HR Conundrum

It’s seems fashionable nowadays for people to use HR as a punching bag for  failures. CEOs find them inept at helping to achieve business strategies whilst employees say HR won’t take their side to help solve problems. Since the infamous 2005 article ‘why we hate HR”, I believe the voices have grown louder and bolder. Even Ram Charan has taken a pot shot with HBR’s “Its time to Split HR”. If what they said is true, then it’s no fun or glamour to be in HR. But, is it really true of HR and if so, why?

I have a different view, coming from 15 years of corporate experience and evidence. I prefer not to generalize or stereotype people because we are different and behave with a reason, influenced by social and cultural conditioning. Further, I am skeptical of opinion survey findings taken from selected sample pools. You don’t blame an entire basket because of few bad apples. I wished I could investigate all those CEOs that Charan said were disappointed with HR. Come on, how low can you hit with “HR not acting like trusted partners”. No wonder HR is a hot seat cum thankless job.

HR is critical for business success and organisational survival because people are the most important assets. How often have we heard that cliché. But, we all know that reality is far from rhetoric and truth.

Professional Status.- Am I happy with HR?. Certainly not, with the kind of disrespect shown. But, they say respect has to be earned so I ask, "what must HR do?". The way I see it, HR has no choice but to gain recognition by acquiring professional credentials!. HR can argue and claim all they want but it’s not technically accredited, similar to professions like Accounting, Engineer, Architect, Doctor, etc. My justification is purely psychological. Do you see CEOs and management gurus picking on these professionals on their capabilities to contribute or needing to earn their seat at the C-suite?. When companies suffer financial failures, do you see the CFO get the whiplash or sacking? 

At one time, I regretted venturing into HR, instead wished had gone into Safety & Health (S&H). You see, unlike HR, S&H is a ‘regulated’ competent job, governed under Regulation 4 of the Occupational Safety and Health (Safety and Health Officer) Regulations 1997. We can dispute their professional status but they sure have recognition and demand respect. As mandatory qualification, one needs to attain the green-book certification before holding the S&H job. What I admire and envy more is they have legislated laws and regulations that governs and stipulates the minimum S&H requirements that a company should provide, in terms of standards and operating procedures. Visit http://www.dosh.gov.my/index.to to view the list of competent S&H Officers. 

No doubt, HR too has legislated laws that outlines the standards governing employment, union and industrial relations. But, it does not, by any stretch of imagination, serve the dynamic needs of an evolving HR. It is an open truth that the regulations largely exist to safeguard the needs of employees from abuse and victimization.

What about audits?. If HR is such an important function, how come there is no regulated audits performed on it's functional portfolio?. At best, what you have is annually external financial auditors checking on P files and salary records. Tell me, what's so strategic about that. You reap what you sow. I suppose that's why Charan suggested parking HR administration under Finance.
                        

Business Partner - From labour administration to talent management, HR has   undergone evolutionary mutation. The now trendy word referred to HR is Business Partner (BP). David Ulrich posits the future of HR to center around four roles – HR Business Partner, Change Agent, Administration Expert, Employee Advocate. Easier said than done, it carries varied interpretations and delivery in operation or application. Companies, depending it's size and maturity, would view it differently and vary in priority. One size fits all solutions does not really fit the reality on the ground for many companies. Citing success in major MNCs as case examples does little to help the smaller companies to imitate. This is the myth Phil Rosenzweig breaks with Halo Effect. https://books.google.com.my/books/about/The_Halo_Effect.html?.

All the big players have the luxury of unlimited resources, time and money, for lofty ideals - project consultation and elaborate program experimentation. They can even break up HR into multiple specialist functions. Small businesses (SMEs) have to make do with scarce funds and on the run productivity. At worst, they can ask Finance to adopt HR or at best hire a HR generalist to juggle all the roles and remain unprejudiced to each. Being a generalist, this is my contention against Charan’s idea of splitting HR. I don’t mind outsourcing payroll but not compensation. How does one reconcile the accountability for performance, rewards and internal equity.

Strategic Clarity - It's a paradox and dilemma. As aptly captured by Ulrich’s quadrants, HR essentially wear four hats - two strategic and two tactical. But, the problem is that some businesses like SMEs, are just not ready, financially and culturally, to step up the game. HR people who hail from these company background are administrators who lack the capability or capacity to meet the demands of strategic business partner. When CEOs hire mismatched transactional HR to steer strategic transformation, what can you expect?. And, what’s even worse is they expect HR to leave the tactical hat at the door when they come in to discuss at the executive table. Yes, that’s how companies run into trouble with industrial disputes. Ask Air Asia and MAS, why were they slapped with RM10 Million fine. BTW, do you think some functional head will get whiplashed or sacked? http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1013979

Do you know what is more worse than failing in the job?. It’s not knowing what to succeed in. The biggest setback and challenge HR face is not knowing what the business strategy is?. Does anyone? Yet, HR is expected to contribute towards a strategic plan that is confidentially hidden. I once facilitated a group of managers at crafting the balance scorecard strategic roadmap. When the COO presented to the CEO, his response was, “people are not ready”.

So, in the absence of strategic clarity or goals, how does HR deliver effectively? Just like any other support function – standard best practices. Yes, we are reminded to think global but act local, in the spirit of "Malaysia Bolih". Actually, it's simple and easy, "Why do HR exist?. To find and place the right people in the right job at the right time. The only challenge for HR is to figure out what constitutes the “right people”, in terms of quantity and quality. If they can't do that, then they shall find the short end of the stick. 

Strategic clarity can only come from strategic leadership and it is not something to be delegated or abdicated. There is a very good reason why research says, culture eats strategy for breakfast”. Take succession planning. Is it not a strategic imperative for talent retention and business sustainability?. But, honestly speaking, how many HR have their hands on it?. The next time a leader picks on HR, nudge them to watch this leadership code  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC6p9yXdOjE 

Three Sides to a Coin - Basically, HR exist to serve two key stakeholders – employer & employees. When HR act in support of policies and procedures that favours one party, the other becomes unhappy. Caught between the devil and the deep sea, HR becomes the unpopular punching bag and, in extreme cases, victim of hate vandalism. Of course, HR do get reminded of where their loyalty should reside, considering who pays their salary. How many people empathize that there is anothe side to the equation - HR perspective. How does HR remain motivated and engaged in their job?. How do they resolve issues of conflicting interest and contradicting agendas?. How do they play the cards in choosing between the harder right and easier wrong?, Yes, HR are people too. The exception is that theirs is not an enviable job. It comes with the stigma of suspicion, distrust and  ridicule by those whom they serve - internal customers.

Did you know that HR has drawn the most number of groups in LinkedIn. I do believe the same to be true in other professional social media platforms. Such is the intellectual exchange on HR related subjects. Isn’t it an irony to hear people bash HR, the very people entrusted to help talent management and development. How can they help if they themselves are perceived and treated as untalented.

So, why would anyone be foolish or daring enough to go into HR?. I suppose it’s for the same interview storyline of St Peter at the pearly gates. 

 

Responsibility For Accountability

Did you know that in some countries there is no direct translation for accountability. This includes Spain, Italian, Portuguese, Indonesia and even my home Malaysia. Accountability is either referred to responsibility or directly translated by replacing some letters, as in “akauntabiliti”.

Both responsibility and accountability occupy a significant influence to management thinking and leadership behavior. We often hear of it mentioned in job descriptions, contract agreements and speeches, but do people really adopt it in practice. I find people are more receptive to the call of responsibility but, not accountability. Why is it so?. 

What’s the difference between responsibility and accountability?. Why do people forsake the latter?. Let’s start with some definition to explain the distinction and why people treat it almost indifferently.    

  

One version http://www.thefreedictionary.com/responsible on responsibility says, 

1. Liable to be required to give account, as of one's actions or of the 
discharge of a duty or trust: Who is responsible while their parents are away?    
2. Required to render account; answerable: The cabinet is responsible to the  parliament

 

Here, the word account is used to explain responsible. Now, should it be accountable or responsible?. If we replace responsible with accountable, would it mean different?. Revisit this later to answer it yourself.

 

 Merriam Webster says,
 1. "responsible" implies holding a specific office, duty, or trust;               

2. "accountable" suggests imminence of retribution for unfilled trust or violated obligation.

 

Does accountable carry a negative connotation of culpability?. And, can you distinguish responsibility from accountability by mere selection of verbs?.  

 

Another,  http://www.diffen.com/difference/Accountability_vs_Responsibility states the main difference between responsibility and accountability is that “responsibility can be shared while accountability cannot.” 

 

If accountability can’t be shared, does that mean teams can’t be held collectively answerable for their work?.

 

If you want more reference go to the answer or many more answers.

 

This is the problem. Far too many people lend injustice to using these words loosely and interchangeably to the point it becomes insignificant and confusing to management application and life experiences.    

 

My take on this is simple. Responsibility deals with doing whereas accountability deals with answering. Both requires ownership for action. You are Responsible for the action (duties, tasks, process and resources entrusted to you in performing your role/job). And, you are Accountable for the Action (decisions, outcome and consequences), resulting from performing your role/job. In other words, responsibility is carrying out the job and accountability is answering to the people who entrusted you with the authority and responsibility. People can be your boss, subordinate or yourself. That’s why they say, you can delegate responsibility, but not accountability. 

   

As you can see to appreciate at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-ClR8rvUsA&list=PLTIQYp46ac08dT1bGmvvYtwapm-v1WKN_, accountability embodies to deliver a powerful message. So, how can it be downplayed by professionals, managers and leaders?. Ever wondered why intentional execution and change, be it strategic or tactical, suffers failure. To claim accountability for success is easy but not failure?. When leaders do not hold people accountable for their failure, worst still, repeatedly, it sets a bad precedence and signals weak enforcement. We see happening at our workplace. Execution failures due to defiance, negligence, abuse, non-compliance, substandard delivery, compromise and other dysfunctional behaviours. In most cases, it’s brushed off conveniently as office politics or being ‘irresponsible’. To ignore accountability is to encourage workplace mediocrity and entropy.

   

According to Gallup study only one in 10 people have the talent to manage. http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/182378/one-people-possess-talent-manage.aspx. Leadership should pay heed as to why accountability must be taken seriously. Accountability is cited as one of the 5 dimensions of a high talent manager and key predictor of performance across different industries and types of role.

 

Let me share a few examples to accentuate the critical value of accountability.

 

Heard of stockbroker "Bernie" Madoff? He was held responsible by investors to manage their money (65 billion USD). When his Ponzi scam was exposed in 2008, he was held accountable by the law for fraudulent practice. There is a difference between functional responsibility and moral accountability. That's why Bernie is serving prison for 150 years.

 

A corporate example would be, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel who resigned in the wake of massive data breach that left personal information of it's customers open to hackers. Gregg, in his letter to the board, said, "held himself personally accountable"

 

Let’s rationalize the function of accountability with a hypothetical example much closer to home, i.e garbage disposal. In my housing area, the responsibility to collect garbage has been delegated to an independent contractor engaged by the government appointed private company named Alam Flora. So, whenever there is a complaint on garbage disposal, to whom do we go - those responsible or accountable?. In this case, is it the Independent contractor, Alam Flora, local government, Minister or Prime Minister (PM)?.Where does the buck stop?. The way I see it, we go the Independent contractor held responsible for the job and if we do not get a satisfactorily response or remedy, then we escalate it all the way  to the Prime Minister (PM). Don’t agree?. Tell me why?.

 

I say the PM because he is at the top of the supply value chain. He appointed the Minister and delegated the responsibility to the Minister to provide public services, in return for collected tax. We can argue and even agree that the PM does not have the time to entertain or look into every citizen’s complaint. But, that does not absolve him of accountability because he is responsible for placing the right people to manage the government machinery. Remember, I said accountability concerns with action (decisions, outcome and consequences), resulting from executing or failure to carry out one’s role/job. Now, who is the top most person accountable in the government?. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_ministerial_responsibility

 

This is the predicament and challenge we face in corporate governance. Taking responsibility for accountability. I do not believe we don’t know or comprehend the semantics between responsibility and accountability. It’s just that we are comfortable in dealing with the operational dynamics of responsibility and authority, but not accountability. We either pretend to be ignorant or not willing to risk being answerable for actions or outcomes that are influenced by factors beyond our control. Shifting blame is far easier and safer than self-blame. That’s why the notion that accountability can’t be delegated does not sit well with many managers.      

 

Finally, let me share my own experience. Many months ago, I complained via phone and email to the local agency against illegal dumping of construction waste at the edge of football field in my housing area. When I did not get any response after a month, I escalated it to online complaint with Public Complaints Bureau, http://www.pcb.gov.my/bm, under the PM’s Dept. When nothing moved, I personally dropped an email to the top management and c.c. to the PM’s Secretary and Chief Secretary of Civil Service. All I invoked was their accountability to the client charter - Manage and resolve public complaints against government agencies within 15 days.

 

Within 3 days, the waste was cleared and a signage erected. I even got a personal call from one of the Bureau’s Director that they would came back and landscape the area. That they did.

Nothing in life comes easy. Integrity and ethics is about behavior in holding people accountable for decisions, actions and consequences? Talk is cheap. We preach “be the change we want to see” yet are we committed to enforcing accountability for change ?. Alas, commitment is another loosely exaggerated word. I guess I have my next topic.