Apparently it's people that are the most important part of any organisation. If that's the case, and I'm almost sure that it is, why is it that the function that is supposedly the one that has the expertise and insight around managing this commodity- HR- is in a constant state of crisis about what its supposed to be about?
Much of HR still remains stuck in a self-serving-hide-behind-process dogmatism which does the function nor the businesses it is supposed to support any favours whatsoever. Running businesses are all about the management of risk- not the avoidance of it, which has been the modus operandi of many poor HR functions.
There is undoubtedly a lack of commercial acumen amongst many HR practitioners: knowing employment law, recruitment policy and how to run a consultation with employee representatives is important. So is reading a balance sheet, understanding return on capital employed and knowing what it is your company does in the marketplace.
The sooner the profession gets this and moves out of chin stroking and navel gazing, the better for the function, employees and shareholders alike.
Interesting post. A few thoughts to share.
ReplyDeleteI look at HR as being responsible for broadly managing the human resource in an organisation. Tautology possibly, but it sometimes feels that it's a point worth reiterating since it helps give focus and purpose to the activities.
Broadly then, there are 2 aspects to this human resource management. It means managing the people information or more commonly these days, providing the framework for employee and manager self-service so that the people information manages itself. I think this is a positive step -- it's efficient, it empowers employees and it frees up talented HR practioners from being SAP administrators into the 2nd aspect
Managing the human resource should mean proving policy, procedure and best practice that oils the machinery of the business.
HRs job is to help the business get the best out of its people