What Excel Teaches us about the True Nature of Work
Eric Kimberling, author of the book Welcome to the Machine, points out that the most commonly used ERP system is Excel. He’s being a bit tongue-in-cheek since this doesn’t apply to large organisations; however, for our purposes, it provides an important insight into the true nature of work.
Why large software systems are annoying
I doubt I have to convince you that large software systems are often annoying. You probably know that Workday has been described as the most important yet least loved product in enterprise software. You might be aware of how many ERP systems go vastly over budget while still failing to meet the hopes of the organization.
So why is that?
One reason is that from a high level, where such projects are conceived, work looks much more straightforward than it actually is. If work genuinely was that straightforward then these large systems would work a charm. However, when a large standardized system hits the real complexity of work then costs go up and user satisfaction goes down.
The true nature of work
From a C-suite level, the org chart might have one box showing that you have 20 recruiters. To automate the work, it appears that you need to map out the processes of “a recruiter” and build software around it. However, at the ground level of talent acquisition, you know that each recruiter’s job differs in a number of important ways. It may be the nature of the roles they are filling, it might be geography, it might be something else. Whatever that difference is, it creates the possibility of an unhappy user experience or expensive and time-consuming customization.
Another aspect of the true nature of work is that processes change more quickly than we would like to believe. The formal processes, the ones the C-suite is aware of, might not change, but at ground level there is enough change that a software system that worked well yesterday might not work so well tomorrow. Humans do a great job of adapting to necessary process changes and often no one sees how they have done that. The complexity of work is hidden except from those actually doing it.
Finally, there is the doorman fallacy. The doorman fallacy is that the job of a doorman is opening doors and hence can easily be replaced with an automated door. High end hotels that have tried that quickly discovered that opening the door was the most visible yet least important part of the job. The real job is providing a sense of prestige, assisting guests, and improving security. Again, the problem is that the job is more complex on the ground level than it appears from the heights of top leadership.
The takeaway is that work looks much simpler and more stable from the C-suite than it is in practice. Large software systems often start with a poor understanding of what is needed to be effective.
Why Excel is so well-loved
Excel, for all its flaws as an enterprise system, is well-loved because it gives the on-the-ground user a tool so flexible that they can tune it to their personal needs and change it on the fly.
An Excel spreadsheet is also something that you can build up bit-by-bit as you apply it to your job. You don’t need to figure it all out in advance. For example, let’s imagine you work in several different jurisdictions that need slightly different support from your software. You start by creating a spreadsheet for the most common jurisdiction. After a while, you discover you need a separate sheet for one of the other jurisdictions. Over time, you discover that three properly designed sheets can cover the needs of all jurisdictions. It would have taken a lot of hard thinking to figure that out in advance, it is much easier to “think by doing”, building the system day by day and honing in on an effective approach.
Finally, Excel is loved because people already know it. You might have implemented an excellent ERP; however, when someone wants to design a report, they need to take time off work to figure out how to do it. They know how easy it would be for them in Excel and feel annoyed at the ERP the first time they need to do something new, no matter how well designed the ERP is.
Implications for HR pros
The most important takeaway is that the view the C-suite has of work is misleading. Your job is to be ready to help them when this misleading view will lead to problems. You can get ahead of this by taking any opportunity you have to help them understand the ground-level reality. For example, in a workforce planning exercise, rather than say “We have 12 recruiters” say “We have 12 recruiters. Each of these roles is a little different, but for these purposes, we can treat them as a group.” It’s a subtle hint that, if repeated from time to time, will leave leaders understanding that down there at the bottom of the org chart are 12 unique roles, even though it may be compressed to a single box. The org chart, in fact any view of jobs from a high level, is a simplification, and that can cause no end of trouble. Foresee trouble and forestall it.