Just finished reading Ben Eubanks’ blog on men in HR for his “National Geographic Exclusive” and it struck me enough to stop what I was doing and start writing.  Not that I don’t LIKE writing a session description for a total rewards seminar, but…

Good question to explore – why is it that men have traditionally shied away from human resources?  Is it because back in the day “personnel” was purely administrative and considered a short step away from being a secretary, which was typically a woman due to the organizational power structures in the ‘50s?  Is it because, as Ben said, that the compliance part of the job tends to attract more females than males?

Now, I know that Ben is not trying to stereotype and he states that in his remarks.

But, it gets me thinking. 

Personally, I think a lot of women gravitate to HR because of the “friend factor,” meaning that HR folks have to do a lot of listening and dispensing of advice, which is some of what friends do for each other.  Friends also take the good with the bad and roll with the punches and will put up with most things, just as HR does.  Could possibly be a girl thing….could possibly be not; research has found that women’s focus on relationships is what leadership truly needs today to get ahead.

Ben says,

“I don’t want to lay any blanket statements on the ladies out there, but my little experience seems to point to most of them focusing on compliance and how to keep things “safe.” More of the males, however, seem to be focused on how to keep the goals moving forward and holding onto the strategic focus…”

Rather than this being a “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” issue, could the fact that women dominate the HR landscape be because of:

(a) the lasting legacy of administrative work in HR, which has chased away a lot of men,

(b) because women like the relationship part and so gravitate towards HR as it fulfills a need, or

(c) because the work itself has evolved into a compliance-centric model and needs a burning platform.

I’m kinda of going with (a), (b) and (c) here. 

Think about how HR has changed–or not changed–in the past 20 or 30 years.  Big, big focus on compliance.  Big, big, focus on protecting the organization from employee litigation.  Big, big focus on cost control.  Lots of administration. Lots of paperwork.  Lots of women in mid-level roles looking for balance.

To me, it really has to do with society’s view of women and their roles.  It’s not necessarily because HR tends to be compliance-bound.  A great article I found on www.referenceforbusiness.com regarding gender and leadership says,

“Other reasons women ascend to leadership positions less frequently than men are that women most frequently inhabit managerial positions with little power , little advancement opportunity, or where other women are so rare that their presence is attributed to their sexuality or affirmative action…outside their paid jobs, women usually have significant responsibility for the care of their families and home, thereby depleting the energy they might otherwise devote to the pursuit of leadership positions of consequence…”

Now, granted this article is several years old, but I don’t believe a whole lot has changed in society quite yet, athough I do believe the sea change will be hitting hard come 2018-2020 when over 50% of the workforce will be women.  

It’s interesting that men are in the minority in HR, but yet may be perceived as the go-getters and strategic focusers.  It’s probably because of the unconscious bias of society toward working women.  Or, it could be the function of HR.  Or, it could be simply one thing…

We women are tired from all that multitasking.  Coffee, anyone?

Is It Really A Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus Thing? is a post from: The HR Whisperer

 Toyota’s recent woes with automobile manufacturing defects and the dragging of their feet in responding to the resulting safety and customer issues has left a lot of people feeling cold right now.  This, combined with the record brisk temps we’ve been having anyway  is wreaking havoc on the car buying public and our collective psyche. 

Well, maybe I’m the only one who’s collective psyche is cold.  

 John Rosevear of the The Motley Fool points out that the problem really isn’t so much the safety issues, which are bad and need fixing, but more with the “company’s longtime pattern of responding to problems with a mix of denial and foot shuffling.”

 And apparently it is going to get worse. 

John goes on to say that,

 “Officials in high places in the U.S. are getting cranky…on Tuesday [February 16^th], the Department of Transportation ordered Toyota to turn over documents related to various safety issues.  That may not sound like a big deal, but it is — the DOT is aggressively looking for evidence that Toyota knew of safety defects but didn’t take appropriate action. And if they find that evidence? Oh boy.”

Suddenly, it’s getting hot in here.

Many companies have faced recalls – I distinctly remember Johnson & Johnson’s recall of its Tylenol product  as I worked for The Southland Corporation (parent company of  7-ELEVEN food stores) at the time and in the absence of our area manager had to tell our franchise owners to remove the analgesic from the shelves.  Bad situation.  Good decision.

But the product recall itself is not the entire issue; the more important issue is how the company deals with the recall. 

Which really is trust, isn’t it  – customer trust in whether or not it is safe to purchase the company’s products, and employee trust in whether or not leadership is upfront in walking the talk.

J&J’s doing a great job.  Toyota’s not.

The president of Toyota’s Georgetown, KY plant says company workers are taking the series of recalls personally.

Of course they are.

It seems that Toyota built its reputation on excellence, reliability, customer service and value.  But the company values listed on its website say:  “We believe…in hard work…that good neighbors make good company and vice versa…that the world is getting bigger, but resources aren’t…in the value of diversity – it’s what makes life interesting.”

I don’t about you, but I don’t take away anything about integrity and trust from those values.  Maybe they are implied, but if company leadership refuses to accept responsibility for its mistakes and doesn’t even acknowledge that trust and integrity are important components of doing business, then what can employees believe in?

Now, I’m not saying that if it’s not written down, it doesn’t exist.  But we do know that mutual trust is a critical factor in the employer-employee relationship.  If trust exists, employees have a pretty good idea of what company life they can expect and how the company will behave.  When that trust has been breached, as it has been with Toyota, that relationship changes dramatically.

Or maybe the relationship really wasn’t there to begin with.

The best way to maintain trust is to keep from breaking it in the first place.  Leadership integrity, as demonstrated by behavior, is crucial.  That’s Leadership 101.

So, it really is not just Toyota’s products that need to be recalled; I think it’s also time to recall its leadership.

The Eroded Trust of Toyota is a post from: The HR Whisperer