Can't Tell If This Is Herculean or Sisyphean...

But I'll keep at it...

We all know the difference right? Hercules is famous for completing his tasks - so famous that we refer to incredibly difficult tasks or extraordinary efforts as Herculean. Sisyphus on the other hand was not so lucky. He was cruel, too clever by half and thought he was smarter than the gods. As punishment, he was condemned to eternally try and roll a boulder to the top of hill with the boulder always rolling away before it reached the top. So now tasks which we repeat endlessly with no hope of success are Sisyphean. You knew all that already though.

#LearningAndDevelopment already has a number of Sisyphean tasks - like the myth of learning styles or the mythological pyramid that says you remember 10% of what you read and 20% of what you see (although I can’t figure out how that applies to the visually impaired who read by touch and not by sight). I don’t really want to add to that list but kind of feel like I need to.

Nico Orie posted a story on LinkedIn about a new HR systems architecture. Now this isn’t about Nico, who I don’t know but who I follow on LinkedIn and who seems both smart and genuine in other posts including this one. I do not have an issue with either Nico or this post. We need smart people looking at new systems architectures so that we can operate efficiently and effectively. The problem that I do have is one layer up.

I see a lot of posts on LinkedIn and elsewhere about AI or some other tech (although right now, its all AI) “reinventing” HR (could also drop in L&D for good measure here) and how it’ll “totally change the game” and that’s where my problem is. We can change processes and technologies all we want. We can update our methodologies till the proverbial cows come home BUT (and you knew it was coming) there is a serious and hard limit to how deep and lasting that change can be though unless we start talking about the fundamentals on which those changes are taking place - hence my confusion about Hercules or Sisyphus.

All we really have to change are a few pieces of the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) about how employees are counted for. You know, just the fundamental bedrock of accounting. Harvard professor Ethan Rouen wrote an insightful article about the issue of “The Problem with Accounting for Employees as Costs Instead of Assets.” He argues that GAAP “is an outdated and inadequate tool for documenting the behaviors of the modern corporation” and that this lack of documentation and transparency around the real value of human capital negatively impacts both the company, who cannot be rewarded for investing in its employees, and employees, who are seen as merely mercenary and that training them then, is really just making them better for their next job.

Can you imagine a world in which we could count employees as assets? Certainly not to imply ownership by the company but as a way of demonstrating their value to the company’s output? What would happen in that world though? On the employee side, every degree or certification or experience you accrued would add to your market value in a measurable way. Hiring you would increase a company’s value. Providing you with additional training would increase your value and have the same follow-on effect for the company. If a company did layoffs, they’d have to disclose the value of those employees they let go and the market reaction would be much different if it could see how much value had just walked out the door.

In this world, L&D orgs would become measurable generators of corporate value right up there with marketing and sales. Highly effective instructors, facilitators, and designer/developers would be recognized and sought after for their contributions to the bottom line. Imagine a world in which the CFO becomes the defender of L&D because its so clear what that value chain looks like.

So here’s the real kicker - whether or not this task belongs to Sisyphus or Hercules is up to us. GAAP did not descend from on high - they were written by humans and can be changed by humans. Until we do that, until we say that these practices no longer reflect how value is generated in our orgs, then all the new systems and AI and apps will remain in the realm of rearranging deck chairs and we will just continue to push that boulder up a hill.