Shoot the Messenger

Another blog inspired by the Ghost Writer's Inbox while Marti gets carried away with her people process.

Why do we shoot the messenger? Or worse yet, leave the messenger to die by a jury of his or her peers when the message isn't acted upon? As HR leaders, I ask your thoughts on these questions. Here's our scenario.

A tough-minded HR Leader goes to his/her boss and says, "We are missing someone to fill role XYZ. It's critical to fill this role for 1-2-3-...-100 reasons. I cannot add a headcount to do it. I need you to take this up the food chain and solve this problem for me. As a boss, I think you're the roadblock removing sort, please help." Boss says, "I've got this."

Weeks got by, our protagonist (let's call her/him "P" for shot) follows up as the empty role goes unfilled. "Oh. I forgot." "Oh, I have to catch up with other boss-type to do this." P starts filling the gap as the issues related to no one in role XYZ pile-up at the door step. Silly P.

So finally the boss comes back! Yay! Or not. "Give us staffing options for how to do this." P scratches head and thinks, "I thought I did."

Meanwhile BIG C (Customer with capital C) gets mad because reason 54 for this role is not achieved. P is now getting drawn and quartered by unknown peers for "lack of responsiveness". Shot by her/his peers.

Why do we do this to good people? Marti's blog about "What they aren't telling you" has cogent points, but really HR Leadersn listen to what they do say, too. Might save a P from friendly fire.