Roundabouts or traffic lights; which is safer? The majority of us would probably say traffic lights. After all, traffic lights give clear signals to drivers, whereas roundabouts are reliant on drivers to apply the laws of the road. However, studies have found that when it comes to collisions the opposite is actually the case.
The Washington State Department of Transportation found that replacing traffic lights with roundabouts led to an overall reduction in collisions and specifically a 75% reduction in collisions resulting in injury and a 90% reduction resulting in a fatality [1]. There are a number of potential explanations for this. Firstly, roundabouts require drivers to slow down when approaching a junction and this means that when any collisions do occur they are usually minor. Secondly, the one-way direction of traffic flow in a clockwise motion at roundabouts prevents the risk of head-on collisions. Thirdly, roundabouts require passengers to be fully attentive and engaged when navigating the junction, to spot other drivers, pedestrians or road users and to ensure that other traffic is acting as it should. This alertness means that drivers are more likely to spot and react to a situation that could lead to an accident (for example if a car unexpectedly pulls out). Fourthly, roundabouts reduce ‘amber gambling’ or speeding up or surges of cars trying to the beat the lights as they about to turn red - an urge that I am sure we are all familiar with.
In addition to potential safety benefits, roundabouts, tend to lead to better overall traffic flow and means that when no-one is around drivers do not have to stop.
So, why are we talking about roundabouts? How does this relate to HR?
HR are often expected to act like traffic lights in workplaces. Much in the same way that that lights dictatorially direct people, HR are often to expected to produce and police policies dictating what people can and can’t do within the workplace. An unintended consequence of doing this is that the fixed rules and regulations can absolve managers and other employees of the responsibility to make decisions. It also prevent managers from using their discretion and appropriately responding to the specific context or circumstance of a situation.
Anything that potentially reduce or restricts the involvement of leaders and managers in the decision making process should be considered with caution. After all the engagement of the engagers (line managers and leaders) is critical to the overall engagement and motivation of the workforce. [2]
What would happen if HR acted more like a roundabout instead? And what would this look like?
Through creating clear guidelines as HR, we can support employees to make appropriate, respectful and mindful decisions. Although managers may resist this at first due to the expectation it puts on them to make decisions, ultimately they will lead to better decisions based on a better knowledge of the individual circumstances. In a review carried out by the NHS, the most successful providers were those who passed decision making and accountability to staff responsible for delivering services [3].
HR operating in this way additionally reduces the amount of time needed to develop rules and regulations. HR often act as “reactive gatekeepers”, yet if we redefined this role and focused more on supporting and guiding managers and employees than creating endless red tape and policy, then this may well have benefits for engagement, time management and even reputation [4].
Putting the change into practice
Here are three ideas for how HR can channel the same underlying principles of roundabouts in the workplace.
1. Create clear guidelines
Rather than relying on detailed policy, try putting more focus on developing clear guiding principles, perhaps illustrated with a few relevant examples or case studies. Give managers the tools to support their staff.
2. Take a step back
Resist the temptation to judge and act as an adjudicator in some of the more minor employee issues. Empower and encourage managers to take responsibility for doing this themselves whenever possible
3. Show compassion
Take a more personalised and supportive, rather than adversarial approach with employees.
Of course, in certain circumstances clear rules and regulation, or traffic lights if you like, are the appropriate and specifically in relation to breaches related to legal matters. And clear cut boundaries in relation to harassment, bullying and theft are important. But there might be places or junctions in your organisations that the lights or policies aren’t adding value, and in fact taking it away.
Rather than defaulting to red, amber green solutions as standard it may be better for HR to approach these matters in a more roundabout kind of way.
References
1 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety., (2008). Roundabout benefits. [online]. Washington State Department of Transportation. [Viewed 17 February 2020]. Available from: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/benefits.htm
2 Roper, J., (2017). The line manager’s role in engagement. [online]. HR Magazine. [Viewed 19 February 2020]. Available from: https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/the-line-managers-role-in-engagement
3 The King’s Fund., (2014). Improving NHS Care by Engaging Staff and Devolving Decision-Making. [online]. The King’s Fund. [Viewed 19 February 2020]. Available from: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/field_publication_file/improving-nhs-care-by-engaging-staff-and-devolving-decision-making-jul14.pdf
4 Kulik, C.T. and Perry, E.L., (2008). When less is more: The effect of devolution on HR's strategic role and construed image. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management, 47(3), pp.541-558.
This article was partly inspired by a comment made by Aaron Dignan, author of Brave New Work, in this podcast interview: https://www.gartner.com/en/podcasts/talent-angle/building-brave-new-work
