At HR.com, we've invested substantial sums of money in computer systems which are supported by a team of crack programmers. The information our team needs is managed through shared databases typically using a web based interface. The advantages of this high-tech approach are well understood. So why is Belinda, our production editor, creating a paper binder of author info?

When someone creates a paper system that duplicates data already on the computer, it is normal to think they are a bit backward, if not a bit looney. We all know the advantages of technology and the extra work required in creating duplicate systems. A few years ago I would have bought the argument that Belinda's Binder was an example of someone not adapting to modern technology. However, that argument no longer holds. Most people have been making extensive use of computer systems for ten or twenty years. It's not that they don't understand how to use technology, it's that they see some advantage in creating a duplicate paper-based system.

A Deeper Understanding of Systems

I was alerted to legitimacy of this kind of thing by the work of Don Norman, in particular his landmark book Things That Make Us Smart : Defending Human Attributes in the Age of the Machine. The lesson I draw on here is that there are many different "systems" that make us smart. Systems include everything from the bookmark that helps us remember how much we've read, to the sticky note on the phone, to the million dollar database. Each of these systems has value and their own unique strengths and weaknesses. Personal information managers like Microsoft Outlook will never be able to effectively replace the sticky notes, piles of paper and binders that make us efficient.

This is a profound insight in this age of techno-worship.

Legitimacy

There is another lesson I draw from Belinda's Binder. There is a widespread tendency for the technostructure, the staff experts, to dismiss the legitimacy of worker complaints or ideas. If a worker doesn't like a new computer application, a new appraisal system, or a new office layout, we tend to dismiss this as "resistance to change". In fact, "resistance to change" has become a cornerstone of management practice-it explains and excuses all our program failures.

But leading thinkers like John Seely Brown have taught us that there is deep tacit knowledge among workers in even the most mundane jobs. Something like Belinda's Binder may indeed be "resistance to change", it may also be an effective system that addresses needs that the staff experts do not understand. Furthermore, since the knowledge is tacit, workers may be unable to verbalize good reasons for their resistance, what they do say may not be the real reason. This means that as HR experts we have to work all the harder to understand the underlying dynamics driving their thinking.

Conclusion
It's unbelievably exciting to read the work of people like Don Norman and John Seely Brown. It provides us with really new and helpful insights into how we work in organizations.

In this example their work gives two clear insights:

• Don't underestimate the power of simple non-computer based systems.
• Start with the assumption that the actions of worker's are legitimate and reflect tacit knowledge that staff experts do not have. This assumption may prove incorrect, the problem may be resistance to change, but legitimacy is the place to start.