| People usually kiss like this: you take a girl, a pretty one…
(Vladimir Vishnevsky)
"Vitalik, they want me to tell them what ideal HRM is like", my colleague Yulia exclaims, rolling up her eyes. Our students, all of whom are big bosses, have approached a point when it’s time to get an HR manager, and they are eager to know what he or she should be like and supposed to do. I grinned and suggested she should ask them back: “What should an ideal woman look like?” They wouldn’t let Yulia go an hour longer than had been planned. They were talking about motivation – hence, about money. Everyone fancies money. I feel jealous. This morning one of my students seriously suggested: “Why don’t we talk about culture tomorrow?”
We invited a guest for the evening class. The guest is having a hard time. Someone asks him not to waste time on advertising his company. The guest slightly moves his lips – touche, the student is ashamed. The following two hours everyone remains dead quiet.
"Why did you fire your first HR manager?" – "Because he was too much like a trade unionist." – "And what did you want?" – "I wanted him to advocate my interests." – "Yes, yes," the audience adds, "and he has to advocate the personnel’s interests only when the management needs it". A buzz of approval.
The next morning I sit down on a chair and, bearing in mind what happened the day before, start with accusing them of being cynical towards their employees. The students are embarrassed. They start, unanimously, to persuade me and themselves that such a position inevitably leads to the company dividing into two parts and, hence, to a decrease in efficiency. Things are going well.
They come to us for some patterns, but they are invited to reflect. "Who is in charge of building the structure of your organization?", they ask the guest. "We don’t build a structure", the guest replies, "our structure turns out to be the way it is". Honestly, I have hardly ever heard anything better than that.
We are at a class in HRM. Despite this, most of the time the students ask the guest about anything except HR – about strategies, market forecasts, distribution channels, advertising. Whatever is worrying them at the moment.
They come to us for answers, but they get questions. "What is the correct answer?" they ask me. "You tell me that in ten minutes", I say. They look excited. The next ten minutes they argue about Putin, Stalin, Khodorkovsky, and Abramovich.
While the group is discussing things, I am sitting in the corner and thinking about the two sides of leadership. One of them, the entrepreneurial one, is focused outward: that is, looking for possibilities and inventing the steps needed to generate profit. The other one is inward, and strives for synergy of resources. Those who come to us practice the first type. The market is at the point where it requires such people. According to the recurring evolution hypothesis , we should expect the focus to shift. It is debatable whether the two, obviously different, patterns can be found in the same person. If not, it becomes clear why executives need assistants and what those assistants’ role is.
The atmosphere in the classroom is far from boring. There are 27 healthy young men and two women. The testosterone level is becoming much greater than normal, and soon I have to ask Alyona to the board. Alyona gets confused, the men soften.
Five hours have flown by in a split second. The students break for lunch, some come up to the teacher. The teacher is basking in the rays of fame. "Why did I have to take this test?", asked a confused student (he is the owner of a 100-employee company, who we teach to manage personnel). I hurriedly come up with a couple of rational explanations. "So what am I supposed to do now?", he continues. Another student comes to the rescue: "HRM is what you need!" As people say, quod erat demonstrandum.
AT LEAST, WE KNOW NOW WHAT TO DO WITH THEM.
WELL, I SUPPOSE, WE WILL DO THE SAME THING AS ALWAYS – PLANT THE SEEDS OF EVERLASTING VALUES INTO THE SOIL OF THEIR HEARTS. |
en.jpg)
