Reflections on the Role Of HR

HR as a function has been searching for an identity for more than 50 years.

When it was called Personnel, senior management's expectations were more modest. The expectations were often expressed in functional terms: staffing, compensation, training and development, safety, employee relations, employee services, in some cases labor relations, and personnel research.

HR's effectiveness was assessed with cost measures e.g., cost per hire, cost per placement, cost per training hour, benefit costs per employee, revenue per emplyee, number of grievances, turnover rates, compa-ratios, accident frequency and severity, etc. It was a simpler world.

Once the name was changed, senior management's expectations became more demanding. Organization development, team building, flat structures, job design, coaching, and other soft topics emerged. New measures (additional) emerged: retention rates, engagement indices, climate surveys, culture surveys, team effectiveness, 360 assessment, etc. Not all HR practioners were prepared for the change.

Talk began about partnering with rather serving management. Lofty notions, but many wondered how, some still do.

But changing the name does not mean that we are changing anything. Senior management continues to be critical of the HR function and its contribution to the effective operation of the enterprise. A survey conducted by my consulting firm showed that 90% of the CEOs we contacted were dissatisfied with the quality of their HR function. In the same study, 90% of the CHROs were satisfied with the role they played in their organization.

Change comes from a new set of skills and preparation coupled with meaningful changes in policies and practices. It does not come by changing our job titles or what we call our department. Being a partner is not what you call yourself, rather it is how your partner interacts with you.

In my view, CEOs are responsible for the culture of the organization. HR can surely help, but ultimately, the tone and leadership come from the top. HR, on the other hand, is responsible for the organization's climate, and here there is much HR can do to influence the organization's climate through appropriate policies and practices that are consequential to the desired climate.

As a practitioner and head of HR, I saw my role as the champion of a climate that fostered engagement, that motivated staff to go the extra mile, and that made work a satisfying and rewarding experience.

I suggest the review of HR policies and practices with an eye for any perceived or actual barriers to the desired goal. Many of the barriers, I have found, are built by the administrative processes. Policies intended to reward people could become colossal dissatisfiers because of the many loops people have to go through to implement them. Streamlining these policies by taking out non-value added steps could smooth the decision making process.

There is a tendency in HR to do the same thing over and over expecting better results. Einstein suggested that this is insanity. I am sure you will agree.

There are practices in HR that do not add value and should be eliminated. There are policies intended to control when no control is really needed. There are policies that keep things moving and policies that slow or stop progress. I suggest that the latter be removed. There are policies that might be important for regulatory purposes but are quite useless from an operating point of view. These should be kept to the minimum required for compliance. There are policies that set limits on creativity and decision making. They should be liberalized, in my view.

HR is not a police department; in today's world, it might be better to encourage a culture of self-analysis, of periodic lessons learned critique, and a culture that encourage conversation rather than stifling openness and candor.

Realistic? I believe so! What is your take?

Building Positive Relationships in Business

Research has shown that communicating with clients, internal or external, accounts for 85 percent of the relationship. Yet most professionals spend only about 15 percent of their time developing the vital skills and abilities necessary to do so.

I was given a complimentary copy of a book by Lou Cassara entitled FROM SELLING TO SERVING -- THE ESSENCE OF CLIENT CREATION. Although I am no longer looking for clients, I found the book refreshing and thought provoking.

I have been told that relationship building is one of my strengths, but I am not satisfied with my own performance. I have much to learn and improve, but I do attribute any success I might have had over the years to skills with which I was blessed.

In the rest of this blog, I am both reflecting on my own experience as well as underlining key insights from the book.

Individuals and organizations spend enormous amount of money and time trying to find new clients and customers. However, when they are fortunate to do so, they tend to take the newly developed client/customer for granted.

I learned during my active career as an internal and external consultant that the best clients/customers I had were those I already had, not necessarily those who I might acquire. Why? They knew who I was, the work I had done, and the results I was able to contribute. They were not strangers to me, and I was no stranger to them.

So I devoted a good portion of my time and resources communicating with them ... finding out how they were doing, asking if there was anything they needed from me, probing for issues and problems for which I might be able to be a resource, and so on.

Looking back and reflecting on both the successes and failures in my relationship building efforts, I have concluded that relationships are vital to both our lives and careers.

Relationships, it has been said, are a reflection of the one we have with ourselves. If we are willing to look into ourselves and experience who we really are, we will be more effective in our relationships. If we do not think that we are good enough, competent enough, committed enough, and so on, our customers and clients will pick that up quickly.

I have been told, and I have come to believe, that people are a mirror of themselves and as such they will reflect back to us what they need to learn and change about themselves.

Now, not all relationships are created equal. Here are the three common types:

1. Relationships that require addressing the benefits and features of what we offer to one another -- on the superficial side, you might say.

2. Relationships that require more sustaining action and they call on us to understand the clients' motives and values that drive their behavior.

3. Relationships that are significant where we must understand others' emotional blue-print and core personality driving their behavior.

The type of relationship dictates the amount of time, energy, and commitment required to maintain a relationship that is reciprocally satisfying. However, in all cases, people look and expect to work with someone for whom they have a good feeling.

The more authentic we are, the better are our chances that people will have a good feeling about us. The more caring we are the better the chances are that people will care about us. The more you "get your stuff together", the higher the likelyhood that people will trust you.

When you have a few minutes alone, list the ten relationships that are important to you. Then using the descriptors above, rate each relationship by giving it a 1, 2 or 3. Examine the list again, change your ratings if you want, and look at the final ratings. Do you have work to do? Would you like to see a different rating?