Kevin J Ball: If I could change one thing about HR...

Point well made, Kevin. I do wonder if navel gazing will become a luxury in these more austere times or if it's simply too ingrained?

I watch the HR and national press avidly and have worked with many HR people - the ones I'm closest to don't seem to be introspective at all - they just roll their sleeves up to deal with their particular challenges, board level or not.

Kay Phelps, PRforHR

Thanks very much for taking the time to comment, Kay, and for making the point that HR professionals are most likely to be found rolling their sleeves up to deal with the challenges that come their way on a daily basis.

As I mention in a recent XpertHR video, 2010 benchmarking research from XpertHR on HR roles and responsibilities clearly shows that UK HR has come out fighting in response to the challenges posed by the recession.

There is every reason to expect it to continue to do so, whether faced with economic recovery or a double-dip recession.

Thanks also to Kevin for contributing such a fine post to kick off our new series of guest posts! Over the coming weeks, we'll be publishing two or three guest posts per week, each addressing the topic: "If I could change one thing about HR..."

Kind regards

Michael

Enjoyed your post, Kevin. It is good to get the view from someone who has also worked in other business functions. HRDs I have spoken to are just getting on with the job - there doesn't seem to be too much time to be navel gazing. Maybe the CIPD needs to focus less on the navel gazing stuff!

Hi Kevin,

I agree with much of what you say. But diverge when you point the finger of blame at the CIPD. Now, when I tell you I head up PR at the CIPD, that probably won’t surprise you. But bear with me.

I’m not an HR person. But I have been doing my job at the CIPD for over 7 years now, and as such I consider myself one of the defenders in chiefs of the HR profession, with a pretty good amateur perspective. From my vantage point I know I have written many a time railing against XpertHR’s comrades in arms at Personnel Today, making exactly the same charge you are making.

I absolutely agree that HR has an unfortunate tendency for navel gazing, bordering on self-loathing at times. And those that write about it professionally have a horrible tendency to amplify and encourage it.

But I can assure you that the leadership at the CIPD are absolutely clear that “doing the day job” excellently is the absolute pre-requisite for any talk about greater strategic contribution. Our work looking at the future of HR is not about forgetting about today in order to focus on some kind of utopian future where HR lounges around on sofas dispensing words of wisdom. Because that won’t come. What we are saying is that we, as a professional body, working with senior HR leaders, have a duty to look beyond the horizon some of the time to anticipate future business needs, so we and our successors in the profession are equipped to meet those needs. Because there’s no reaching the point over the horizon and finding we should have been preparing differently five years ago.

You are, of course, right to argue that not all functions need to be strategic. And it is also true that not everyone in HR needs to be strategic all the time. But one only needs to look at the financial crisis, and the fact that it was born in good measure of far too many people being recruited in a common image and incentivised to do the wrong things for the sustainable future of the business (and indeed the global economy) to realise that something of a more strategic business focus in HR, together with greater courage to challenge, is very far from navel gazing. It is absolutely crucial to that all important future for HR. Because if the people part of the picture can’t play a major part in shaping the future of organisations, the future for many of us may not see so much “business as usual”.

Forgive the quick "layman's perspective". If anyone is interested in a more polished look at all this, please do take a look at the CIPD's Next Gen HR research, at www.cipd.co.uk/nextgen

Robert Blevin
Head of External Affairs
CIPD

Well written piece but I believe a completely invalid argument. Most people realise, if only intuitively, that organisations today manage to tap only a small proportion of their peoples' potential. The opportunities of a more strategic approach are huge. This isn't necessarily the same in facilities and accounting. It's why conversation about potentially new approaches (which could, if relevant, include Transcendental Coaching), and especially, better outcomes, is so important. The only insane thing would be to ignore this opportunity.

@rob - great to see your thoughts. What I was going to say touches on your thoughts and those of Jon's too.

When I read this post I was wondering who will be writing the guest post about the role HR has in transforming the business (that's the procative/creative/questioning role, not the role that ensures the business keeps its nose clean)in the sense of getting the most out of the workforce. Call it strategy, call it what you like, but there is a job to be done here (and others outside of HR are starting to do it).

@jon . . . am going to look up transcendental coaching :-)

Thank you so much for all the input so far, and for getting such an interesting debate going around Kevin's excellent initial post.

Robert - it's particularly heartening to see your comment here. It's very much appreciated that you would take the time to engage with CIPD members here on the XpertHR blog. I particularly like your closing point, that "if the people part of the picture can’t play a major part in shaping the future of organisations, the future for many of us may not see so much 'business as usual.'"

Jon - I look forward to your own entry in this series, and I for one can't wait to see if you expand further on your point here about the "insanity" of ignoring the potential for HR to pursue a more strategic future.

Oh, and Martin - Mr Ball informs me that the concept of transcendental coaching (for refuse collectors) is one of his own devise... but do please let me know if you find anything on this topic! It would be very interesting indeed if it does exist somewhere out there.

Kind regards

Michael

Apologies - props to Kevin for inventing a new variant of coaching.

I think strategy, forward thinking and scenario planning are all very important, but much more so at the level of the organisation as a whole than at the level of the HR function. When all is said and done, HR is a support function and it takes its cue from the strategy and tactics, and the culture, of the employing organisations in which it works. An organisation's approach to people management is the responsibility of its senior leadership, CEO, directors, shareholders, or Government in the public sector. Of course the HR profession has a role to play but ultimately the issue of how organisations can engage their people to achieve their objectives belongs to - and should be owned by - the organisation itself, its leaders and all its stakeholders, not just the HR team. The role of HR is, yes, to participate in the strategy process, but crucially then to manage delivery, using the tools and techniques at its disposal. All of which puts me somewhere on the fence between Kevin and Jon.

Bravo - what a refreshing display of substance. The word "strategy" does often seem to be used as a proxy for actually saying something meaningful. Furthermore, shouldn't the most important part of an HR strategy be actually doing the job you're paid to do, rather than talking about it?

I'm also enjoying the comments. Blevin's defence of HR's fatuous strategising is extraordinary. Is he really suggesting that a more strategic HR could have done anything to prevent the sub-prime crisis?

Those firms were trading billions of dollars worth of derivatives - in a market with fundamentally flawed incentives; with rating agencies that could not and would not do their job; in a world where a handful of people saw it coming - certainly with enough confidence to profit from it.

To suggest a more innovative HR function could have changed the direction of Bear Stearns et al's trading strategy is at best ill-informed, at worst disingenuous.

That comment is a far more urgent argument for HR's desisting from strategising than the blog itself.

David, HR's only a support function if that's all it wants to be. If people really are an organisation's most important asset, then there's no reason (other than HR's own limited aspirations) why HR can't be a driver for business success.

Stephen, I don't think Robert Blevin was saying this, but I certainly have and will. There are plenty of people in banking HR who have long understood the dysfunctional nature of their organisations but have failed to challenge this. And I don't personally believe that the fact everyone else was (and is) failing to do so is an excuse.

The key to success of organisations today and to the avoidance of their one-off or systemic failure is strategic HR.

OK Jon, we do have a genuine disagreement then. The HR function cannot become whatever it wants to be. It is not being held back only by its own limited vision of what's possible. In fact it is constrained by the environment in which it operates, which dictates absolute limits on what's possible. Ultimately HR can only ever play the role it is permitted to play by the wider organisation and especially the organisation's top leadership. That's why HR has only ever been and can only ever be a support function. The HR department will never lead the organisation just as the CEO will never report to the HRD. That doesn't mean HR can't help drive success for the organisation. It can do so, yes, by contributing to strategy (along with other departments on an equal footing) but, especially, through delivery.

"That's why HR has only ever been and can only ever be a support function. The HR department will never lead the organisation".

Well, thank God for that! All departments on an equal footing? What, with HR? That WOULD bring down HR, wouldn't it.

I suggest that ALL HR personnel are REQUIRED to undertake decent QUALIFICATIONS relevant to their "profession". After all, you wouldn't want people who failed maths in the accounts dept. Or illiterates writing the company magazine.

Luckily, I'm retired now but over, say, the last 25 or more years there has been a lack of QUALIFIED professionals in Pesonnel. It's now thought of (by many of my younger acquaintances)to be a "Glam" job. It's certainly inordinately powerful for most companies' own good. Who allowed that?

The failings of the banking industry is not an “excuse” for the disaster in the banking system; I was merely making the point that theorising that a more strategically-minded HR could have steered these massive organisations away from a pervasive industry failing by hiring the right people is naive. First, there were hardly any of these people around, and, second, HR does not have the authority or the knowledge to make these decisions – and nor should it. Anybody who could see the collapse of the sub-prime market coming is not going to be working in HR.

Furthermore, to borrow a phrase, it is not even wrong. It’s completely unprovable, and if it really is the best defence the CIPD has for its focus on strategy, it is a worthless one.

Also, we should remember what the original blog said, which was that if Kevin could change one thing about HR it would be to stop its constant navel-gazing. He didn’t say HR should not play any kind of strategic role within an organisation, rather that it is unnecessary for it to be constantly pondering its own existence.

There is nothing in this that suggests HR people should not be able to do things such as planning ways to hire and keep the best staff – in short, engaging in useful strategic thinking. Not asking what HR’s role will be in the future does not preclude its doing a good job now.

Perhaps the HR staff at big banks were too busy plotting to gain control of the bond desk’s trading strategies to do their job.

At last, this is music to my ears! As an HR Transformation Consultant implementing HR Shared Services I have spent far too long debating how "HR can become more strategic", when infact the HR function in question are probably unable to pay people on time and accurately, provide new starters with a correct contracts and process redundancies in a quick and efficient manner (just to name a few). If HR want to be seen as strategic, they need to get their operations right first time, and cost effective, before anyone at Board Level will respect a strategic contribution. How do HR contribute most to the bottom line? They do things with speed, simplicity and transparency at minimal cost. The day job should never be undervalued!

Helen Armstrong
HR Consultant

Thank heavens you've retired. The Personnel department probably hung its boots up some time ago too. The personnel function, performing the routine admin tasks that other department heads didn't want to touch, was indeed an arena for the unqualified, but long serving administrator, without any strategic input or organisational clout.

Personally, I found the professional route to full CIPD qualification neither easy or underrated. Illiterate and inumerate individuals will always find post grad qualifications difficult to acheive, and without the full CIPD qualification, such people will have little success in this field.

When I saw the title of "If I could change one thing about HR" I thought about it before clicking onto the link. My thoughts had absolutely mirrored Kevin J Ball's thoughts.

I worked for an organisation who considered that "doing the day job well" was more important to the role than having a qualification from the CIPD and whilst I self-funded three years of CIPD study myself I did not complete the final year of the graduate qualification due to financial and personal reasons. Doing the day job well by the way, did include strategic contribution where necessary.

Now I unfortunately find myself in an organisation where they DO consider having full graduateship of the CIPD important, even though my role profile states, "CIPD qualification OR equivalent experience". Because of that my FTC will not be made permanent, so I have to take issue with the statement by Robert Blevin, "the leadership at the CIPD are absolutely clear that “doing the day job” excellently is the absolute pre-requisite for any talk about greater strategic contribution".

I now find that if I want to gain the graduate qualification by work related assessment it is heavily biased towards strategic contribution and demonstrable proof of that.

I have been in HR for 12 years now and have already been recognised in my current post (after 6 months) for an outstanding piece of work but the obsession with CIPD status continues. In fact, our most knowledgeable member of staff, to whom everyone refers for their difficult cases, has never been near the CIPD!

I have also found that those who are highly qualified CIPD tend to be so caught up in their greatness that they have completely lost sight of what true HR is about; the people.

So I would change two things in HR; one as per Kevin's post and the other to recognise experience and expertise as well as CIPD qualifications.

Blimey, that's alot of words. Don't know how we find time to do our jobs among all this. What I'd say is that the HR elements of companies we've seen that have been the most impressive are those that create the very best energy between their people. When the energy is right between people, mountains become molehills - not the other way round. Process, theory, strategy, head-skills and big words can have very important roles, but what's more powerful is how people respond to each other in each blink. The very best people we've met don't describe themselves as 'HR', 'Personnel' or 'L&D', they instead talk about what they transform with their people. If there were 1 thing I'd change about HR, it'd be to remove the assumptions and limitations some in HR impose on themselves - and instead do something transformational for colleagues. Those who have done this now have incredible reputations - not as 'HR' people, but as people leaders.

Thank you for an interesting debate. From my point of view having had lots of contact or roles within HR, I think they have forgotten they deal with people. CV's and Strategies and business plans need to be in the context that it's human beings, behaviour and basic needs that need looking after.

Businesses that have 'true quality service' in their genes treat people well, understand when people have a personal crisis and recognise valiant service efforts when delivered. These businesses stand out for me. Otherwise many HR departments are just paranoid about doing it wrong or upsetting the main 'production' departments.

Terry Purkiss

There's (co-incidentally) a little more about how HR can move from being a support function to a strategic driver of success towards the end of this video that Craig Endicott recorded recently:

http://www.stepstonesolutions.com/Blogs/HCM/talent-crowd-interview-jon-ingham

I am always disappointed to see the low opinion which many people seem to hold of HR.

HR can make a very significant contribution to the running of a business, in the same way that any administrative function, such as IT or Finance, can make a significant contribution.

HR's day job is to effectively run 'maintenance' on an organisation's employees. This is the same as asking IT to keep the computers running and Finance to file accounts on time.

However, would you then tell IT that you don't want them to look at the organisation's future equipment requirements, that the business would tell them when it needed it? Would you tell Finance that you don't need anyone to work with managers on their budgeting?

That approach advocates 'fire-fighting', as the organisation would be waiting until an issue has become apparent and serious, before then asking for a solution to be found. IT and Finance teams can improve the running of an organisation significantly, by being proactive, working with line managers and the top management team to identify business needs, keep them in focus and provide specialist insight and expertise.

Why then, is there this clear reluctance to recognise that the same may be true of HR? Why is there no need for a group to be proactively working with line managers and the top management team to identify business needs around the employees, keep these issues in focus and provide specialsit insight and expertise in these areas?

David Shepherd highlights in his comment that "ultimately the issue of how organisations can engage their people to achieve their objectives belongs to - and should be owned by - the organisation itself". I agree that HR should not try and impose a strategy unilaterally on an organisation, as that would be doomed to failure. But HR can be 'strategic' and be the force that creates discussion around an organisation's people and keeps this incredibly vital resource in the minds of senior management.

I'll step down from my soapbox now, as this became a little more impassioned than I had expected. My final thought is simply that I have been part of an HR team that focussed solely on the day job, waiting to be told what to do by managers when a serious problem had come up, and it was a very poorly regarded part of the organisation. I then watched that same team transformed into a proactive and strategic one by an inspirational HR manager. By this I mean that we sought out minor issues before they became serious and advised and prompted discussion among the senior management of issues that they had not yet considered. This revitalised team became highly praised and regarded by employees and managers through the business. And we did the 'day job' better than we used to.

As a non HR person who observes and writes about it for magazines (a bit like the PR person from CIPD) I think I would like HR to be a bit less breathless when confronted with the latest ideas from the States. Many of these are culturally biased, and not backed up by replicable research studies. The focus on engagement (particularly interesting when organisations are cutting employees in droves)is one such fad.

I find plenty of bright, well educated individuals in HR who don't seem to value their own experience but are swayed (or is it the CEO who is swayed...?) by the latest claims of nirvana from North America. I have assumed that it is lack of confidence that pushes HR in the UK to use models, programmes and diagnostics which really, don't suit the majority of British firms. So I'd like a bit more confidence and a bit more reflection on practice.

So to go back to the post - I agree. Reflection on practice is one thing, reflection on position (including whether HR has a seat on the boatd) is another. Navel gazing simply gives you a crick in the neck, eventually.

Michael - thanks for the entertaining and thought provoking post! I'm not in HR - my background is marketing communications and branding - particularly around employer branding and engagement. As an 'outsider', I've always had a lot of respect for the HR profession and have worked with fantastic HR departments who are not only 'efficient' but also 'strategic'. Why strategic?

Business leaders are quickly recognising that managing talent is critical to success. Employees have networks. If all employees understood what the company did, why and who for they become natural brand advocates. That means in this 'socially networked' society, you don't just have to rely on sales to find new customers - your employees can help! You don't have to always publish expensive recruitment techniques to find new talent - your employees can help!

I believe that the employee network presents an opportunity for businesses to save money and make money. If I could change one thing about HR? I would like to see them work more closely with Marketing to get employees actively engaged in the brand and perhaps even contributing revenue to the organisation.

Thank you very much indeed for taking the time to comment, Sarah (and indeed, might I please extend this sentiment to everybody else that has added their comments above since my earlier appearance in the comments list, 'upthread', as it were).

All credit for this blog post and for the ensuing discussion must go to Kevin J Ball, for kicking our guest post series off in fine style. It's hugely inspiring to see such an impassioned discussion building, and I hope that future guest posts in this series will engender further debate.

Your call for a greater convergence between HR and Marketing functions is both interesting and timely. Timely because, by coincidence, our friends at the Stopgap Group have recently had much to say on this subject, and are right now conducting a short survey on the overlap (or otherwise) between Marketing and HR.

Thanks once again for your input into the debate here (and that goes, once again, for everyone that has contributed a comment so far). It is hugely appreciated.

Kind regards

Michael

Some very interesting points have been made. The discussion has got me thinking more about HR’s role in business. I am a manager and have been for 20 years. My background is in HR and if anyone asked me my job, I would say HR. I am currently part of the senior management team in a digital agency. I therefore participate in all senior management decisions. I need to understand all the business challenges and I need to be thinking alongside my fellow senior managers about where the company should be in five years time. My people skills are put to good use in advising other managers in the company. That advice stems primarily from appreciating what the business needs, where I see myself as an equal contributor to others on the team.

Perhaps this will strike some as too simplistic but for me that is what is meant when the CIPD (of which I am a member), or anyone else for that matter, go on about HR thinking more strategically. It does not mean just because you participate in such business matters, that you somehow ignore the ‘day to day’ functions of HR. Nor does it mean that you can avoid taking joint responsibility for major problems that can happen in business, such as how to respond to a ‘BP oil spill’ situation.

I want to revert to the comments Adam made about the fact that HR can be strategic and a support function. It is true that all functions of a business are there in some capacity to provide support. If not, then why do they exist? However the two are not mutually exclusive. Any strategic plan that doesn't take into account an organisation’s Human Capital element is, in my humble opinion, flawed.
Having said this, the drive to get a seat on the board for the recognition it supposedly gives to the function is more than likely wasted effort. I recently had a meeting with a businessman who had in his time run some very large organisations. He never once had an HRD, but that didn't stop him from realising the great strategic benefit HR played in the organisation. He didn't move without fully exploring the HR element. Back to other comments about transactional HR and its importance. We have to get the day job right too. In this way, being a support function is vital. If we get too wrapped up in strategy and lose a grip on the day to day work, it will be people that suffer. So, HR can be and must be both. I can't help feeling that there is a degree of 'self loathing' that the profession is trying to exorcise in this constant round of 'What are we here for?'

I've really enjoyed this thread. Keep it coming.

Kind regards.
Matt.

Can I just come back in on the strategy issue? Let’s take the private sector. Is success in the marketplace all about a company’s HR strategy? Really? Without wishing to play down the role of great HR within a business, this is not the sole or even usually the main determinant of commercial success. There are other sources of competitive advantage that drive success and these are connected with wider strategic choices that businesses make – whether to be a low cost producer and compete predominantly on price, whether to differentiate products and services and compete on uniqueness and brand, whether to focus attention on particular market niches and segments … and so forth.

Ultimately it is these kinds of strategic decisions and their delivery that will determine whether a business is successful in the marketplace. An HR strategy aligned with this wider business strategy will certainly help and may make a difference in highly competitive markets, but it is only one dimension, not the be-all and end-all. Strategy isn’t all about HR – never has been, never will be.

I’m not saying HR strategy isn’t important. I am saying that it necessarily needs to be a subsidiary aspect of the wider business strategy. Nor am I saying that HR professionals can’t contribute to the wider business strategy – just that they are not going to get very far if their pitch is that an organisation’s strategy has to be all about HR, when patently it doesn’t.

HR has to be about helping an organisation achieve its objectives and deliver on its strategy – not the other way round. To me this means that HR is a support function, contributing to strategy but not its sole or main guardian. In the private sector that role belongs to the CEO, the board (yes, including the HRD) and the owners/shareholders.

This is an interesting discussion, and I agree with the broad points made by Kevin and David. HR is a support function – an important and often crucial support function, but a support function nonetheless – there to assist the decision makers in an organisation, which is the executive body. That body may choose to take input from HR on certain things, and it may delegate certain things (even strategic things!), but HR is not there to make the big decisions, it’s there to do what the executive allows or tells it to.

Jon opines, “the key to success of organisations today and to the avoidance of their one-off or systemic failure is strategic HR.” The sentiment has a nice ring to it (and I always enjoy the word “systemic”), but it’s patently untrue. The keys to an organisation’s success are myriad, but to posit HR as the central and ultimate arbiter for success or failure is demonstrably ridiculous. This view seems to be indicative of a lot of the self-analytical (or “naval-gazing”) literature written about the HR profession by (naturellement) the HR profession itself (or more correctly, by certain elements of the HR profession, as with very few exceptions the many HR people I’ve done business with all seem to just get on with what they’re actually supposed to be doing).

I’m not entirely sure of the reason for the somewhat grandiose posturing demonstrated by Jon’s statement about HR being the nexus of success. I think the most obvious candidate is an (unnecessary) strive for legitimacy among more traditional and established professions. Employment law generally, which is the raison d’etre for the HR profession itself (without employment law, you just need good people-management, and one doesn’t need a “profession” or any self-regulated qualifications for that), is (relatively speaking) a new development, and the endless discussion among (what may be a small yet vocal minority of) HR professionals about where their profession fits in, and how deeply misunderstood it is, carries a paranoid subtext of insecurity and self-justification.

Take, for example, Adam’s observation that he is “always disappointed to see the low opinion which many people seem to hold of HR”. No-one I’ve ever dealt with, in many years working in and around the HR profession, has a low opinion of the HR profession other than what appears to be a common observation that HR has a propensity to think it’s more important than it really is. I’m sure organisations’ cleaners don’t worry and speculate inordinately about what people think about them, or how they could turn their employer’s business around if only they were given the chance; what matters is that they do their jobs properly. And if anyone in HR is THAT unhappy about the perceived limitations placed on their profession or ability to be a “driver for success”, they can always try doing something else.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not denigrating HR; as indicated above, what’s ironic is that this self-justification is entirely unnecessary: HR has an extremely important role to play, now more than ever given the ever-increasing gamut of domestic and European employment law. But instead of the introspective analysis about what HR could accomplish if only the yoke was lifted (exemplified neatly and handily above by the apparent suggestion that HR could have avoided the subprime mortgage crisis – if only everyone had listened!), the profession would do best to focus on the immediate tasks in hand which, judging by the ever-increasing number of tribunal claims, will occupy it for some time yet.

I don't normally like to comment on the same blog post more than a couple of times so apologies, but I do need to pick up on my points about the centrality of Strategic HR being described as patently untrue.

They're simply not. I don't mind someone disagreeing with me, but I do wish people would at least acknowledge there is a valid debate to be had. After all, it's not just me who has these opinions.

Take Vineet Nayar, who I met recently (you can find an article on the meeting on Personnel Today as well as my own two blogs). His focus on people as differentiation, on the how of the organisation as blue ocean strategy, is all about strategic HR. And it's absolutely the most important aspect of HCLT's success. OK, Nayar is a CEO not an HR Director, but there's nothing to stop an HRD from leading similar changes in their own organisation.

And I don't think you need a CEO who is as much a visionary as Nayar to do this. Take that old phrase 'people are our most important asset'. If your CEO says thus, or something similar, then I'd suggest one of two things. Either he / she doesn't mean it, in which case they'd be well advised to stop saying it. Or they mean it and want something to happen as a result. It has to have consequences. And I think that these are:

1. People management ie HR practices do become central to business strategy
2. The HR department has to start acting like a strategic driver of success, not just a support function.

You're talking about THE most important asset, remember!

I'm due to do a post in these series myself sometime over the next few weeks, so I'll write / talk more about strategic HR, and HR's contribution and accountability, as well as any futher comments on thus post then.

It is hard to do justice to all the great comments here without spending half a day or more, but its great to see everyone's thoughts and some real, live, honest to goodness diagreements!

My own thought is that the comments above just confirm that HR is coming to the end of its innovation trajectory (http://tinyurl.com/32a49bj). It is getting commoditised.

This piece (http://systematichr.com/?p=1440) talks about *some* new thoughts but I think this is more re-hashing than outright innovation. It feels like extending existing trends and may well define the natural limits of Talent Management. A high water mark perhaps?

If I could change one thing about HR, it would be to help HR and people managers as a whole solve new, future orientated, predictive problems that to date have been left untouched.

#disruptHR anyone? http://tinyurl.com/35z2xka

If I could change one thing about HR… it would be the (hopefully small) element of HR people who pretend they’re not really doing HR but something altogether much cooler. I think it’s been termed HR denial.

I also agree with Kevin’s comments – it does seem to be a particular anxiety of the HR profession to keep over-reflecting on itself in order to find its true meaning.

HR is a support service and we must be qualified in our field and able to work both operationally and strategically.

Extended discussions about important and fascinating topics like this one give the impression of attempting to 'think our way into a new way of acting'. Perhaps we would be better trying to 'act our way into a new way of thinking' and demonstrate how HR's role in the business improves Customer Satisfaction, Employee Satisfaction and Organisation Capability.
People are NOT the organisation's most important asset!!! Many are a significant liability and hinder innovation and progress. We need the RIGHT people with the right CAPABILITIES engaged in the BEST SYSTEMS of work. The HR function has an important role in shaping this model and process and making it happen through line managers.
If I could change something about HR it would be for HR to become a centre of excellence in the areas of Systemic Thinking, Performance Measurement and Improvement Strategy.
Thanks for the 'heated debate' and best wishes from another HR professional who has lived in Sales, Marketing and Operations before emigrating to HR.

I've just had a look at Bruce's link. It's a quite interesting build on Handy's S curves / Grove's inflextion points. Of course one of the key ideas behind S curves was that although S curves run out, there are alwsys new ones to be found. Perhaps one of the things behind the different perspectives in these comments is which curve we're focused on?

@jon a new S curve for HR for me consists of solving new problems and proably problems that aren't really being talked about at the moment, but which nevertheless impact on both people and financial performance in equal measure... #crystalball anyone?

I was sat in an olive grove last week reading the passionate comments on this and other posts in the series on an iPhone. Sunshine and sybaritism let me blame the lack of a decent network for not replying sooner but I did feel as if I’d lobbed a hand grenade at the profession and run away while the shrapnel flew. Let me put myself back in the line of fire.

My original post argued two things: as a profession, HR is too inward looking and, as a profession, there is too much chat about ‘strategy’ and not enough concentration on efficiency and effectiveness. Reading the comments I see broad agreement with the first point and lots of argument about the second one so let me concentrate this comment there. Firstly, thank you to Stephen Perry who noticed on the 11th August that I was not arguing against the presence of people strategy per se. As an HRD and as a consultant I carried responsibility for developing and implementing people strategy in various organisations over 14 years, so arguing against its value would be a little cynical, even for me. What I was arguing against is the endless and inappropriate use of ‘strategy’ in an attempt to find a grander role for the HR function than is always necessary. Let me be really plain: process efficiency is the minimum requirement of the HR profession and, as Helen Armstrong’s comment points out, we often fail to deliver. Further, in some industries or organisations, some of the time process efficiency is all that is required and to that extent, I agree with David Shepherd’s estimation of HR’s role as a supporter to rather than leader of the business. If you think this is wrong, put yourself in front of the Board of, say, a construction business right now and watch them laugh you out of the room before you’ve finished saying ‘strategic human resources’.

To repeat: I don’t argue that people strategy is anything other than relevant or desirable in some organisations some of the time but Robert Blevin and Jon Ingham seem to argue for a general application which I find difficult. I admire their passion but wonder that perhaps they protest too much. In citing HR’s inability to influence the banks away from their (recent) crisis, Robert flies in the face of some of the accepted academic reasoning around the profession. Role set theory as explained by the likes of Professor Karen Legge demonstrates that the ability of the HR function to influence the business is partly related to the willingness of the business to be influenced. My MBA SHRM Professor, John Purcell, in research funded by the CIPD demonstrates the ‘supporting, developing, enabling’ role described by Bill Boorman’s post (http://bit.ly/ansNOS) and which runs contrary to the idea that the HR profession is positioned to even spot that the lunatics are running the asylum, never mind stop them. To paraphrase Milton Friedman, the business of banking is banking and to argue ‘if only they’d listened to the HRD’ is a toxic mixture of 20:20 hindsight and otherworldliness that puts the profession in the uncomfortably familiar territory of ‘I told you so’. Jon Ingham’s citing of Vineet Nayar is heartfelt and relevant but it is also relevant that Nayar is an engineer and CEO, not an HRD. Without wishing to overstate my case, I’ve written before about the lack of empiricism around all such visionary organisations (http://bit.ly/dApGSc) – there is, quite simply, no proof that high investment in people practices delivers future organisational performance in the same way that exists for e.g. brand and if anyone can point me to a substantial company now led by it’s ex-HRD they would be sharing interesting news.

I’ve enjoyed the debate and all credit to Michael for sparking it off. Now I’m back from my olive grove I’m happy to take some more flak.

@Kevin

>>>
Further, in some industries or organisations, some of the time process efficiency is all that is required and to that extent, I agree with David Shepherd’s estimation of HR’s role as a supporter to rather than leader of the business. If you think this is wrong, put yourself in front of the Board of, say, a construction business right now and watch them laugh you out of the room before you’ve finished saying ‘strategic human resources’.

I was actually speaking to a HRD in construction recently, the board and wider org. are doing a whole load of development work at the moment - I don't think anyone was laughed out of the room - does that count?