A Revival of “Why We Hate HR”

Author: Dave Crisp

30 Mar

This objectionable view of HR was pointed out by a widely-read consultant/speaker colleague, Jan van der Hoop a day or so ago. Frankly I would have expected a different approach from Rutgers University’s Richard Beatty. Talk about pandering to your audience’s prejudices instead of trying to educate or solve the problem.. Even allowing for editorial liberties with the message, inadvertent or otherwise, this speech is unacceptable.

I’ll ignore the obvious confusion of the terms ‘employee satisfaction,’ which we pretty much all know by now doesn’t relate directly to performance and ‘engagement,’ which does. I’ll even ignore the fact that he contradicts himself in several statements, some on this very issue.

However, if this was actually said as quoted, Beatty is making a ridiculous generalization: "HR wants to treat most employees the same way, and they spend considerable time trying to defend or fix poor performers, taking on the St. Bernard role," he said. "Low turnover isn’t necessarily a good thing. Think about where you might want to disinvest." Well, Dr. Beatty, there isn’t any “HR” in this sense. There are a whole lot of individuals with varying ranges of skills and opinions. And in case you haven’t looked, there are tons of HR practitioners out there who do not fit this stereotype.

I’m first to agree that HR departments need to invest more and bring in more people to work as HR staff who can develop better analytics and metrics. I certainly support rotating a percentage of other executives through the HR function both to learn and bring in new ideas and approaches – not a bad idea for most functions. To suggest that HR isn’t making an effort at the transition to a modern understanding of what’s required of it is just patently missing what’s happening in the field. Maybe it isn’t happening fast enough, but not for lack of discussion or attention from HR. Insults aren’t likely to help as any good coach knows and practices. Apparently your program doesn’t follow the path of ‘find what’s right and encourage more of it.’ I realize that doesn’t make for as good press coverage, but really..

Maybe this is a speech you hope will be a further wake-up call to HR. or maybe, as another of my colleagues suggested, it’s an “Ann Coulter-type attempt” to garner attention by being insultingly outrageous. Whichever, one has to ask, isn’t it remarkable that someone who’s been training HR leaders for years finds they are so entirely hopeless? Whose fault would that be really – your students. or their professor?

Anyway, I’m pleased you answered my email suggesting we could debate with a response of basically ‘bring it on.’ But I also note you haven’t responded to my request for more details, including what you actually said. If I’ve misconstrued, please feel free to enlighten me. While waiting I’ve read several more polite responses suggesting you must have a point somewhere, that where there’s smoke there’s fire. I’m not so accepting. If professionals in the field, in particular, continue to bad-mouth it in such a blanket, unthinking way, how can we ever expect to raise HR to the status it deserves? I’m not sure an unbalanced attack deserves any less in return.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

2 Comments

Filed under: 3 Strategic - Thinking, Business/Strategy, Fix The Jerks, Human Resources (HR)

“Staff” and “Headcount” or “Talent?”

Author: Dave Crisp

20 Mar

The essence of the blog mentioned in my last post is the question of whether, in these cut-back oriented times, we’re going to forget about nurturing and growing ‘talent’ in organizations and go back to the days when all the counted was the number of ’staff’ or ‘headcount’ – the cost. The Lucy Kellerman article she refers to is the case in point.

Wow, what a series of mistaken assumptions. First, even companies that have cut back in major ways are simultaneously talking about talent shortages. With the need to keep pace through constant innovation so high and growing, they are feeling the need to reduce ’staff’ (meaning, as they see it, widgets who fill assembly-line-like roles) and at the same time seek out and hire more creative, leadership-oriented self-starters who can move things forward. They face the prospect of having to do with fewer ‘headcount’ for two reasons – both tighter economics and shortage of such ‘talent.’ In that case, the ‘talent’ they do entice to join or stay had better be truly valuable and outstanding.

Kellerman’s assumption that there will be less spent on trying to find, recruit and motivate those we formerly thought of as ’staff’ in favor of greater emphasis on rewarding senior executives is ridiculous to put it bluntly. What got us here? And what are we angry about? High senior executive comp programs paying out for poor judgment, lack of insight and lack of listening to up and coming ‘talent’ in their organizations. To put power into the hands of a few executives totally focused on financial performance would reproduce exactly what went wrong – a focus on short term economics to the exclusion of building companies with excellent people throughout who all contribute and give the organization hope of surviving the inevitable departures of a few senior people.

Is it or …or both?

EVA or Economic Value Added schemes have tended to justify growing senior executive bonuses out of proportion to overall viability of their organizations – the very things that got us here. They’re not evil by themselves, but in the hands of senior executives who design their payouts for their own benefit, they are fatal. And Emotional Quotient (EQ), better thought of as ‘people skills’ are what has been lacking.

The current economic crisis may make us think about dollar signs everywhere for the moment, but it shouldn’t blind us to the fact that ignoring people and what they think – customers, the public and, yes, staff, too – has been the hallmark of those companies who fail far more than their ignorance of numerical calculations. If they’ve failed the grade on the numbers it’s not because they were spending all their time on people issues. It’s because they forgot that numbers have to make sense to and benefit human beings not just executives. So forget building your hopes around pure ‘bean-counters’ holed up in ivory towers gilded with senior executive privilege. This is exactly the time when we need leaders with a wide, balanced understanding of ALL the issues they face.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: 1 Balance - Judgment, 3 Strategic - Thinking, Business/Strategy, Fix The Jerks, Leaders of the Future

The Zen of Leadership and HR

Author: Dave Crisp

17 Mar

Sometimes it pays to take some time off. In the Internet blogging world, that’s easy to do. All you need to do is lose focus a bit and ‘zip’ you’ve let the weeks go by without a post.

I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. We’re so overloaded that just skimming the regular newsletters, ads and emails from sites I’ve joined takes more time than I care to think about. Sometimes taking a break allows for a re-orientation of your thinking. That’s why Google encourages their people do take a day a week or so to spend on their own projects exclusively.

In the last few weeks, I’ve developed some new insights (new for me at least) into leadership and HR and what’s really happening with them. First I realize that I’m intrigued to continue working in the area because it poses Zen-like paradoxes – so simple, yet so frustratingly difficult to coach people in. I was getting down about this without stopping to define what it really was. The fact is this is the intrigue and the frustration simultaneously – the two aren’t separable. It’s reassuring to know that leadership and HR are developing on their own without depending solely on me to show the changes and the benefits. But that, too, can be frustrating. We never want to be left behind or bypassed. Ego!

I realized also that one way to think about HR is as Human Relations instead of Human Resources. I’ve always avoided that terminology, thinking it was really a mistake people were making, like the difference between ‘moot’ and ‘mute,’ which are often confused. Now I’m coming to believe that if we called what we do in organizations ‘human relations’ or ‘human relations management practices’ we’d actually get ourselves closer to being understood. I’m going to explore this in further posts.

In the mean time I’ve gone back to reading (and now writing) in these areas with renewed energy to pursue them from a Zen-paradox point of view that I’d lost touch with. This link will be one I’ll pursue and comment on, mentioned in Workforce Management today, now that I’m back scanning again: it’s at Compensation Force.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

0 Comments

Filed under: 2 Positive - Feelings, 3 Strategic - Thinking, 4 Honest - Finding Reality, Time Management

Archive for March, 2009

A Revival of “Why We Hate HR”

“Staff” and “Headcount” or “Talent?”

The Zen of Leadership and HR

Blog Categories

Recent Comments

Site Pages/Articles

Blogroll

Archives