In many businesses, human resources are seen asisolated entities, focusing exclusively on talent management: recruitment, training and skills development. An approach which, while laudable, is disconnected from the realities on the ground. Managing talent without considering the operational context is like giving a rough diamond to a bad tailor. The energy invested in talent risks being lost in an inefficient system, poorly aligned with the realities of day-to-day work.
A dysfunctional ecosystem with limited impact
When operations and management fail to keep pace, HR efforts become unproductive. Ambitious strategies are deployed, massive investments are made in programs, but the results don’t translate into a valuable difference for the customer. Why not? Because talent, however exceptional, does not work in a vacuum. It is intrinsically linked to its environment, and even totally dependent on it: managers, colleagues, tools, processes, work organization, corporate culture and so on.
And unlike a diamond, talent leaves if conditions do not allow it to express its full potential. And when they leave, they don’t just leave a vacancy: they sabotage the business’s employer brand, tarnishing its ability to attract talent in the future.
Again, listen with a distracted ear when you hear people talking about their work on a train, in a bar, on the metro, in a restaurant. They’ll never talk about HR policy, they’ll never talk about QWL, they’ll never talk about perks like gym memberships or the games console in the lounge area, let alone yoga classes. No, they’ll talk about their managers, the processes, the organizational cumbersomeness (The organizational complication: the #1 irritant of the employee experience).
“Do I want classes on meditation? Yes. But do they move the needle on the stuff that matters, that will actually change the way an employee feels? No ” (Can companies actually help workers stay happy and healthy?)
This is what makes the difference between initiatives that are peripheral to work and those that concern the moments when people are in a work situation. The ones that tackle the consequences and not the causes, the ones that concern 5% of the time an employee spends in the business and the ones that concern 95% of that time (There is a difference between “at work” and “in work”.)…
You have the choice between building a spa next to the torture room or stopping the torture.
And it’s not just a question of mental health, it’s also – and above all – a question of efficiency and productivity.
Talent management from the abstract to the concrete
The concept of talent is often approached in the abstract, as a resource to be pampered and developed. But this vision is incomplete, because talent is worth nothing if it is not considered in a global work context:
- Work patterns. How are missions organized? How much autonomy is granted to teams?
- Tools and processes. Are they designed to simplify or burden employees’ daily lives?
- Management. Is it capable of inspiring, coaching and giving meaning?
- Corporate culture. Is it conducive to collaboration and innovation, or does it maintain silos? Is it violent or benevolent?
Thinking about talent without addressing these dimensions is like racing a car, focusing on training drivers without paying the slightest attention to the engine. Talent management cannot exist without in-depth reflection on operational and organizational models, and without collaboration with the people who are in charge of them (Is it heresy to put “people” and “operations” in the same sentence?).
HR at the service of operations (and vice versa)
To create an impactful employee experience, both in human terms and in terms of performance , HR needs to move out of its area of expertise and get closer to operations. But that’s not all, because it would be unfair to make them responsible for everything: it’s also up to others to agree to talk to them, to listen to them and build something that will benefit both parties. Otherwise, the employees will let them look at each other in the mirror and go elsewhere… and if they don’t, they’ll remain inefficient and demotivated.
Such a partnership would enable HR strategies to be aligned with realities on the ground. This means
- Implementing a managerial model. It is intolerable that each manager should manage in his or her own way, with no coherence in the business, and with differences in posture and work organization as we see them (Do you have a delivery model for management?).
- Involve managers in HR decisions. Managers are the first point of contact for employees, and need to be trained to play their role to the full.
- Co-create adapted work models. HR and operations need to work together to define models that take into account both the needs of employees and business constraints.
- Adopt a systemic approach. Each HR action must be thought of as a brick in a larger, interconnected system, where talent can flourish while serving business objectives.
- Adopt product design methods to conceive of work as a product that the business, managers and employees would want to buy because it meets their needs (Reimagining Work as a Product)
“Although product design has a proven track record of creating better experiences for customers, to our knowledge no employer has yet implemented a fully rendered version of the employee-facing model we’re proposing. But we have seen companies using principles of product design to rethink their employees’ experience—and we’re not the only ones talking about this idea. ”
But let’s be clear: it‘s a partnership that has to work both ways: “creating” people who will match the needs of the business (TravelPerk VP of People: HR needs to have a ‘People as a product’ mindset) but also operating methods that get the best out of people, enable them to give their best, are boosters without being burdens.
To achieve this, everyone needs to be able to understand and talk to each other, which means that the HR function needs to recruit not just HR technicians (2023 Employee Experience Barometer: the employee experience confronted with its contradictions), but also people with skills in product design, design thinking, service design, process management and organizational design.
It’s either that, or they need to understand that they need to let operations have a hand in this. After that, is it easier to have people with HR sensitivity in operations than people with operations sensitivity in HR? But behind this question lies a quasi-strategic choice, and in any case one that is fraught with meaning: is employee experience a support function or a business function? As far as I’m concerned, my choice is made (Employee experience is not a support function but a business function…).
There are plenty of examples of HR working with managers in “collaborative problem-solving” mode to create an employee experience that’s truly aligned with needs on the ground ([FR]Expérience Collaborateur #5 : comment impliquer les managers ), so why not go one step further?
“They share their concerns about managing teams according to their business needs, share the ‘field’ best practices they’ve spotted, train on a new topic to act better […]but also, it’s an opportunity for Annick to build solutions with them.The method is always the same: Annick presents them with the parameters of the problem, what falls within her role, what falls within their role, and then asks them what they need to secure their practices. Once the solutions have been validated by the community, all levels of management are involved in their implementation. This community has enabled Logisco to transform the HR department into an EX department”.
Interesting, isn’t it? In any case, proof that the best approach to change is to involve the people concerned right from the design phase (Change and transformation need a new approach and Improving a team’ s work: a story of continuous improvement).
I’ll say it over and over again: I’ve had more impact on the employee experience and quality of life at work while having a performance focus by taking the lead in operations than by being head of the employee experience (You don’t have to be HR to have an impact on the employee experience). But is the fact that the two functions have to be merged a good sign? I doubt it.
Bottom line
The employee experience is not just an HR issue, and talent cannot be managed as a simple resource isolated from its work context. To have a real and lasting impact, it is essential to consider talent in the operational context of work, and to be able to act on this context. This can only be achieved through reflection on operational models, close collaboration between HR and operations, and a systemic vision of the employee’s ecosystem.
To use my metaphor from the beginning, a diamond in the rough needs a skilled cutter and a supportive environment to reveal its full brilliance. In the same way, HR needs to work hand in hand with operations to transform talent into tangible, valuable impact.
