APRIL 2024HR TECH OUTLOOK8In MyOpinionUnfettered TransparencyPrioritization decisions that arise from limited resources predictably cause frustration among those who are denied services. To avoid having to answer push-back from internal customers, shared-services employees may engage in avoidance strategies, including:· Failing to offer clarity about the level of service their internal customers can expect, or· Remaining silent about the reason driving the denial of service (system limitations, labor shortages, etc.).This behavior is likely driven by the desire to avoid a debate with internal customers about whether the stated reasons justify the denial of service. However, open dialog between shared-services leaders and their internal customers can drive positive results for both sides.For example:· Sharing that system limitations prevent you from delivering on an internal customer's request will put your internal customers in a position to (a) advocate for system upgrades or (b) verify your assumption that the system does not support the service they're requesting.· Sharing that your team has only the capacity to support higher-priority projects may sting the internal customer who believes their requests deserve top priority. However, it supports the internal customer's engagement with executive leadership in calibrating expectations and clarifying how your team's level of support affects their ability to deliver on expectations.While opening yourself to these challenges may make you feel vulnerable, it helps build trust, preserve relationships, and drive sound resource allocation decisions. Inviting scrutiny when saying `no' to service requests will also help your team build discipline to say `yes' whenever possible. Plus, it may turn your internal customers into advocates who can drive more resources to your team so both teams can do more for the organization.Collaborative Problem-SolvingLeaders advocating for additional support from shared services also have a role to play. They can:1) Provide a Business Justification for RequestsThe value of unfettered transparency goes both ways. If you think your service request should take top priority, you should be able to link it to the organization's mission and strategy.Joy Hayes, VP, Ethics & Compliance, Activision BlizzardBUILDING STRONGER BRIDGES: RESOLVING SERVICE GAPS AMONG CROSS-FUNCTIONAL TEAMSDr. Hayes started her career as an in-house ethics and compliance professional in 2013 after teaching Ethics at the college level for ten years. Before joining Activision, Dr. Hayes held a leadership role supporting the ethics program in Boeing's Defense Sector and served as the Chief Ethics Officer at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). Dr. Hayes holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy with a concentration in Ethics from the University of Florida and is a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE), Certified Compliance and Ethics Professional (CCEP) and Leadership Professional in Ethics and Compliance (LPEC). I've been on both the giving and receiving end of the bad news that shared services such as HR and IT have to deliver as they prioritize the use of limited resources: "I'm sorry, but we can't offer the support you're requesting." It can be demoralizing for both sides, but we can approach these challenges in a way that builds trust, strengthens relationships, and supports sound prioritization. Through unfettered transparency and collaborative problem-solving, shared-services employees and their internal customers can engage as partners in driving forward mission-critical work.
< Page 7 | Page 9 >