Not All or Nothing
Why the best change starts with the right question.
When the iPad first appeared on the scene, I tried to go paperless. I thought how great it would be to have all my notes in one place on my person whenever and wherever I need and there are certainly some advantages to that. But I was wrong to discard the place in my life for the trusty notebook and inky pen. I soon realised that I was spending more time trying to work out the best filing system than concentrating on what I had written and I learned that for me, writing in a book with a nice inky pen is an enjoyment and it helps me digest and remember what I am hearing. I did not throw out my iPad, it certainly has its uses both professionally and personally, but I found a balance between paper and pen and the technology.
We have become all too used to reacting quickly to change - we talk about being agile, being able and ready to respond when the unexpected happens and we experience a sense of necessity that we must do so if we are to remain competitive in whatever world we are operating in. And so it starts to take some courage not to join the pack and perhaps to take heed of wise words widely attributed to Einstein:
“If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I know the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes.”
When a big change happens, there is a tendency to rush. The iPad and tablet that marked “the end of pen and paper”, the music streaming services making vinyl and CDs defunct or work post pandemic heralding “the end of the office”. The common thread is the assumption that the change that has happened is permanent, that it is all or nothing or be doomed to failure.
This is not about being averse to change, or finding better ways to do things, it is about having the courage and discipline to take a pause, to think about what will work for your particular circumstance, your organisation and its culture, and to consider what question you are trying to answer. The power of the pause gives the freedom to think with space, to allow the real issues facing you to surface, not the panic of the issues facing everyone else and with that freedom, the ability to articulate with clarity the problem you are seeking to solve.
A topic heavily debated is the return to the office post pandemic. As the world emerged from COVID-19, the world of work had changed and, as a colleague of mine put it, ‘the genie was well and truly out of the bottle and it wouldn’t be going back’. I think that is true to some extent, people had proved that jobs could be done remotely because they had done so throughout the pandemic and there is no denying that. The ability to work remotely became a deal-breaker for candidates, commutes became impractical for staff who had moved home and businesses moved to smaller premises as space sat empty, signing new (and long) leases on office space. In some cases, employment contracts were changed, making the nature of how someone worked contractual. The world of work had changed, seemingly with no return - we would never go back to the office in the same way.
But now - we hear more and more in the news about people being mandated back to the office or HR getting involved if someone doesn’t hit a certain number of days - the recent Barclays example which resulted in them delaying a mandated two days to three days return to office (RTO) following pushback from staff because they hadn’t explained why is an example of how challenging striking the right balance can be.
I do not write here with all the answers, but I wonder if the 55-minute question should have been more “what role does our office play in our culture and how we do things around here?” rather than, “how many days should we have people in the office for?”. Employees are adults who are passionate about what they do and the preferred balance would be to give them the freedom to answer that question for themselves, to choose to come in because they recognise what they get out of it, both personally and professionally rather than because they have to.
So perhaps we can take some lessons as we face the next big change - the change that AI brings and all the same jaw dropping, fear inducing headlines that go with it. The rush to “do AI” for fear of being left behind or lose competitive advantage doesn’t think about the question. These tools are expensive, they are disruptive and most importantly, you need to get them right for your business if they are to land and make a difference. To do that, you need to know what you are trying to achieve to avoid wasting a lot of time and money throwing AI at everything and hoping something will stick and be life-changing.
I have no doubt that AI will make a huge difference in my area of expertise which is HR but as a complement to what the “human” of Human Resources is doing and I embrace that opportunity where there is clarity on the question we are looking to answer. Take the use of AI in candidate screening for recruitment - there is an obvious opportunity here for AI to help answer the question of how to keep pace with the vast volume of human and AI generated applications. But there are growing reports about organisations missing out on talent and that perhaps AI is screening candidates out too soon because of a rush to implement without thinking about all the parameters that need considering when answering the original question.
So I do believe that there is value in taking the pause, taking the breath and thinking first about the question or problem we are trying to solve, collaboratively and never in isolation, making sure that the right people are in the room - not just the senior leaders but the employees, maybe even customers, candidates or clients. If done right, thinking in this way will help articulate what we are trying to do at the outset and stand us in better stead for success and ultimately a greater competitive advantage. Delay does not have to mean loss in your market - the courageous “55-minute” pause is simply about ensuring clarity.
And as I write this, I look at the record player back on my sideboard, the vinyl being “re-bought” because we thought it was done with and reflect that the old isn’t always defunct. More often, it is perhaps about finding balance between the old and the new whilst remaining focused on the question in hand.