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?