I have been following on LinkedIn several group discussions regarding HR issues. One topic that seems to re-occur involves the HR Role. Apparently the obvious seems to elude many practitioners.
As a retiree, I do have the luxury of Monday morning quarter-backing, to own up to my biases and pet peeves, and to even meander in the controversial realm.
So permit me to say that this continuous conversation about the HR Role leaves me wondering what cool-aid are we still drinking in the 21st century.
So permit me to say that this continuous conversation about the HR Role leaves me wondering what cool-aid are we still drinking in the 21st century.
A Little History
It is no news that HR is held in low esteem by many managers and employees.
In my view, management and employees might have solid reasons for their disdain. It is also no secret that HR is often seen as a black hole ... where resumes disappear, where grievances or suggestions vanish, where sense of urgency and practicality are absent, where form seems more important than substance, where change is advocated but hardly enacted, and where slogans are often used to mask left field solutions. My list is incomplete.
I also want to point out that not all HR departments are the same. There is a noticeable minority that is doing an exceptional job in a sea of obstacles, dilemmas, and elusive solutions. This number has been growing steadily over the past 25 years.
In my view, management and employees might have solid reasons for their disdain. It is also no secret that HR is often seen as a black hole ... where resumes disappear, where grievances or suggestions vanish, where sense of urgency and practicality are absent, where form seems more important than substance, where change is advocated but hardly enacted, and where slogans are often used to mask left field solutions. My list is incomplete.
I also want to point out that not all HR departments are the same. There is a noticeable minority that is doing an exceptional job in a sea of obstacles, dilemmas, and elusive solutions. This number has been growing steadily over the past 25 years.
I do remember a study conducted some time ago. Eighty organizations were polled: the CEO's, the top HR executive, senior management, a slice of the employee population, and the entire HR staff. The key questions addressed:
1. The extent to which the HR department was seen as a functioning business partner.
2. The extent to which the HR staff understood the key business issues.
3. The extent which the HR staff performed "completed staff work."
4. The extent to which HR contributed to the resolution of key business issues.
The results? Most top HR executives and HR staff members rated their function as truly functioning as a business partner, while most CEOs and senior managers rated the HR function poorly as a business partner. The study went on to point out that most HR practitioners lack the rounded preparation needed to fulfill the coveted role of business partner. The perception of the employee population slice mirrored the view of their management.
The lesson? Wishing it to be so is not akin to being so . Business partner is not a job descriptor, in my view, but the result from providing exceptional HR work. Beauty, they say, is in the eye of the beholder -- management (HR's client) and the employee (the user of HR services). Changing our name to one in vogue at the time gives us the illusion that we are changing and that we are keeping pace, when in reality, when we are merely improving incrementally rather than transformationally.
During the past quarter century, much developmental emphasis has been placed on the "soft" skills, relegating the "hard" skills to the dustbin of the "old" ways. Soft skills include interpersonal competence, internal consulting skills, facilitation skills, coaching, problem solving, and so on. Hard skills include the technical skills to effectively design and implement HR policies and practices such as selection, compensation and benefits, safety and health, succession planning, organization and job design, and so on. We have also come to realize that leadership and management do matter. In my view, soft and hard skills are two sides of the same coin. One is not better or more essential than the other.
Research conducted some time ago at Arizona State University, Santa Clara University, and the University of California Irvine, regarding the role of service organizations, revealed an important differentiator: Skills and knowledge needed to make you successful in the front room activities are not the same as the skills and knowledge needed for success in the back room. The front room, where service provider meets service seeker, must be staffed by individuals with superior interpersonal skills and generic knowledge of the service options, while in the back room what counts more is in-depth technical skills and knowledge. The research went on to suggest that selecting and rewarding service staff must take these difference into account when deploying and motivating staff.
So what is the problem?
Unlike finance, engineering, marketing, and other technical functions, HR folks do not share a common education or similar experience. Its roots are quite modest. It emerged as a separate function when the people-related amount of administrative work required exceed management's span of attention. As a result, the "HR" work was assigned to the best possible administrative staff member, often the CEO's secretary. As collective bargaining emerged, complexity gave way to the realization that legal and negotiating expertise were required. The technical HR elements were farmed out to the industrial engineering department, seen as more capable of addressing issues of compensation, job analysis, and selection methods. In the past 75 years, we have seen the level of complexity increase whereby other disciplines have been brought in to improve the quality of selection, team development, job design, change management, and so on.
A side problem that remains is the perception that HR is a necessary evil, rather than an essential component to the success of an organization.
Experience teaches us that management's expectations are quite different than the employees'. Management wants compliance and flexibility, while employees clamor for more involvement and participation in decisions affecting their work, as well as better or more (financial and non-finacial) rewards. HR can play a great role in mediating this exchange. There are many opportunities available to the HR professional to help improve the organization's ability to engage people through more better job design, tailor-made compensation and benefit schemes, to encourage strategic conversations between employees and senior management, to build effective areas of practice, to celebrate the unique value of each person, and to create a superior work environment.
There are many other areas where HR can shine ... I am sure you have your own list.
So let's stop debating the HR role and instead focusing on making HR contributions felt and more relevant to the business demands.
Enjoy your ride along the learning curve!
So what is the problem?
Unlike finance, engineering, marketing, and other technical functions, HR folks do not share a common education or similar experience. Its roots are quite modest. It emerged as a separate function when the people-related amount of administrative work required exceed management's span of attention. As a result, the "HR" work was assigned to the best possible administrative staff member, often the CEO's secretary. As collective bargaining emerged, complexity gave way to the realization that legal and negotiating expertise were required. The technical HR elements were farmed out to the industrial engineering department, seen as more capable of addressing issues of compensation, job analysis, and selection methods. In the past 75 years, we have seen the level of complexity increase whereby other disciplines have been brought in to improve the quality of selection, team development, job design, change management, and so on.
A side problem that remains is the perception that HR is a necessary evil, rather than an essential component to the success of an organization.
Experience teaches us that management's expectations are quite different than the employees'. Management wants compliance and flexibility, while employees clamor for more involvement and participation in decisions affecting their work, as well as better or more (financial and non-finacial) rewards. HR can play a great role in mediating this exchange. There are many opportunities available to the HR professional to help improve the organization's ability to engage people through more better job design, tailor-made compensation and benefit schemes, to encourage strategic conversations between employees and senior management, to build effective areas of practice, to celebrate the unique value of each person, and to create a superior work environment.
There are many other areas where HR can shine ... I am sure you have your own list.
So let's stop debating the HR role and instead focusing on making HR contributions felt and more relevant to the business demands.
Enjoy your ride along the learning curve!
