What is good for the employee is not necessarily good for the company. Current examples are working from home. The four-day week. Challenges to the overtime culture. Relaxation of absence policies to pay more attention to mental wellbeing. The increase in wage costs as a result of the principle of “equal pay for equal work”.
Changes in the recruitment process as part of the strategy to have a more diverse and inclusive workforce (attracting more candidates by reducing essential criteria but increasing time to fill roles), interview groups that are gender and racially balanced (it takes longer to assemble an interview group)
There are people in HR and management who argue that what is good for employees can also be good for business. That a happy workforce is a more productive workforce. If the company wants to change working practices, introduce new technology or reorganize as part of a drive to increase efficiency and reduce costs, such measures are much more likely to be implemented successfully if the workforce feels valued, respected and treated fairly.
That changes in the recruitment process open up new areas of previously untapped talent. That a more compassionate leadership style makes the company a more attractive employer, increases retention rates and thus reduces recruitment costs.
In this case, there is no HR paradox. It is possible to balance the needs of employees and the needs of the organization. So why are some still not convinced? Part of the answer is the tendency to see work-life balance, concern for employee health and wellbeing, equal pay and more diversity in the workplace as nice little extras for the good times, when budgets are not so tight and competition is not so fierce. In the meantime, increased efficiency and improved performance require changes in working practices and the adoption of new technologies, which must be implemented as soon as possible.
This is the contradiction: If you haven’t shown your employees that you care about them, they will distrust your change proposals and be wary of introducing new technologies. This is why research confirms that the majority of major change initiatives fail to deliver the expected efficiency and performance improvements, either in whole or in part.
