of the award and the damage done to the company's reputation (and individual managers' too) when the nice juicy editorially polished not-quite sexual harassment case hits the front page of the "Mirror" on a quiet-news day.

People don't work in car-plants to get cheap cars; they work there to earn money to satisfy their aspirations to buy a house, take flying lessons, or pay for their next pint (white wine) in the pub. They might have little or no interest in what their work results in for the company, but they can be encouraged to share an interest in the health and success of the business if it funds and facilitates their interests. This "shared interest" can be vastly enhanced by not just pay (to do what they want to do outside work) but by it being a comfortable, warm, friendly, fair, egalitarian and respectful place to work. Where good performance is not just rewarded but recognised; managers say "thank you" for a job well done...and so employees do not decide to lie in and nurse the hangover on Monday morning, and do not do all they can to avoid being noticed when some overtime is needed, do not bring grievances, commit disciplinary offences or "slag off" their employer on line, or down the pub over that pint (of white wine?) they bought. 

Staff "Churn" falls, again reducing costs and enhancing efficient operation.

The company thus gets less hassle, better people, more effective operation, more diligence and bigger, fatter profits.

(...and better, legally safe, systems to be rid of those who don't want to play the game that way).

All for the price of an HR Professional's salary and a battery for the CEO's hearing aid so they can pay an attentive ear to HR now and then instead of remaining deaf.

....Oh yes, and the price of a broom to sweep up all the "soft and fluffiness" that isn't actually needed at all. 

P