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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment