Wherefore art thou HR? Uber's broculture exposes hypocrisy at the top
- Summary:
- Poor tone at the top and lousy leadership cannot be masked by HR policies that play lip service to a fair work environment where broculture is snuffed out.
If the exposure of Uber's broculture does anything, it demonstrates a rank hypocrisy about the value of people that has been bubbling beneath the surface in many companies since forever. If that sounds bonkers in a world where people are supposedly the most important asset then you'd be right to think so. Is this fixable and does HR have a role?
Silicon Valley is widely touted as the world center for innovation. In call after call the last few years I hear the same thing: "This is the center of the innovation world. If you're not here then you don't exist." Apart from the obvious and glaring flaws in that statement (check out successful innovations happening elsewhere - Austin, Boston, Estonia, Ireland, Malaysia, China...to name but a few - let's assume this statement is largely true. What does that mean?
Fish rot from the head down
Quite clearly it means taking on everything that Silicon Valley has to offer. That may include a huge dose of hypocrisy when it comes to how companies treat people and the extent to which individuals sacrifice their dignity for an inflated paycheck. The Uber mess is but one example. Readers can think of many more. How can I say that when much of the Uber conversation centers around externalities in the form of threatened attacks on outsiders?
Culture starts from the inside. I know for example one company that is ruthless about customer service in the sense that it obsesses about customer success. It thinks nothing of kicking off partners who are screwing up on projects. That doesn't happen unless the whole internal organization is on board. That leads to things like an absolute determination to weed out those with 'political' agendas, those that want to build empires and who like power games. As the CEO once told me:
"There is no way you can provide the best customer service if on the inside you're fighting fires around people who are constantly jockeying for position. It's a massive distraction, apart from which it prevents people from treating each other in a civil manner. And if that isn't happening then customers suffer."
It's hard to argue against that logic but this is an outlier. On the other hand, imagine what it must be like to work for a company which, however much it back peddles, gives the consistent impression that success comes at any price and that no dirty trick is off limits? In this context it is interesting to note Stuart Lauchlan's comment regarding an Uber tweet, complete with photo:
This tweet mysteriously vanished shortly afterwards, which was probably just as well on a scale of ‘unhelpful’ to ‘WTF?!?!?’.
I said when Uber management thinking first came under scrutiny via BuzzFeed that if they're mulling it in public then they're already doing it. Seems I was likely right. That kind of thing could not happen unless there is an implicit condoning or encouraging of certain behaviors by senior management.
And then we have the oft unspoken, more subtle iterations of broculture which is not restricted to Silicon Valley but which is drawing increased attention. Our recent conversation with Anne Petteroe brought this broculture attitude into sharp relief when she was guilt tripped for NOT working seven days a week.
The millennial myth
We are repeatedly told that we have to build a workplace where millennials will want to come. They will be the majority of the workforce soon enough and if we don't cater to their needs then management is screwed.
We are told that millennials are in some way unique or very different from past generations and that they will eschew work environments that don't match up with a specific set of criteria. These include wanting work/life balance, wanting to feel empowered, wanting flexibility and choice.
I have in the past argued that much of this is nonsense and anything but unique. Here's why.
The number one thing that drives employer choice is none of the things shown above - or at least very rarely. More often than not, it is the certain knowledge that a person will earn a living wage or be at the top of the pay scale. With perks. Other factors may be important but nothing speaks louder than cash in the pocket. That's hardly surprising in an economy that only now appears to be showing signs of sustained recovery from recession.
On the softer topics, I remember very clearly entering the workforce in the firm belief I was going to change the world. I quickly learned that if you want to advance your career in any organization, regardless of size, then you have to find a way of working with existing stated and unstated policies. The number one complaint I received in the early years? You don't follow the rules. Quite what some of those rules were meant to be remained a mystery but in short it meant: you don't conform to our reality. Does that sound familiar?
Does anyone seriously believe that millennials are fundamentally different to past cohorts? Sure, it makes for great marketing and publicly stated policies to suit the myth or appeals to the ego. But I wonder the extent to which people become cynical, or worse still, lobotomised into comformity, regardless of how much dignity is destroyed along the way as they seek to ascend the greasy pole of management.
If anything, I would argue that the boomer generation is more likely to challenge norms since they (and I include myself here) have the experience to know what works and what doesn't, what's right and what's wrong, what can be changed easily and what can't and what requires a mental mindshift at the top to instantiate change. People of my generation who have achieved a certain degree of advancement also have the luxury of largely being comfortably off in life with few worries about the future. In short, some of us can afford to speak out where others may be fearful.
All of which leaves me wondering where HR stands in all of this.
The HR paradox
HR is challenged. On the one hand, I bemoan the relative stasis I observe over the last 10-15 years, where the emphasis has remained firmly upon getting people hired, paid, fired and retired. But then I note that HRs role reflects a reality imprinted from above:
- Remember that HR works for your company, not for you.
- Keep in mind that all employees are NOT treated equally.
- Make a good impression, because HR’s opinion of you absolutely matters.
- Be careful what you discuss with HR.
- Share the love with HR, too.
On the other hand,we're told that HR needs to be more strategic. Yet I well remember a recent conversation with John Schwarz, CEO Visier who, when asked why workforce planning analytics are not more widespread, he said that HR intuitively knows it is beset by problems. Adding in analytics only serves to expose them at a time when HR is under pressure.
There you have it - the classic paradox where fear of what you'll confirm ensures that heads remain firmly buried in the sand.
Unless HR can persuade management that observations like those from our own Derek duPreez:
I would be put off by a job if it didn’t provide me any flexibility in terms of when and how I work. I am also not interested in working for a company where results and money are all that matter. Pay cheques aren’t a particular driver for me – as long as I’m comfortable, can pay my rent, eat and have a decent social life – I’m pretty happy. I would also not work for a company where I did not like the people and I didn’t feel like I was learning or being appreciated...
...It’s probably going to take another generation for cultures to change and for the big companies to really ‘get it’. But I believe that if you make people happy in their jobs, provide them with flexibility, engage with them, reward them, make them understand why what they’re doing is important, then they will absolutely work harder. And they won’t mind working harder. And when people work harder, this usually means more money being made.
...hold true for large parts of the millennial cohort, then nothing much changes. But is he right? This article from Forbes suggests the dash for cash is still very much alive and well.
That in turn means a perpetuation, at least in some places, of some of the worst practices because if you are getting paid what you want then it is easier to turn a blind eye. At least enough for broculture to thrive.
The eventual outcomes? I reckon it can be encapsulated in one word: mediocrity.
Is there hope?
Nothing concentrates the mind better than failed projects, especially where management has deluded itself into believing that a technology layer solves all problems. Becoming data driven is no longer an option. We are seeing far too many data points for this aspect to be ignored. Some of the public findings around management and changing cultures are confusing, but they generally point in several obvious directions.
On the one hand there is that large group that value pay before anything else. Then there is that other group that see the world in a different way. The real test comes when later generations achieve management positions or positions of power. Will they have morphed into a pastiche of the past? Will they in turn pay lip service to past ideals? History may not exactly repeat but it has a persistent habit of echoing very loudly and in that I am not optimistic.
I wonder also the extent to which we are ultimately deluded into believing that people will manage in a thoughtful and inclusive, caring manner. Anyone remember Google's 'Do No Evil' moniker and how that has been almost entirely watered down to meaninglessness? The current insider Google joke: 'Do No Uber' may sound jovial in the context of a very public mess but it tells much more than it sounds.
RT @umairh: Funny “@dunhamrc: @jeffjarvis Google is changing its motto to 'Don't be Uber'”
— Dennis Howlett (@dahowlett) November 19, 2014
To the side though, I am seeing more examples of those who have said 'enough is enough' and are quietly acting upon what they believe to be the right thing. I see mostly women making these changes, often in a quiet but purposeful way. One example is Rachel Happe, who, in a recent Facebook conversation reminded us of the power and importance of saying 'no.'
Most people don't take no very well and that is kind of a bummer because saying no means ending those conversations and arresting those relationships. But when you say no and instead of someone disengaging, they respond by digging deeper to find where you can collaborate, it opens up a world of possibilities and potential. Those are the relationships that transcend transactional exchanges and lead to rich collaborations where everyone wins. I want more of those relationships and the best way I know how, is to get to no as quickly as possible.
I admire Happe for her stance because it requires a degree of personal self awareness and self honesty that is largely missing from today's discourse. I'll go one step further. When I tipped up for sociology 101 at college back in the early 90s it was a massive wake up call. It quickly became apparent to me that all white males are, to some extent racist, homophobic, sexist, ageist (and a lot more) whether they are prepared to admit it or not. Recognize that and you have a fighting chance of solving people problems. Deny it and you pave the road to working hell for everyone around you.
One thing is certain, technology will not fix these problems. Perhaps the real hope is that unlike so many other things, today's headlines around Uber's shockingly poor management doesn't fizzle as the next headline grabs attention. We're not going to let it pass.
Endnote: H/T to Stuart Lauchlan for the 'fish rot' subheading.