It’s over 10 years since Harvard’s Ron Heifetz first distinguished between technical and adaptive change, but it’s as relevant to organisations now as it was then. I believe it also helps to explain why the HR profession has largely failed to keep up with the unprecedented transformation in the nature of work that we are currently experiencing; driven by automation, AI, ‘always on’ technology, and a changing labour market.
A recent study by the CIPD and PA consulting found that HR is the function ‘least likely to be involved in decisions on AI and automation’ and that ‘relatively speaking, HR has been side-lined’. Whilst shocking, this is an amazing opportunity for HR professionals to raise their game and become true strategic partners with the business, but it requires a different way of thinking and a new model that is fit for the decade ahead.
The Ulrich model has been around for over 20 years and transformed HR in a positive way in that time, but the ‘three-legged stool’, whilst not ready to be broken up for firewood just yet, is certainly in need of a full refurbishment.
Times have changed, and more of what used to be done by HR service centres (the transactional leg of the stool) can now be done by self-service and web-based technology. This leg has also suffered from the unfair reputation of being ‘HR admin’, a great training ground for those new to the profession but not somewhere to stay long if you’re serious about progressing your career.
The outward facing leg, HR Business Partnering, has too often not worked as intended, with Business Partners becoming the ‘go to’ person for all things HR, drawn in by their clients to solve technical people problems rather than developing adaptive, strategic people solutions.
And Centres of Excellence, the third leg of the stool, have too often worked in isolation on their area of expertise rather than collaborating with colleagues on the big people issues of our time.
So, how is Heifetz and adaptive change relevant to HR? How can it help us to shape new HR operating models that are fit for the future?
According to Heifetz, technical problems are easy to identify, lend themselves to quick and easy solutions and can generally be solved by an authority or expert. They require change in just one or a few places, often contained within organisational boundaries, and solutions can often be implemented quickly, even by edict. People are usually receptive to technical solutions.
In contrast Adaptive solutions are harder to identify (but easy to deny) and require changes in values, beliefs, roles, relationships and approaches to work. They can’t just be given to a single expert or team to solve - people with the problem need to do the work of solving it; and they require change in numerous places, usually across organisational boundaries. People often resist even acknowledging adaptive challenges.
To illustrate technical problems versus adaptive solutions in an HR context, let’s consider a typical organisational people problem such as employee retention:The problem - all our good people are leaving.
The basic assumption - our pay and benefits aren’t competitive enough.
The solution – let’s give the problem to our pay and rewards team (the experts) to solve.
The output - a new pay and benefits structure.
The outcome - all our good people are still leaving.
And so, we move onto other technical approaches to solving the problem until we find one that works (but, in isolation, they don’t).
But as Heifetz says, people are usually receptive to technical solutions because they can get their heads round them, and HR professionals are as guilty as anyone - grappling with a thorny employment law issue, pitting their wits against a union official on a matter of policy or preparing some killer interview questions.
Technical HR might be not be simple, but adopting an adaptive mindset means dealing with the complex and often intangible. It’s harder, takes longer, but is much more effective and rewarding when you get it right.
Take the big people issues of our time such as wellbeing, agility, culture, inclusion and the relationship between technology and humans. You can’t just pass these on to a single team or expert to solve, although that's often the approach.
You’re also going to need to influence your CEO that root causes and belief systems are what need to be addressed and that cultural issues that have built up over many years need to be confronted. It’s not the quick fix solution that your CEO might want to hear about. Everyone, at all levels, and in all parts of the organisation will need to be part of the solution.
So how do our HR operating models need to change to address these challenges?
There are several new HR models out there - the EY and Deloittes models are probably the best known examples. Google them, check them out, get ideas, adapt them to best work for you.
My six top tips for a redesigned HR are:
1. Be bold. Realigning your resources to focus on the future and have greater strategic influence will mean moving resources away from where the activity is now (most likely, dealing with technical problems). You’ll get resistance, but don’t waver. Unless you bite the bullet, people will carry on being too reactive to find time to be proactive. If necessary, bring in extra capacity on a fixed-term basis to crack through the backlog of technical problems (see point 5 on a mixed economy).In this post I’ve looked at how HR functions need to change their approach and redesign themselves to truly influence the future of organisations in the new world of work.
In my next post I’ll focus on the skills and attributes that HR professionals will need to successfully meet the challenge, how to develop a future-focused people strategy, the importance of people analytics, and the strategic alliances and networks HR needs to foster to achieve the greatest possible outcomes.
Work to Be combines people, workspace and technology for a better working future. We’ll help you review and ‘refurbish’ your HR operating model, structure and roles for greater strategic impact and future resilience.