Have we entered the personalisation era? What does this mean for engagement?

Customer service is EVERYWHERE, maximum choice on EVERYTHING is the norm, targeted advertising in the blink of an eye...convenience and accessibility are the watchwords, so does this mean we have truly entered the PERSONALISATION ERA?

thinking hr.com personalisation

Increasingly we see massive divergence in the workforce profile. It's the dichotomy of the aging workforce with no retirement limit and a need to keep earning plus an influx of tech savvy high expectant newbies who want the earth on a plate.

Is the secret to a successful HR Talent Mgt and Engagement Strategy avoiding the ONE SIZE FITS ALL approach?

YES - votes for...
It's easy to say the answer to the complex problem of creating a work environment, set of HR practices for managers to embody by saying you have to personalise EVERYTHING. How you motivate, how you offer benefits, what motivates me etc but how realistic is it to do this?

Is this where data comes in? More and more HR functions are turning to data to help solve the answer to this enormous challenge...do I have to provide individual personalisation or can I generalise?

Perhaps, but I often get push back from HR professionals when I start talking about tailoring values, processes or other seemingly 'centralised' approaches into something that is just 'divisionally' different. From finance to IT to sales to marketing, they are simply different in all sorts of ways, therefore how can we possibly say, EVERYONE should follow the same process...it's simply ludicrous, but how do we get over the complexity issue?

We have to genetically build more flexibility in, more choices, more options that allow for personalisation to happen in real terms.

No - votes against...

The options are too many, people would want to many choices, it would be too difficult to keep a handle on it. All possible legitimate arguments. Things could get out of hand, but are the choices people really want that great in number?

If we took values as an example, we need a central common 'steer' that all functions head towards. There are certain behavioural standards that everyone must aim towards, no matter what function. Diversity and inclusion are a perfect example. These can't be opt out choices.

For me it's the difference between compliance and enquiry learning. There are management or leadership roles which require certain standards of behaviour to do the job properly. No guessing, no hoping, it's pretty straightfoward to understand. So why is the training or performance mgt process not in place to meet these rather obvious standards? We seem to shy away from acting tough in these areas, when these are precisely the areas we need to get better at, or fail to deliver on our organisational strategy.

Enquiry learning is when it's a nice to have, I'm building on something already and I do it almost to stretch myself. It doesn't need the same rigorous measurement approach as compliance learning interventions should have (some might argue). It's different.

Blending the 2 votes (arguments) together - perfect blending
In fact then, we could consider it's possible to blend both together and say yes, we need more personalisation in some areas (benefits, management styles, work environments and work opportunities), but more consistency and fixed approaches in others (mgt behavioural competencies, ethics and values approaches and culture).

Certainly people are expecting more...the only way that can be delivered in a agile way is to offer more flexibility if we want to keep often very different groups engaged for longer.