Aargh!

I am often the one to say, "This is not a social service agency. You need to do the job you were hired to do." Beneath it all, I do what I can to make things work for the employee and the agency and to do what's right.

I just finished up a telephone conversation with an HR staff member at another site. There is an issue. The rules say there is no way at this point to provide a desired benefit to an employee. I called Washington DC and they are willing to work with us. Woo-hoo.

Can you imagine my surprise when, after sharing that with the other HR staff member, she was less than enthusiastic and responded, "Rules are rules and it is not about taking care of the person."

To her boss and my peer I go . . . .

Comments

[Bill Wallace]

Interesting, isn't it?

As an HR Manager my role is to help "facilitate" change and provide direct support where necessary.

Some people have forgotten that "facilitation" comes from the Latin "facile" meaning "to make easy, simple".

And in forgetting they prove they are facile themselves! :)

Sometimes when people follow the rules, it may sound right but it is not making life easier for the company.

Disclaimer: I don't translate "easy" the same as "not requiring effort". Sometimes making things easy for the business requires a lot of work.

(not sure that all made sense, feel free to debate!) :)

[Lisa Rosendahl]

I have to admit that I really am a process or rule person at heart; however, when a "rule" becomes an easy fallback to stop looking for an answer, to stop trying, or to take the easy way out, it very quickly gets my attention.

You will not get a debate from me - this time :)

[Andres Acosta]

"... it is not about taking care of the person"? She said that?

Sounds like someone who is more focused on *who's right* rather than *what's right*.

[Liz Williams]

Couldn't resist chiming in on this, even though I'm a bit late to the party. I see type in your example - Myers-Briggs type that is. It's such a textbook illustration of the difference between the thinking and feeling preferences. When you use "effect on people" as your decision-making criteria, making an exception is the obvious thing to do. When you use "impersonal cause and effect reasoning" as your decision-making criteria, you get worried that making an exception will lead to more exceptions, which eventually invalidates the rules.

IMO, both viewpoints are valid and need to be articulated and weighed. Good luck with this!

[Lisa Rosendahl]

So Liz, there probably is the "effect on people" somewhere in my ISTJ profile, huh?

Funny thing though, at times I can withdraw from that and consciously step into black and white thinking when necessary. I have definitely had the "invalidate the rules" conversation myself so I can understand where she may have been coming from. To me, this was not as black and white as it was to her.

Funny humans!