I was kindly invited by the CIPD on behalf of HRzone to come along to this month’s conference by the @CIPD_Events teamand offer some insight into how our profession can now establish new learning about neuroscience and behaviour on the HR agenda.
Behavioural Science is now safely established on business agendas and HR need to offer a lead.
Jonny Gifford, of the CIPD’s research arm, ably chaired. He head-lined by explaining that to use behavioural science in our HR role is about seeing apparently broad-ranging people missions “through a behavioural insights lens”.
And he is right. In taking on new stuff, I like to point us to related concepts from the old HR library, so that there is not a need to ditch the old in taking on the new concepts. Have a read about why Old Wine in New Bottles is a thoroughly good thing for us.
This is about joining the dots. As the scientists learn how our brain dots link up, we can learn to link up disparate concepts we already know about into a real and practical application.
In a world of neurodiversity perhaps I provoke to suggest that in teaching about this ‘softer’ side of life, the CIPD does perhaps preach to the choir, but it really was a good day. I hope to pitch up next year to the CIPD Behavioural Science Conference 2019 for more.
Gifford set the context for the entering of behavioural insights science into mainstream working. Beginning in 2010, the government led the progression to bring psychology as well as economics into the making of central government policy.
The Department for Work and Pensions offered a first conference case study. As the CIPD promote an HR professional approach that is principles-led, evidence-based and outcome-driven (yes please!), this means using concepts of soft, behavioural sciences in a hard and focused way.
The DWP team gave us an obvious example of how insight into behaviours has been applied at work with pensions Auto Enrolment. Changing from opt-in to opt-out took a systemic approach to achieving wide-scale behaviour change to our savings habits. More recently, the team have shaken up a guided performance distribution and moved entirely away from ratings-based performance management.
Address questions in that scientific way – identify the problem statement, the business question. Interestingly, this method used to take people performance forwards is akin to the agile approach of (initially software development but now also) HR analytics: define problem statement, create hypotheses to test and use evidence to re-work by iterative design.
Goal-setting in the context of performance and people management is challenged to align the motivations of the individual and the organisation. Johnson Research have worked with the University of Oxford to address this question with behavioural insight:
We were shown how applying Dr Robert Cialdini’s Principles of Persuasion, developed for that sales context, results in individual motivation to act in the same direction to the business. Yes, perhaps do count out ‘scarcity’ as a guiding principle (or head for the constructive dismissal court!) but look for a humble use of authority, reciprocity, consistency, unity and liking.
Some of the dots to join for managers and for HR are not big ones. This is about tackling goal-setting and motivations by tapping into our innate psychological desires, which are often simple. For example, reciprocity suggests ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’. (Waitrose have got me on their free coffee – countless add-on sales made to Mrs Wadia!)
Hilary Scarlett of Scarlett & Grey (for ‘grey matter’) practised expertly that which she preaches with a brilliantly engaging session about our mental energy bank. We may have more control over how energised our performance than we may think. The case is encouraging, important and convincingly made.
Understanding our attuning to threat and survival, as well as our quest for reward (the dopamine high) helps us to see that much about the workplace seems implicitly designed to put us into a continuing threat state. Commuting to arrive to a crazy inbox and an open office of distraction floods our system with stress, strain and drain.
Some of the research points to the obvious – get more sleep, keep your blood sugar stable and encourage that emotion is not suppressed. But did you know that small-talk in the office is really not the way to get the best out of people? We may be better to close those office doors again, where folks will firstly focus and secondly fidget – both of which do us good.
I noticed that the engagement levels in Hilary’s session spiked, at odds with the suggestion that with the pre-lunch slot we’d be slumped in our seats. She was focused on the WIIFM (‘what’s in it for me?’) questions for her audience. Proof perhaps that even HR ‘people people’ can be desperately self-interested.
More provocative to come….
Bonus and financial incentive can result in unethical or divisive behaviour – a clear case of the individual jarring with the collective. The CIPD put to an industry panel how HR should address this.
We noted the unfortunate market expectations to maintain direct financial incentives. We noted the typical scheme lack of agility and the particular case of unforeseen bad behaviour coming after and what to do. Combine this experience with Scarlett’s concern that goals should offer short-term wins and we’ve a useful HR clue. One of the pragmatic answers to making the best of a reward or bonus scheme is to break it down into staggered reward.
In the background, I observe the growing noise about the corporate model that is a co-operative one. We’ll surely see Behavioural Science become a key part of this debate.
I was glad that the ill-defined question of neurodiversity was posed as a provocation for HR, rather than as a problem solved. Because we do not have the answers about how to get the best out of the talent pool affected by diverse ways of thinking and being which we categorise into ‘conditions’, such as ASD, dyslexia or dyspraxia.
Spot the immediate conflict between the earlier panel conclusion that a way to set ethical goals is to include certain, often standard, behaviours and an understanding that (high functioning contributors!) on the Autistic Spectrum may well just not behave that way.
Juice is more than the offer of a healthy smoothie or a free massage. Co-founder Gary Butterfield and his presentation partner, Robert Baker, showed that the seduction of the “high viz” efforts to support wellbeing at work (the “fruit and fitness”) are not the way to take a holistic approach.
High-performing teams are buoyant not just on apples and massage mats, but on positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning and accomplishment.
We know this. But what we may not wish to linger on is that, yes, the fruit bowl is so deliberately seducing that it masks the fact that this superficial approach to doing something to promote our health is responsible for a small minority of the potential affect and may detract us from doing more important stuff.
Oh and I loved the idea of a wall of gratitude, where employees can pin their posts of thanks. Why not a tech-based wall if you’re precious about your paintwork?! At Phase 3 we think that another set of dots you’ve got to join is to use your cross-functional business tech, such as communications and messaging tools or social sites, to people management ends. Options to post gratitudes are a form of pulse and many of the HR tech solutions these days offer features like this.
Joining up the dots within the workings of our brain, and bringing those dots to the HR table, offers fruit from each discrete topical turn taken with it – from how we source talent, to how we reward, drive productivity and support fairness and well-being.
Even as separate questions, separate problem statements, separate insights these make for fascinating conclusions. I recommend next year and thank @CIPD_Events.
But the secret is in embedding soft neuroscience into both soft and hard practices of HR strategy.
I leave the CIPD concerned that pronto we move on from, as Gifford wryly put it, from the “n=1” (survey sample size of 1 and that’s us!) into a truly evidence-based approach to getting the most about what we increasingly know about how our brains work. EBHR is one of the more key related concepts that I point to.
The need is to join up the HR brain dots. To relate other concepts, such as analytics, engagement, diversity and inclusion, EBHR, productivity and performance and look at these systemically through that behavioural “lens”.
This Behavioural Science stuff truly is the stuff of old-fashioned positive psychology. So, I conclude with some feel-good factor: