Oddity of HR

The oddity of HR

Having spent over 30 years in the field of HR, I have often reflected on the function itself.

Unlike most functions, HR does not have a unified coded theory that allows guidance to what one needs to do when influencing and impacting people. Well, it does have a set of rules around compensation benchmarking , and principles around OD designs and learning interventions, but at broad principle levels only. Not that I am saying, this is a setback. Not at all. It is for this reason that it is fascinating. 

Fact is that if you read, 7-8 chapters of any book, the subsequent chapters become easier. In HR, it gets even more complex. More astounding, even bewildering.  In behavioral science as you go deeper, newer insights emerge. I am amused when some amateur Leader remarks, “people are simple: either this or that, or to be seen, by this X axis and that Y axis, as if one or other quadrant make up the entire world. Even worriedly, when someone says, ‘I am an ENTJ (MBTI Type) and he is and ISFP, etc. Interestingly, some even use MBTI as a basis to hire people, the ultimate abomination of ignorance.

Models are akin to maps. The maps can be a mere sketch or highly detailed, and as you go deeper, the embellishment is awesome in what unfolds, as if every texture, tone, dimension and element unfold to the keen eye. Almost like Dhyan (full concentration) and Dharana (contemplation) when they come together provides for a wider perspective. In a highly structured analytical world, demand is placed on causality: do this, and the expected phenomena is observed. Every effect has a cause. Not so with human beings, who do not respond to causality.

Human behavior is a function F (I, C), where Behaviour is a function of the identity (self) in the Location. Self evolves to identity (persona) while location offers normativeness around role taking, prescribed by self or by community.

As a result no two individuals feel alike, think or act alike. Yet, at the gestalt of all evocations, one sees an array of similar emotions: love, disgust, joy, but the tone, notes, and context, and intensity varies.

For example, a woman who discovers her husband is having an affair may not necessarily respond with the expected “ feeling betrayed”, and a large segment would obviously do. A plethora of possible responses exist:

1.     Good for him, off my back.

2.     I’ll do the same and get my revenge

3.     That poor thing ( referring to the new girl friend)

4.     I could not care. I like the comfort I am in, so its cool

5.     And so on….

The point is, there is no causality: were it so, it would be a science. It would be predictable, made repeatable and lend itself to correlates of validity and reliability quantification.

Another interesting dimension of the world of HR is that learning happens when the events happen: there is no prefix or suffix. The prefix or preface does not accurately reflect the phenomena ahead, nor can the suffix, be the real experience of the event. At best it would be a ‘remembered memory’ not the ‘experienced memory’. Daniel Kahneman, writes quite a bit on this for those interested. All we can recall is the remembered memeory, and not the actual experience itself.

Learning takes place within the gestalt of the phenomena. The micro, macro and alter ego looms largely and ever present, exorcising its will over the event. This is the psychodrama, often exaggerated by the ‘shadow’ for the protagonist.

At a phenomological level multiple substratum’s emerge: initial defined as a problem, seen at the interpersonal level, then reflectively, emerges the intrapersonal level of self introjects, introjections , splits and projection, of transference and counter transference.

At a intra psychic level, one comes to gain insight of one’s own perceptual filters, and sees the canvas in quite a different way: the observed is the observer himself. Else, there is no observation.

Even deeper is the intra existential level, the athmic self ; the Brahmi Sthithi, the true intelligence of the self that sees beyond the absorptive nature of the senses, that is beyond attachment, desire, anger, bewilderment and ignorance and wherein misery awakens. (refer Bhagwad Gita for more on this).

No two individuals are alike: there is no comparison possible: no better or worse. Each is unique, so how do you compare two unique things – on what parameters? The choice of the criterias itself is subjective bias: that is the fallacy. Yet we are always comparing, contrasting, role modeling, aligning with….

No wonder Socrates said, ALL I KNOW IS THAT I KNOW NOTHING.