Robin Schooling

Attracting Talent to an Inhospitable Space

inhospitable: not offering shelter; barren or forbidding

I would venture to guess, Dear Reader, that your local Chamber of Commerce (wherever that may be) has some sort of “talent” program they promote as an offering to their member organizations. This is nothing new.

During my eons in HR, I’ve danced on the fringes of several COCs and the clamoring from employers (in every region) for assistance in this area has always been loud – usually traveling similar well-worn paths:

“Help us identify and hire candidates who are available and willing!”
“Help us develop new/young/emerging leaders for our business!”
“Stop the brain drain to other cities/states/regions!”

So, in response to these requests, many COCs develop marketing collateral (websites, videos, social media posts, etc. etc.) that employers can share when trying to recruit out-of-town talent.

Lots of COCs have some sort of “Leadership Development” (Class of 2024!) program (paid for by the students employers of course) designed to embed young/emerging/promising “professional” employees INTO the community (in the hope they will then never leave).

Halting the exodus of talent is a bit harder; sometimes the jobs simply don’t exist in the city or state where Susie Sorority matriculated, and she must leave in order to build her career.

This is not a blast on the work done by the Chambers of Commerce; they promote networking opportunities and share relevant information to their members. The US Chamber of Commerce has loads of data, reports and analysis on their Workforce portal which is of particular assistance to employers, business owners and HR professionals alike.

But what if, despite, all its best intentions, your local Chamber of Commerce cannot overcome the harsh reality and/or reputation of your city or state?

The Numbers

I live in Louisiana, a state with a shrinking population; between 2020 and 2023 we lost 84,000 people with 14,000+ people leaving in 2023 alone. The population for Baton Rouge, where I am, shrank by 3% in that time frame – although a few neighboring parishes saw slight increases.

As for that brain drain, Baton Rouge is home to two universities (LSU and Southern) yet, as this LA Illuminator article points out – “Over the 15-year period {2005 – 2020}, Baton Rouge gained 17,809 residents under 25. But in the next age cohort — 25 to 34 — it lost a net 496. The city also lost a net 13,861 college degree holders.”

Let’s Try Again

With an earnest desire to recycle an old concept and put a fresh spin on it, the Baton Rouge Area Chamber launched a new campaign a few months ago. It’s slick, it’s sexy, it’s beautifully branded and it has a catchy hashtag: #BetterInBTR

The chamber’s stated goal is to “increase the region’s young professional population by 5%.” (note for BRAC: the use of the word “young” just sets my hackles up)

The campaign leans heavy into stereotypes: people eating crawfish, catching beads at a Mardi Gras parade, and cheering at an LSU football game. There are lovely pictures of parks and bayous and LOTS of talk about food and rooftop bars and festivals. It’s also hard to spot anyone who looks much over the age of 35 in the pictures. (oh yeah…I forgot…”young” professional population. Gotcha).

But is this a lesson in futility? Why on earth, would a Gen Z/“young” professional want to either stay in or relocate TO Louisiana?

Have we rolled UP the Red Carpet?

Louisiana has a new (January 2024) governor. You may have heard of him if only for the fact that just last week he signed into law a requirement that the Ten Commandments (well, the Protestant KJV version in any event) be posted in public school classrooms from kindergarten through university. This, of course, has been challenged with a lawsuit filed 2 days ago.

But our governor has been busy in other areas as well; within the last few months he, thanks to willing legislators, has effectively eliminated parole and expanded the death penalty. He has signed anti-LGBTQ+ bills and joined other states in suing the Biden Administration over Title IX. He signed the country’s first law legalizing surgical castration for some sex offenders. He signed a law that reclassifies drugs used for abortions as controlled substances. And his activity on environmental issues is abysmal.

Do some folks applaud his agenda? Certainly. Although it’s important to note that due to apathetic and low voter turnout, only 18% of Louisiana’s registered voters selected our new governor. (yes; eighteen percent…)

Welcome to a Hostile Land

But do “young” professionals want to move to a state where this is the political reality? Does a crawfish boil every day and swanky cocktails over-looking the Mississippi River make up for a state seemingly moving backwards? Will “young” professionals be comfortable, as a Buddhist, Jew or Atheist, raising children in a state where their child must view (“in a readable font”) the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments every single day in between their math and reading lessons? Will they want to get married in a state where lawmakers wish to eliminate no-fault divorce?

I notice none of those aspects of “life in BTR” made it into the videos or got hash tagged in the campaign…

Gen Z, we have learned, consider Diversity and Inclusion in the workplace to be important. They want to work for a company that is a good global citizen and cares about the planet. They want flexibility in health benefits and the option to choose their own benefits – something in short supply in a state that ranks at the bottom for health outcomes and has the highest maternal mortality rate in the country.

So…yeah…the Baton Rouge Area Chamber’s catchy campaign is horribly misguided and out of alignment with the REALITY of what it would be like to live, work and play in Baton Rouge. Perhaps BRAC should have spent the money on electioneering for state government representatives who understand what “young professionals” want – a life that is NOT based on state legislators’ personal religious beliefs and their thirst for all of us to adhere to the 1950’s #TradWife lifestyle.

I highly doubt they will meet their goal of increasing the region’s young professional population by 5%. In fact, I anticipate the exodus to not only continue but increase.

Say “bye.”

The Anti-Establishment HR Counterculture

the Establishment

the existing power structure in society; the dominant groups in society and their customs or institutions; institutional authority;
the dominant group in a field of endeavor, organization

Dictionary.com

I’ve long been drawn to those who stand in opposition to the conventional social, political or cultural norms in society. The Bohemians. The Beats. The Punks.

In much the same way, I’m drawn to those in HR who march to a different drummer. Not those who don’t have the foundational/knowledge down; there’s a vast (and ever expanding) HR body of knowledge that requires anyone using an HR job title to be a subject matter expert.

Rather, I’m forever intrigued by the HR renegades who find a way to efficiently, effectively and compliantly run an HR/People Department wherein they toss out that which is outdated and useless and embrace that which is provocative and – dare we say it – slightly dangerous.

I like HR folks who are:

Embracing flexibility for ALL categories of employees by, for example, allowing front-line staff to choose their start time and schedule their PTO without 3 layers of approval.

Dropping (not adding) policies and practices that are punitive relics of the olden days such as no-fault attendance point policies or bereavement leave policies that don’t acknowledge the fact that people deeply mourn individuals beyond their “immediate family.”

Discarding the awarding of plaques (or trophies) for years of service to employees who have neither a desk nor a wall on which to hang it.

Eliminating their stale and boring 55-page employee handbooks.

Hiring in novel and easy ways that match the desires and demands of today’s job seekers.

Are these WILD ideas? Not really.

They are, however, the types of things that – believe it or not – shake up the stale and conformist world or work created by HR departments the world over. The reliance on the status quo or copying of someone else’s “best practice” continues to lead to rigid homogeneity as Sally HR replicates what Brad HR does who merely copied it from Angie HR who found it on the SHRM website in the year 2002.

But YOU don’t have to do the same. You can refuse to shovel the same bullshit that HR folks have been shoveling for decades. Do the right thing – legally, morally and ethically – but rebel, nonetheless. Promote nonconformity. Live in the counterculture.

And join the revolution.

Reality Check: Pontification vs. HR Practice

A few years ago (2019 to be precise – pre-pandemic!) I wrote about the battle of “Conference HR” vs. “Real World HR” (still one of my top 5 read blog posts) in which I pointed out that the hot-takes offered by speakers, pundits and the vendor account executive at the bar are often so far removed from day-to-day reality as to be somewhat laughable.

Now I wholeheartedly believe that HR professionals in SMBs can learn from enterprise organizations and effectively scale-down some of the macro-lessons. And vice-versa: enterprise HR teams have much they can learn from small HR shops.

Case in point: last week, at UNLEASH America (truly one of my favorite events), I attended a session with HR and TA leaders from UPS as they discussed their use of Fountain to scale and streamline the hiring of frontline workers – their candidates are interviewed within 7 minutes of apply and extended an offer 22 minutes post-interview.

Are most of us hiring 400,000 people during “busy season?” No. Nevertheless, it was an amazing and captivating story of their (ongoing) journey – particularly as they discussed how they are now at the phase of finding the “touchpoints” wherein they can insert (re-insert?) the “human touch.”

Do HR teams want to use HR technology to improve efficiency? Absolutely – although it’s often a need for automation, system integrations, or mobile-friendly applications vs. a burning desire for virtual reality or AI. A large part of my fascination with reviewing and exploring HR technology is how it can remind us of the need to balance operational efficiency with the “human” side of what we do.

However, as I was reminded across the Expo floor and during conversations at dinners and Happy Hours, there is a continuing disconnect between pontification and practice.

Attendees at a conference are intrigued and drawn-in by provocative statements – often presented as “the truth.” Session speakers, akin to peddlers of tabloid magazines or editors of reality TV shows, take a position, promote it as the ultimate factoid, and expect us to collectively and obediently fall in line.

There are always popular and of-the-moment sentiments to which HR professionals subscribe; aligning on the topic du jour via Fast Company or WSJ articles or through survey data gathered by an ~~vendor~~ interested party. The resume is dead. Get on TikTok to recruit Gen Z. Mocktails are all the rage.

And sure enough, just as always, a few of these of-the-moment topics rose to the top last week.

Should we discuss them? Absolutely!

The problem is when these sorts of things are tossed out as something we simply MUST-DO (lest we fall behind and become the next Kodak) and we don’t explore the subtleties and nuances inherent in the real world…well…we do ourselves no favors.

To wit…

Remote Work

Pontification: “If you don’t prioritize remote work, you will never be able to compete for today’s top talent.”

Reality: Obviously there are jobs (and industries) where working remotely (or even “hybrid”) is not an option. The line workers needed to restore power after a storm must be in the field. Healthcare workers are not coming to our houses to draw blood, run a CAT Scan, or perform surgery. The team members at the auto dealership must be ON THE LOT to show us the vehicles or IN THE SERVICE SHOP to change our oil. (Of course, the waiting room at the auto dealership is teeming with those who are privileged enough to be able to open their laptops (while kvetching about poor WiFi) and host Zoom calls while waiting for their 18-point inspection.

Do I like being able to work from home? Of course I do; and there’s no denying it’s preferred by lots of folks. But it’s NOT a realistic option for many. Can it be a differentiator when it comes to attracting candidates and hiring? Certainly. But it’s not the default.

Lots of folks, in lots of jobs, will never be able to work remotely – and we need to stop SHAMING the business owners or leaders who will not or cannot fully embrace WFH,

The 4-Day Workweek

Pontification: “We need to move to a 4-day workweek to meet the desires of the emerging workforce.”

Reality: This is not, obviously, as simple as announcing to one’s staff and customers that “we will now be working Monday thru Thursday!” and calling it a day. Here in the good old US of A, we have a little thing called the Fair Labor Standards Act which, among other things, codifies that non-exempt (hourly) employees must be paid an overtime rate of time-and-one-half for any hours worked over 40 per workweek. (The 32 Hour Workweek Act introduced by Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) in 2021 proposes to amend the FLSA. A recent bill introduced in the Senate by Bernie Sanders (I-VT) does the same).

In addition to the payroll impact for employers, this would require an overhaul of many sacrosanct employer-provided benefits – many of which have plans designed for FT (40 hours) versus PT employees. If 32-hours per week becomes “full time,” employers must amend their plan offerings with potential impact accessibility for part-time categorized workers to benefits such as short or long-term disability, PTO, and other benefits. Employers cannot absorb these costs just because new legislation require they do so; responses would undoubtedly include layoffs, elimination of some benefits, and potentially loss of business due to staffing inability.

Would I like a four-day work week? You betcha. But I’m operating from the vantage point of a career and roles where I haven’t been OT eligible for decades. Susie the Call Center Employee who relies on a 40 hours per week paycheck to house and feed her family, will not magically be able to subsist on a paycheck of 32 hours per week (because I can guarantee you she will be cut to 32 hours per week – not 32 hours regular rate and 8 hours of time-and-one-half rate).

So again, just as with the exhortation to prioritize remote work, this topic smacks of elitism and classism. Something good for the ruling class (or consultant class)… so why worry about the majority of other workers?

*****

I love – really I do – big ideas. Toss them out there and let’s discuss. Let’s dig in and figure out if we CAN make something work instead of nay-saying why it won’t. I’m all for that.

I just am achingly tired of “thinkers” (not doers) gallivanting around the conference circuit presenting concepts and ideas when these same “thinkers” (not doers) haven’t been down in the trenches of real-world HR for decades.

Or, even worse, those who have never (ever) visited.

*****

“Pontification expresses opinions or judgments. It’s less of a process and more of a static delivery mechanism for information the messenger has deemed valuable. It is often dogmatic (even when it’s friendly) and it favors what matters to the speaker over what matters to the audience. Pontification centers the speaker.” TedX

HR and the Law of Unintended Consequences

The actions we take, whether as individuals or institutions, often lead to consequences that we did not anticipate. This phenomenon, known as the Law of Unintended Consequences (LOUC), is a fundamental aspect of human decision-making and has significant implications for various fields, including economics and social science. Despite its importance, the LOUC is often ignored by those in decision-making roles.

The concept of the LOUC was first analyzed by sociologist Robert K. Merton in 1936. He identified five sources of unintended consequences that contribute to the divergence between intended and actual outcomes of actions:

Ignorance
Error
Imperious immediacy of interest
Basic values
Self-defeating predictions

The LOUC is ubiquitous because we, as humans, limited ability to foresee all the potential outcomes of our actions combined with our tendency to prioritize immediate benefits. Sometimes we just need to get shit done. We get in the groove and crank out a new policy or implement a change without doing the analysis about “what” might happen as a result when we, for example:

Institute unlimited PTO
Conduct an Employee Engagement Survey
Implement a Return to Office mandate

The consequences of our actions may vary and can range from beneficial to harmful – and these consequences may not always be immediately observable.

Like What?

Numerous examples illustrate the LOUC in various contexts:

An IT Department implements increased security measures requiring complex and “must change every 30 days” password protocol. An unintended consequence might be employees writing their passwords on post-it notes and sticking them to their monitors … thus defeating every attempt at strengthening security.
A government offers incentives that have the exact opposite intended effect. In India, back in the day (this really happened), in an attempt to control the cobra population, the government announced a “bounty” for captured/killed cobras. So, you guessed it; folks wanting to earn some money BRED cobras to earn more money and then, when they government shut down the program due to exploitation, all these NEW cobras were released by the breeders thus increasing the population beyond what had been the original count.

So yes, while some outcomes may bring unexpected benefits, others may exacerbate existing problems or even create new challenges. Perverse results occur when actions intended to improve a situation backfire … making it worse.

I once worked for an organization where, with a goal of decreasing expenses (admirable and understandable), the corporate powers-that-be issued directives (as they sat FAR removed in the corporate office). The demands to stop hiring full time employees and only hire part time employees, while also cutting OT labor, and reducing turnover led, as could be expected, to increased turnover within the first 30/60/90 days, higher operational and labor expenses, and additional unanticipated costs.

Second-Order Thinking

The failure to anticipate unintended consequences often stems from a lack of critical thinking and foresight. But a term (and mental model) I like much better is Second-Order thinking – referring to when one considers the long-term implications of decisions with an aim to mitigate risks and inform more effective planning and execution.

To adopt second-order thinking, individuals (and teams/organizations) should:

ask critical questions
consider the consequences over time, and
identify potential ripple effects.

Understanding the interconnectedness of various factors enables the capacity to make informed decisions and anticipate unintended outcomes. And in day-today HR, many initiatives require second-order thinking to anticipate and address unintended consequences effectively. Employee engagement surveys and listening “tours” may, for example, can yield valuable insights but may also inadvertently impact employee trust and behavior if not managed thoughtfully.

Here’s what I know … navigating the complexities of human decision-making requires a deep understanding of the Law of Unintended Consequences and a commitment to second-order thinking. When you start by acknowledging there’s potential for unintended outcomes you can proactively address them and, ideally, avoid costly missteps.