I thought I would revisit this sobering question since all I have been preaching over the last 2 years is how HR should be a strategic business partner and be at the table with the CEO. In addition in my discussions with many HR professionals out of work this issue really comes to light when they have to deal with HR departments when applying for work. Well here is an excerpt from an August 2005 Fast Company article that may open your eyes wide even today (click on the link for the complete article). The issue has not gone away.
In a knowledge economy, companies with the best talent win. And finding, nurturing, and developing that talent should be one of the most important tasks in a corporation. So why does human resources do such a bad job -- and how can we fix it?
Well, here's a rockin' party: a gathering of several hundred midlevel human-resources executives in Las Vegas. (Yo, Wayne Newton! How's the 401(k)?) They are here, ensconced for two days at faux-glam Caesars Palace, to confer on "strategic HR leadership," a conceit that sounds, to the lay observer, at once frightening and self-contradictory. If not plain laughable.
Because let's face it: After close to 20 years of hopeful rhetoric about becoming "strategic partners" with a "seat at the table" where the business decisions that matter are made, most human-resources professionals aren't nearly there. They have no seat, and the table is locked inside a conference room to which they have no key. HR people are, for most practical purposes, neither strategic nor leaders.
I don't care for Las Vegas. And if it's not clear already, I don't like HR, either, which is why I'm here. The human-resources trade long ago proved itself, at best, a necessary evil -- and at worst, a dark bureaucratic force that blindly enforces nonsensical rules, resists creativity, and impedes constructive change. HR is the corporate function with the greatest potential -- the key driver, in theory, of business performance -- and also the one that most consistently underdelivers. And I am here to find out why.
Why are annual performance appraisals so time-consuming -- and so routinely useless? Why is HR so often a henchman for the chief financial officer, finding ever-more ingenious ways to cut benefits and hack at payroll? Why do its communications -- when we can understand them at all -- so often flout reality? Why are so many people processes duplicative and wasteful, creating a forest of paperwork for every minor transaction? And why does HR insist on sameness as a proxy for equity?
It's no wonder that we hate HR. In a 2005 survey by consultancy Hay Group, just 40% of employees commended their companies for retaining high-quality workers. Just 41% agreed that performance evaluations were fair. Only 58% rated their job training as favorable. Most said they had few opportunities for advancement -- and that they didn't know, in any case, what was required to move up. Most telling, only about half of workers below the manager level believed their companies took a genuine interest in their well-being.
So here is why again:
- HR people aren't the sharpest tacks in the box. "HR doesn't tend to hire a lot of independent thinkers or people who stand up as moral compasses," says Garold L. Markle, a longtime human-resources executive at Exxon and Shell Offshore who now runs his own consultancy.
- HR pursues efficiency in lieu of value. Why? Because it's easier -- and easier to measure.
- The corner office doesn't get HR (and vice versa).
- HR isn't working for you. Want to know why you go through that asinine performance appraisal every year, really? Markle, who admits to having administered countless numbers of them over the years, is pleased to confirm your suspicions. Companies, he says "are doing it to protect themselves against their own employees,"
The problem, if you're an HR person, is this: The tasks companies are outsourcing -- the administrivia -- tend to be what you're good at. And what's left isn't exactly your strong suit. Human resources is crippled by what Jay Jamrog, executive director of the Human Resource Institute, calls "educated incapacity: You're smart, and you know the way you're working today isn't going to hold 10 years from now. But you can't move to that level. You're stuck."
That's where human resources is today. Stuck. "This is a unique organization in the company," says USC's Boudreau. "It discovers things about the business through the lens of people and talent. That's an opportunity for competitive advantage." In most companies, that opportunity is utterly wasted.And that's why I don't like HR.
I am sure I will really alienate some of my peers with this post but after many years of preaching strategy most HR departments are still stuck in the mud based on the above.
Keith H. Hammonds is Fast Company's deputy editor.
That's where human resources is today. Stuck. "This is a unique organization in the company," says USC's Boudreau. "It discovers things about the business through the lens of people and talent. That's an opportunity for competitive advantage." In most companies, that opportunity is utterly wasted.And that's why I don't like HR.
I am sure I will really alienate some of my peers with this post but after many years of preaching strategy most HR departments are still stuck in the mud based on the above.
Keith H. Hammonds is Fast Company's deputy editor.
1 comment:
I completly agree, after just a few weeks in a strategic HR course, during my senior year of undergrad work, I have more than realized that HR as a strategic partner is all talk and no walk. Theoretically, a strategic partnership makes sense, but there is an educational void in the workforce right now.
Will the spread of education about being a strategic partner to undergrad HR students curtail this "stuck in the middle"? I think more efficient change management will help to get HR moving and out of the middle, stuck between administrative/clerical work and sitting next to the CEO.
Post a Comment