Mummy HR

mummy by publicinsomniac
mummy by publicinsomniac

We’re continuing our series of HR ghosts and ghouls and tonight it’s the turn of the mummy. When I think of mummies I think of them in the classic horror pose, arms oustretched, shambling along bound in tape and bandages. And it’s the tape which binds these soulless creatures that I want to focus on. The bureaucratic tape which binds organisations and lashes them to the stumbling shambling gait of the mummy.

I enjoyed reading a great conversation started by Ben Eubanks over at UpstartHR recently all about whether companies should have a working through lunch policy. Seriously, lunch policy. I recommend you pop over and read the whole piece, to get you started here’s a snippet provided by Steve Browne:

My question is “Why is the HR person looking to add yet another policy?”

If the behavior isn’t working, or if the employee isn’t doing work, then just TALK TO THEM !!

Sorry to yell, but it blows me away that HR has fallen into such a deep hole when it comes to writing policies. We forget that there are many employees who work for us and not just a few. Most policies are written because of the behavior of a few folks.

And what about dress code policy? I was talking about this with a couple of HR practitioners just recently and one of them said “dress code policy is a great way of showing folks that you don’t trust them with even the most basic things”. Unnecessary bureaucracy and more tape round the mummy. I went to agree and before I could do so – the third member of our conversation violently disagreed. “You have to tell people what to wear or they will just wear what they like”. All I could manage was a head slap of disdain. I slapped my own head, not theirs.

Sometimes my work involves carrying out stakeholder engagement audits. As part of these audit my associates and I talk with lots of staff, and the stories they tell us about unnecessary policies written and implemented to “legislate” against things that haven’t happened and in all likelihood won’t, are eye boggling. I can’t go into detail but things like no alcohol and no toasters (yup – no toasters) are often used to bind the policy mummy even tighter. The tighter the policy, the greater the lack of trust, and this lack of trust is a root cause of people feeling disengaged from their employer. It is damaging and unnecessary.

You may think, I can run faster than the mummy, it’ll never catch me. And you forget – the mummy is undead. It will shamble on until you can run no more and then, and only then will it wrap you in its lunch/dress code/alcohol/toaster bandages. And you will suffocate.

Despite my punk roots I’m not advocating anarchy, and I appreciate the requirement for policy. But surely policy should be stuff that enables work, makes things happen, not stuff that binds and chokes the life from the company?

I’d love to hear from you if you have ever seen mummy HR stumbling along your corridors binding folk with its policy bandages.

photo c/o publicinsomniac

Author: Doug Shaw

Artist and Consultant. Embracing uncertainty, sketching myself into existence. Helping people do things differently, through an artistic lens.

9 thoughts on “Mummy HR”

  1. Move over I’m jumping on your band waggon! If anyone ever says anything about not trusting their staff I always ask them why they employ them! It just doesn’t make sense, and how can the company possibly succeed if it is hijacked from within by it’s staff taking on people they don’t trust.

  2. Hi Sarah. It’s crazy ain’t it – and yet it goes on a lot. I guess I should be grateful else the undead HR series would never have…come to life!

    Cheers – Doug

    1. Hey Chris – thanks for popping by. I’m glad you found the article useful, it was written a little while ago and of course Halloween seemed the ideal time to dig it up again eh 😉

  3. Good post-and not just that there *are* policies but the way that they are worded.

    But then I look at comments people in LinkedIn HR groups make about all sorts of topics and it isn’t a big surprise that their policies are odd. The cause/effect scenarios that some purport to be absolutes kick off my cringe factor.

    1. Hi Karin – thanks for your visit. I’m sorry to hear about your cringe factor getting kicked off – and I wonder what you think could be done to make the concept, the wording, and the implementation of such cringeables, less…cringeworthy? I’d love to know more about what you think.

      Cheers – Doug

  4. Ah, my cringe factor is a good thing-it reminds me that humans will continue to do odd stuff for various reasons. Keeps me on my toes.
    I agree with the comment that we should not be writing policies based on what a small percentage of people get wrong. We don’t need policies for everything and sometimes conversations, where appropriate, have a much bigger impact. People rarely read policies and when they do the retention of what it said is not that high (if I had a dollar for every employee that has ever said “I didn’t know there was a policy on that” or “I didn’t understand that policy” I would be in the 1% Club) Sometimes policies are necessary either because there is a law that says so or because you want to avoid paying a lawyer to say “you should have had a policy” for that. Policies that are too vague are better off not written at all and policies that are too specific will create situations that can eat up a lot of your time. Be clear, concise, specific, and make sure that the real culture in the organization matches the intent of the policy. Getting that culture bit wrong will breed cynicism.

    1. Oh and just an example of something that made me cringe in an HR LinkedIn group today. In response to a question about hiring ‘older’ (undefined) people two HR people replied as follows:
      “It may or may not be a good idea. The reason is that old personnel have more experience than youngsters but not have new and fresh ideas & practices which modern organizations need. Old personnel can do much better work then youngsters but can’t create new things and in this age every organization need innovation. But we can’t ignore this thing that old personnel’s are much Dedicated, Punctual, Honest & Mature. Youngsters want to earn money but old personnel’s work for their self respect and they feel pride when do job well. They set examples for youngsters through their experience.”

      “YES! Hiring older people is a good move. They are stable in thie family lives-meaning they aren’t running out to get married and have babies or looking to establish a family. Most aren’t out to get crazy on the weekend and not be able to make it to work on Monday, and most already have insurance through a spouse or other retirement or pension plan, so YES it is a good idea.”

      I believe that both posters mean well but sometimes the best of intentions create the worst of outcomes.

    2. I really appreciate your contribution to this important subject, this is great thanks – I wish you’d written the original post 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *