HR technology: the solution to, or part of, the problem? Some lessons from the 1950s
According to Brian Sommer, ‘While the hype around Artificial intelligence (AI) and other advanced technologies was everywhere at the recent (US annual) HR Tech Conference… HR Tech vendors disappoint on the topics that matter to buyers’, in terms of both ‘product realities and vendor messaging’[1].
And Mercer/HCI’s recent global research study[2] characterised much of the investment going into HR analytics and strategic workforce planning at the moment as ‘big aspirations, small results’. ‘Lofty intentions’ were found in 77% of employers planning to invest to increase their people analytics capabilities in the next two years; yet ‘disappointing results’ were revealed, with 69% of the surveyed firms reporting ‘less than moderate success’ with their existing initiatives.
Why the continuing problems with the application of innovative HR technology? Ironically, we can also look to history for the answers. In the mid 1950s management writer Peter Drucker[3] criticised many of the then personnel departments for a lack of purpose and impact, resulting in a ‘preoccupation with the search for a ‘gimmick’ that will impress their management associates’, evidence-free and continually-changing practices, ‘faddism’, both of which have been strongly evident in the following 60 years of HR management. My IES colleague Stephen Bevan[4] believes that this addiction to HR fads, creating a ‘policy: practice’, ‘rhetoric: reality’ gap, is strongest in the pay and rewards field.
Yet back in the 50s we already had research evidence as to both the problem and potential solutions. In 1951 Eric Trist, a psychologist and deputy chair at the newly formed Tavistock Institute; and Ken Bamforth, an ex-miner, published their seminal research[5] on the effects of introducing new coal-cutting machinery and the so-called ‘mechanized longwall’ method to replace the ‘hand-got’ methods of production. These machines were the ‘AI’ of their day.
The article came out at an important time, as Britain was still recovering from World War II and the innovative new machinery was seen as a key method of boosting productivity. And yet far from increasing production in this vital industry, the new technology had the opposite effect, with lower output and industrial relations problems resulting.
Trist and Bamforth observed and described why: the hand-got method had encouraged strong social bonds, as miners worked closely together and performed all tasks as an autonomous team. This changed with the new machines. The workers were spread out over long distances and operated in three specialised shifts, so that no one team or person had visibility of the entire task. The loss of the social bonds produced increased bureaucracy and morale problems, infighting and mutual scapegoating, with high absenteeism. The researchers described how ‘the interaction of bad conditions and bad work becoming magnified for this reason… establishing a norm of low productivity’. They go on, ‘as a result management are under strain to keep things moving, and workers feel they are driven by management’. Sound familiar in our age of workplace stress?
As you can hear on this podcast[6] ‘the story told resonates today: Many modern technological changes are promoted for their potential efficiency advantages. But what impacts do they have on the social structures in the workplace and worker commitment to the firm?’ What impact indeed.
The solutions? Like Trist and Bamforth, HR and reward professionals need to get out from behind their computer screens and research the evidence, on the ground, as to what is really happening in their organisation, what the needs of managers and employees really are, and how they can positively interact with new technology to produce the desired performance gains. They need to develop far more research and data-savvy HR functions.
They must maximise transparency and ensure that how AI and other new HR technologies operate is widely understood and accepted. They need to look for lots of small improvements, rather than chasing after a ‘big bang’ change, and learn and evolve as they progress. They need to resist the pressures of suppliers for standardisation and tailor technology to suit the needs of their workforce and not the other way around.
As my IES colleague Peter Reilly highlights in his research on HR and AI[7], recognise that ‘the interaction between people and technology at work is highly situation-specific, and adapting to the situation is critical to enhancing the positive potential and minimising the harmful side-effects of AI’ and other HR technologies.
When the government is now at last rightly focusing on its ‘Good work’ agenda[8], HR and reward professionals need to get back to focusing on the core of human motivation and performance, with Drucker describing how ‘positive motivations must have their centre in work and the job’. And also as Stephen Hawking put it 60 years later: ‘Our future is a race between the growing power of our technology and the wisdom with which we use it. Let’s make sure that wisdom wins’[9].
This author is Dr Duncan Brown, head of HR consultancy at the Institute for Employment Studies.
[1] Sommer, B. (September 23, 2018). ‘HR Tech Vendors Disappoint on the Topics that Matter to Buyers’. Available at: https://diginomica.com/hr-tech-vendors-the-big-learnings
[2] Mercer (downloaded August 27, 2019) ‘Big Aspirations, Small Results: Why people analytics projects often disappoint’. Available at: https://www.mercer.com/our-thinking/why-analytics-projects-often-disappoint.html
[3] Drucker, P. (1954) The Practice of Management. Harper and Row, New York.
[4] Bevan, S. (2000) ‘Reward Strategy: Ten common mistakes’. Available at: https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/system/files/resources/files/mp2.pdf
[5] Trist, E. L. and K. W. Bamforth (1951). ‘Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal getting’ . Human Relations Vol 4; 3.
[6] Talking about Organisations’ Podcast: (October 4th 2017) Socio-technical Systems – Trist and Bamforth. 36. Available at: https://www.talkingaboutorganizations.com/e34/
[7] Reilly, P. (November, 2018) ‘The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the HR Function’. IES HR Network Paper. Available at: https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/system/files/resources/files/mp142_The_impact_of_Artificial_Intelligence_on_the_HR_function-Peter_Reilly.pdf
[8] BEIS (December 17th, 2018) Good Work Plan. Policy paper. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/good-work-plan
[9] Hawking S (2018), Brief answers to big questions, Bantam.
