Making Sense of the ‘Human Touch’ Fallacy
It often surprises me how one quick interaction with someone can inspire many ideas. This article is inspired by a rapid Q&A interaction with Alex Kinnear-Mellor from HR Technologies UK last week.
After listening to Alex’s successful implementation of an enterprise communication solution for her organization’s frontline workers, I asked her how she navigated potential challenges with individuals misusing the tool inappropriately (because hello to my North American HR brain and conditioned concerns over labor organization). Her response (paraphrased) was: We haven’t experienced that; we trust our workforce to be adults when using the tool.
What blew my mind wasn’t how obvious that answer appeared to be but rather how, in a few sentences, she was able to uproot a common perception in HR today: try not to provide more means than already exists for your frontline workers to communicate internal matters because they may use these channels for nefarious reasons.
This quick interaction sent me down a week-long rabbit hole of “What else do we hold true in HR that doesn’t make sense when you think about it more?” and the ‘Human Touch’ fallacy is one I’d like to expand on today.
Throughout all the HR Tech strategy, operations, and implementation projects I have done in the past ten years, I have noticed a trend whenever I walk into a meeting room with a group of executives ready to talk tech strategy. Inevitably, there are always two groups that emerge:
Group 1: We are not sure if we want to adopt the technology because technology prevents the HR function from providing the workforce with the Human Touch and interaction that our profession was intended to do
Group 2: We need the technology to free up our resources and time so they can offer better quality interactions with our workforce and provide more Human Touch experiences
When these patterns emerge, Group 1 usually becomes my Need-More-TLC-During-Change-Management-But-Will-Do-A-Killer-Job-As-End-User-Testers cohort. Group 2 usually becomes my network of change champions. Until a week ago, I hadn’t thought about how these two ideas could exist in the same environment and how seemingly contradictory they are. After noodling on it for a week, among a variety of factors, I believe the significant difference between the two groups comes down to 1) perception of resource availability and 2) perception of the workforce’s preferences. I use the word ‘perception’ here purposefully; let’s break it down:
1. Perception of Resource Availability
The critical assumption in Group 1 is that instead of using technology to expedite or manage the existing volume of work, we will use more people to provide services(because no HR team wants to offer fewer services, as we’re in the people business). If this holds, then the next layer of logic would be that this group can access most, if not all, of the financial resources they need to solve the problem. Both assumptions are completely valid in a vacuum on their own. Once we introduce the continuous budgetary pressures HR has been experiencing and the current interest rates, I leave it to your judgment as to whether this logic still holds
The assumption Group 2 makes in this case is that the resources they have today may be all the resources they are ever given. So, to do more with the same amount of resources, they need to use technology to optimize resource allocation and maintain existing service levels at larger volumes or expand services. Logically, this is also true if the world of work can hold its stasis state. Technology can assist HR greatly; optimizing existing resources can only go so far with the changing generations at work and work preferences.
2. Perception of Workforce Preferences
As a self-proclaimed extroverted introvert, I find this one personally fascinating. I love human connection when it is not forced upon me by a task-oriented situation. When given the option, I will always text or chat with any customer service department before calling for a live interaction. Regarding customer service, phone calls are exclusively reserved for “ugh, I really have to do this, or I won’t get my refund processed” moments. Even then, I try to make the interaction as quick as possible without being rude.
I share this because Human Touch is not one-size or one-situation fits all. Those in Group 1 often believe that almost everything in HR must be provided using the human touch element. Here’s the thing: if I need to refinance something with the bank, and they need a Letter of Employment with a specific set of requirements, I would so much rather do that via self-service than have to explain my life’s story to someone in Operations or a Business Partner and inconvenience them to draft a standard letter with information pulled directly from a system for me. It’s a nuisance for them (because they probably have way more important things to do), and it is awkward for me as I wouldn’t say I like to share everything about my personal life with work.
On the other hand, Group 2 often looks at the world as if technology can take care of it; why bother with humans at all? I almost agree with this view, EXCEPT HR technologies are not advanced enough yet to be able to pick out every person’s whim/will/desire. Not everyone in your workforce will use the exact words when they try to describe a retirement savings question; sometimes the questions are context-specific, and answers depend on contextual nuances; and sometimes, parts of your workforce prefer to have the occasional HR chitchat when they have the time to do so.
Where do these two somewhat conflicting perspectives on Human Touch lead us?
I like to look for commonalities in these situations. The commonalities for HR in this case are obvious: 1) serve the best interest of the workforce, and 2) do it with the limited resources we are given.
With that in mind, here is how you can fold technology into the equation:
Pragmatically understand where your workforce prefers to have the Human Touchpoints vs. doing it themselves. Every organization is different, and you need to do your homework
Design HR processes and systems around end-user journeys and not HR department conveniences
Provide HR teams with a way of knowing/seeing technology interactions firsthand if and when they want to. Sometimes, the hesitancy to tech could be around losing valuable firsthand information; solve for that instead of abandoning tech altogether.
Cater for process or preference changes that are needed every 3-6 months
Always ask yourself: how will this serve the workforce and the business for the better?