Comments on: Answers To The Outsourcing Rant http://www.balance-and-results.com/answers-to-the-outsourcing-rant.html Effectiveness in Human Resources, Leadership and Personal Success Strategies Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:50:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Dave Crisp http://www.balance-and-results.com/answers-to-the-outsourcing-rant.html/comment-page-1#comment-21 Dave Crisp Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:21:01 +0000 http://www.balance-and-results.com/?p=86#comment-21 Thanks again Darren. Yes, we're on the same wavelength. Outsourcing is definitely a key for many items, but just not "everything." I've always said most HR "departments" (one or more people) miss the boat if they don't have an outsource specialist who can become expert in purchasing specialty services. They need to be able to relate to the "soft" skills expert(s) who can assess what fits the culture and will work because there are so many shades of offerings out there it's easy to buy one that won't fit. I completely agree with the need for increased flexibility that having lots of exert outside partners provides so you can fit into changing demands - and I agree the US is likely the furthest advanced in how this works best. Still lots of companies make mistakes so there's clearly lots to learn. I've often had the same feeling about 50 or less (some say 100 or less, which is pretty big), but there's also going to be the companies that simply are much bigger by scale to serve their markets, like Southwest Air - hard to see how they could serve as well with only 50 people... but 50 or so in key units definitely... and then some way of holding them together and developing a consistent culture. Thanks again Darren. Yes, we’re on the same wavelength. Outsourcing is definitely a key for many items, but just not “everything.” I’ve always said most HR “departments” (one or more people) miss the boat if they don’t have an outsource specialist who can become expert in purchasing specialty services. They need to be able to relate to the “soft” skills expert(s) who can assess what fits the culture and will work because there are so many shades of offerings out there it’s easy to buy one that won’t fit. I completely agree with the need for increased flexibility that having lots of exert outside partners provides so you can fit into changing demands – and I agree the US is likely the furthest advanced in how this works best. Still lots of companies make mistakes so there’s clearly lots to learn.

I’ve often had the same feeling about 50 or less (some say 100 or less, which is pretty big), but there’s also going to be the companies that simply are much bigger by scale to serve their markets, like Southwest Air – hard to see how they could serve as well with only 50 people… but 50 or so in key units definitely… and then some way of holding them together and developing a consistent culture.

]]> By: Darren Dasburg http://www.balance-and-results.com/answers-to-the-outsourcing-rant.html/comment-page-1#comment-20 Darren Dasburg Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:38:36 +0000 http://www.balance-and-results.com/?p=86#comment-20 Now I think we have delved a little deeper. The role of coaching and inspiring leaders to better run organizations is a critical role and not synonomous with "HR". In fact I believe no company has successfully outsourced HR in full as I see in nearly every company and even those who claim to be fully outsourced holding a residual staff with HR titles and quite often an executive with an HR title. All companies need to accept that sourcing is a critical question and that in some way there will always be a mix of inside and outside people getting the total program done. I highly advise companies to consider a Chief Resource Officer responsible for matching human resources to each business process. In this role the essential equation of matching industry and market opportunities to core and non core practices is what separates the great companies from the average. What it inherently says is that companies have to shift and change at a moments notice. Having a universe of talent to pull from is the secret. From the days of Adam Smith economies have always advanced to the point of specialization of trade. The conglomerate large companies of today and this past sixty or so years are really a blip on the history of economics. Today with lots of pressure from a global economy we are again seeing the strains of large organizations who can not work as efficiently as the independent small company. Given that we are all much more connected in ways that some argue are good as well as bad, (email still bothers me) America especially has an opportunity to regain some of the strengths we had once upon a time. Small groups of fifty or less professionals or specialists are my prediction for the most efficient business machines of the future. So bringing it all home, I agree that payroll, benefits management, performance planning, and dozens of other "HR" centric tasks can be bought competitively. I do believe that critically focused resource experts and people with a true affinity for organizational chemistries are required in the mix of the executive circle to drive the highest results. The alchemist in all of us is necessary to create the best mixtures. It's our job to shake things up continually and not let this great country fall from grace. The US has created more worldwide econmic activity then any other country. The world needs us. Now I think we have delved a little deeper. The role of coaching and inspiring leaders to better run organizations is a critical role and not synonomous with “HR”. In fact I believe no company has successfully outsourced HR in full as I see in nearly every company and even those who claim to be fully outsourced holding a residual staff with HR titles and quite often an executive with an HR title.

All companies need to accept that sourcing is a critical question and that in some way there will always be a mix of inside and outside people getting the total program done. I highly advise companies to consider a Chief Resource Officer responsible for matching human resources to each business process. In this role the essential equation of matching industry and market opportunities to core and non core practices is what separates the great companies from the average. What it inherently says is that companies have to shift and change at a moments notice. Having a universe of talent to pull from is the secret.

From the days of Adam Smith economies have always advanced to the point of specialization of trade. The conglomerate large companies of today and this past sixty or so years are really a blip on the history of economics. Today with lots of pressure from a global economy we are again seeing the strains of large organizations who can not work as efficiently as the independent small company. Given that we are all much more connected in ways that some argue are good as well as bad, (email still bothers me) America especially has an opportunity to regain some of the strengths we had once upon a time. Small groups of fifty or less professionals or specialists are my prediction for the most efficient business machines of the future.

So bringing it all home, I agree that payroll, benefits management, performance planning, and dozens of other “HR” centric tasks can be bought competitively. I do believe that critically focused resource experts and people with a true affinity for organizational chemistries are required in the mix of the executive circle to drive the highest results. The alchemist in all of us is necessary to create the best mixtures. It’s our job to shake things up continually and not let this great country fall from grace. The US has created more worldwide econmic activity then any other country. The world needs us.

]]>