In HR we have always tended to prefer standardisation. The instinct to make everything and to treat everyone in the same way comes from a mixture of practicality, compliance, and tradition. Standardisation makes processes easier to administer at scale, creates the appearance of fairness, and reduces the risks of inconsistency. For HR teams under pressure to manage large workforces efficiently, there is comfort in producing a set of policies or frameworks that apply equally to all. However in recent years there has been an increasing demand for the personalisation of HR, to counteract the limitations of having standard, universally applied processes. In this episode Lucy is joined by her co-founder of Disruptive HR, Karen Moran to consider when HR should be customised or personalised – and when it should be a standard, consistent approach for all.
They look at when it makes sense to have standardisation and the risks are of being too rigid in your uniformity. They give three practical examples of customisation in action, how AI helps to personalise and they also discuss how to personalise without adding complexity, by using “employee personas” to design around real people.
Discover more about Disruptive HR
00:03 – Lucy Adams (Host)
Welcome to HR Disrupted with me, Lucy Adams. Each episode will explore innovative approaches for leaders and HR professionals and challenge the status quo with inspiring but practical people strategies. So if you’re looking for fresh ideas, tips and our take on the latest HR trends, subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
00:34 – Lucy Adams (Host)
In HR, we’ve always tended to prefer standardisation. The instinct to make everything consistent and to treat everyone in the same way comes from a mixture of practicality, compliance and even tradition. Standardisation makes processes easier to administer at scale, creates the appearance of fairness and reduces the risks of inconsistency. For HR teams under pressure to manage large workforces efficiently, there’s real comfort in producing a set of policies or frameworks that apply equally to all. However, in recent years there has been an increasing demand for the personalisation of HR to counteract the limitations of having standard, universally applied processes. So on today’s podcast, we’re looking at when HR should be customised or personalised, and when it should be a standard, consistent approach for all. Joining me to discuss this is my co-founder at Disruptive HR, Karen Moran. Welcome, Karen.
01:55 – Karen Moran (Host)
Hi Lucy, yes definitely. I think that universally applied processes across the organisation were seen as a bit of a win, weren’t they? We were quite proud to say that everything was consistent. I think back to my own career where it was all standardised: annual review cycles, one universal bonus plan, one-size-fits-all career frameworks, consistent hiring and onboarding processes and so on. I think what I also got wrong then was believing that managers needed to treat everybody in the same way. So we created lots of employment policies for everything to make sure they were applied consistently across the board.
02:40 – Lucy Adams (Host)
Yes, and it’s easy to see why we thought this was the right thing to do. This drive for uniformity has been reinforced by HR’s role as the custodian of compliance. Employment law and audit requirements have really encouraged HR leaders to design processes that can be repeated and defended. Add to that the desire for equity – the idea that treating everyone the same is the fairest way – and you can see why standardisation has dominated HR practice for so long. But what is easiest for HR is not always effective for the people it serves, is it? So should we take a quick look at the risks of over-standardisation?
03:32 – Karen Moran (Host)
Yes, okay. The first reason it’s a problem is that it ignores the human beings we’re working with. A one-size-fits-all policy might look lovely, but it ignores the diverse needs, motivations and circumstances of employees. We’re not necessarily putting ourselves in their shoes. The result is irrelevance at best and disengagement at worst. A great example of this is hybrid working, where companies dictate “you must come into the office for three days and work from home for two.” It makes us feel flexible and fair, but in reality, it doesn’t suit everyone. Some people want to be in the office five days a week, others don’t need to be in at all.
04:39 – Lucy Adams (Host)
Exactly, some people prefer working in an office environment, while others – depending on their personality or work type – are better suited to remote work. Another example is where we set a fixed frequency for performance reviews or check-ins and say they must happen every month or every quarter.
05:08 – Karen Moran (Host)
It doesn’t make much sense. If we tell managers to do that, that’s exactly what they’ll do. They won’t think beyond it. One person may need frequent check-ins because they’re new to the role or lack confidence, while another person knows what they’re doing and prefers to get on with things. I remember a client we worked with who replaced annual appraisals with check-ins and decided to dictate that they should happen every two weeks. They piloted it in the HR team, which we always recommend. One HR team member said, “I don’t want to meet every two weeks – we sit in the same room!” It was such a simple reminder that not everyone needs the same frequency.
06:24 – Lucy Adams (Host)
Yes, absolutely. Another risk of over-standardisation is that it stifles manager judgement and creates a false sense of fairness. Consistency might look equal, but employees rarely perceive fairness in sameness. Real fairness is about relevance, impact, and giving people what they need to succeed – which often looks different for different individuals. Managers who are bound by rigid processes lose the freedom to tailor their approach. Employees end up feeling like they’re treated as numbers rather than people. A classic example is the return-to-work process. In many organisations, if someone’s been off for a certain number of days, it triggers a formal meeting. So a manager ends up sitting with someone who’s just had major surgery, running through a checklist that doesn’t fit the situation.
07:56 – Karen Moran (Host)
I agree completely. It reminds me of bereavement policies where you see rules like “one day for an aunt, two days for a cousin.” I’ve even written policies that demanded proof of bereavement. It becomes all about the process, not the person. One example we loved was from the World Intellectual Property Organization, who dropped their bereavement policy completely and replaced it with one simple principle: “Provide support during grief.” You don’t need to say anything else. The manager knows the person and can give them the time they need.
09:18 – Karen Moran (Host)
More broadly, standardisation pushes process over outcomes. We force the same appraisal cycles and training structures, and it all turns into tick-box exercises. Think about nine-box grids: lots of structure, not much value.
09:46 – Lucy Adams (Host)
Yes, we’ve both been guilty of that. But there are situations where consistency really matters. Standardisation makes sense where sameness itself creates value. For example, in safety-critical environments like aviation, healthcare or manufacturing, doing things the same way every time keeps people safe and guarantees quality.
10:22 – Karen Moran (Host)
Exactly. You don’t want your pilot saying, “I’ll improvise today.” Repetition reduces errors, builds reliability and reassures both employees and customers.
10:56 – Lucy Adams (Host)
Another example where standardisation matters is in brand values. Some practices need to feel the same everywhere to reinforce who the company is. For instance, consistent onboarding or bonus metrics linked to brand promises. One client told us that in every one of their offices, the first thing you see when you walk in is photos of every employee. It’s a great reminder that people are at the heart of the company.
11:47 – Karen Moran (Host)
There are also practical reasons to standardise. If you have 20 different HR or payroll systems, it becomes costly and complex. Having one shared platform makes life easier and improves data accuracy – as long as you don’t simply transfer broken processes into it.
12:32 – Lucy Adams (Host)
And picking up on that, data collection and analytics are another area where standardisation helps. If you want to measure performance consistently or use predictive analytics, you have to capture data in the same way. That’s how you get reliable insights, not just data for the sake of it.
13:27 – Lucy Adams (Host)
Quick plug for our Disruptive HR Club – we’ve got thousands of members like you who want to do things differently. In the club you’ll find resources, live and on-demand training, and our new AI agent – HR consultancy on tap, 24/7. You can find the link in the show notes or on our website, disruptivehr.com.
14:12 – Karen Moran (Host)
So, what we’re saying is that standardisation is useful for safety and quality, reinforcing brand values, reducing costs through shared systems, and ensuring accurate data. But almost everything else we do in HR – how we hire, onboard, learn, manage performance, reward and recognise – will have more impact if it’s tailored to the individual, the leader or the business area.
15:06 – Lucy Adams (Host)
Let’s look at some great examples of customisation. First, reward and recognition. We love Telstra – they customised their incentive plans to suit three different groups of employees. Some wanted the security of stable income, others wanted to increase their pay based on performance, and a third group nearing retirement wanted flexibility while maintaining their pension benefits. It worked brilliantly compared to a standardised, one-size-fits-all bonus scheme.
16:41 – Karen Moran (Host)
A great onboarding example comes from Wipro. On a new hire’s first day, they complete a short problem-solving activity. There are no right or wrong answers – but the results are shared with their manager to show how they like to learn. If someone learns through others, they get a buddy. If they prefer trial and error, they’re given freedom. If they like more reassurance, their manager checks in more often. It makes the whole experience feel personal.
17:39 – Lucy Adams (Host)
Exactly, it feels customised rather than mechanical. Adobe did something similar with performance management. They realised employees wanted more say in how they were managed, so they introduced “Choose Your Own Performance Management.” Employees decide when and how they get feedback – whether through quick chats or more formal discussions. It’s consistent in purpose but flexible in delivery, which makes it much more human.
18:39 – Karen Moran (Host)
And now we’ve got AI helping us customise at scale. Kraft Heinz, for example, partnered with Perceptyx to deliver personalised AI nudges – short prompts sent to managers through Teams or email, aligned with their leadership principles. Managers who engaged with the nudges were rated far more effective by their teams. Salesforce also use AI in their career platform. Their chatbot, Career Connect, helps employees explore career paths, skills and training opportunities – all within Slack, in real time.
20:24 – Lucy Adams (Host)
That’s right. Personalisation can seem overwhelming for HR – how can we possibly do this for everyone? But there’s a great technique that helps: employee or leader personas. It’s a simple way to customise without overcomplicating. Borrowed from marketing, personas represent typical employee types based on behaviours, motivations and attitudes. They help us see things from the employee’s perspective and design processes that meet real needs.
22:08 – Lucy Adams (Host)
So, in the end, deciding when to standardise and when to personalise comes down to impact. Standardisation brings clarity, safety and efficiency. But when it comes to shaping how people feel about work, personalisation almost always wins. Employees don’t remember the neatness of a process – they remember how it felt. Was it designed with them in mind? HR’s challenge is to find that balance: protect consistency where it safeguards quality, and free everything else to reflect individuality, context and choice. That’s where HR creates real value. Thank you for joining us, and don’t forget to like or subscribe if you enjoyed this episode. Goodbye.
