When bad things happen to people, they often go to HR - but HR may well have been the architects of their misfortune. Make no mistake, HR are double-agents, the smiling assassins.This is according to HR consultant Ruth Cornish, who is quoted extensively in an overview of the HR profession in 2011, published in Saturday's Guardian.
In this article, entitled HR: Your friend or your foe?, Guardian consumer desk journalist Mark King asks whether HR is the employee's "friend or foe," and weighs up "the good, bad and downright ugly" of HR.
I would urge all XpertHR readers to read the article in full. I am very interested to find out what you think of this portrayal of HR in the national press as "the smiling assassins" of the modern workplace. Feel free to have your say via the comments box below, or get in touch via Twitter.
More foe than friend?
The Guardian article seeks to be even-handed, presenting anecdotes about caring HR professionals alongside descriptions of badly-handled dismissals and of civil service HR people being "incentivised to get rid of people more cheaply than they were legally entitled to."
Insights into the type of work HR performs in 2011 are provided by Professor Cary Cooper. He describes the evolution of the profession from personnel departments concerned with "what we called pay and rations - hiring, firing, benefits and pensions" into the modern HR profession, which he says developed "after personnel realised it needed to be concerned about the welfare of its employees." Cooper says that the best HR departments are those which "attend to the psychological needs of its people," and seek to "change the culture" in order to provide "added value for employees."
However, the piece as a whole could be argued to focus more on the "bad and downright ugly" aspects than the good. If this article were your only insight into HR, you might be forgiven for thinking that HR was more foe than friend.
It argues that HR displays a tendency toward "siding with management rather than
taking into account the needs of company employees." This is illustrated
by another quotation from Ruth Cornish:
Last week we looked in detail at the gender profile of the HR profession, and found that while HR tends to be dominated by women in terms of numbers, they tend to be heavily concentrated in lower responsibility roles.
This gender imbalance within HR is also addressed in the Guardian article. HR consultant Ruth Cornish is again quoted extensively here. The article says:
The first comes from John Jorgensen. Here's part of John's response:
UPDATE 7 (Friday 3 June 2011): HR consultant Ruth Cornish, who is quoted extensively in the Guardian article, has commented on Twitter that she feels the article has been useful in terms of "stimulating much needed debate, and says that she is "V proud of our profession." She also says:
Ron Hamilton says:
I've been in HR for most of my career and while we were very much there to help initially, that has evolved to the other extreme.The article suggests that from the point at which they are recruited onward, HR professionals exist to do the bidding of the organisation, and to keep employees in line. It says:
One look at an average HR recruitment advert indicates where the responsibilities lie, with job requirements such as "the candidate must align the people agenda with the overall business strategy" and "provide support and guidance to line managers with disciplinary and grievance investigations and hearings."No such thing as a 'decent male HR professional'?
Last week we looked in detail at the gender profile of the HR profession, and found that while HR tends to be dominated by women in terms of numbers, they tend to be heavily concentrated in lower responsibility roles.
This gender imbalance within HR is also addressed in the Guardian article. HR consultant Ruth Cornish is again quoted extensively here. The article says:
[Cornish] adds that many join [the HR profession] from an admin background, which explains why there are so many women in HR (although there are a lot of male HR directors). This is the great irony - that while HR is expected to perform the work demanded by management, the HR sector itself is not seen as the best route into management, which again explains why HR at board level is often filled by directors who have a dual role or come from a business background - in turn, shaping HR in management's interests.Cornish expands on this further in the article's comments field She suggests that there might be no such thing as a "decent" male HR professional. She says:
Honestly in my 23 years in HR hiring a decent male HR professional is rarer than hens teeth.UPDATE 1 (Tuesday 31 May 2011): UK HR Director Mat Davies weighs in on the Guardian article in a post on his newly-launched Heavy Metal HR blog, entitled Is HR the New Banking? Mat has kindly permitted me to quote from his post, but all XpertHR readers should head over to his blog to read what he has to say in full. He says:
There was lots to applaud in the article (as well as lots to hate) but, and it's a big but, choosing one or two (admittedly horrific) examples as evidence that an entire profession- mine own, in this instance- is either corrupt, duplicitous (or both) seemed to me to be a little wide of the mark. There's no doubt that HR has an image problem- and the jobsworth, computer-says-no, pen pusher brigade that so many organisations put up with don't help either- be that employee or management. [...] Although I fundamentally disagreed with the tenor of the article and much of the conclusions- either direct or implied, it did hit on a nerve and a crucial point. Without influence and trust, we can't change a think. We have a lot to do. Let's go to work.UPDATE 2 (Tuesday 31 May 2011): I have started a related discussion over on Focus.com, entitled Is HR the employee's 'friend or foe'? I'm very pleased to report that this discussion has so far attracted two very interesting responses.
The first comes from John Jorgensen. Here's part of John's response:
How HR is preceived is part of the culture of the business and its track record. I guess the answer all boils down to the time old answer....it depends.The second response comes from Dwane Lay. His answer includes the following:
I've always thought that HR was in the unique position of being neither friend nor foe, yet also being both. [...] Maybe not a great place to be, but it sure beats always being the bad guy.UPDATE 3 (Tuesday 31 May 2011): Today's edition of the Guardian includes a letter of response to the article on HR from Unite equality and workplace rep Liz McInnes, who points out the lack of references to trade unions (Thanks to @danbarker for bringing this letter to my attention). McInnes says:
When I was first elected as a workplace TU rep, an HR adviser whose views I respected (yes, there are a few of them) said: "Remember that we are there to advise management and you are there to advise staff. If management have HR present then your members must insist on having a TU rep present." I have lived by this advice ever since. Not all HR advisers are honest enough to admit that their role is to support management, and not staff.UPDATE 4 (Wednesday 1 June 2011): So, HR manager, just who are you working for? This is the title of a brand-new blog post on the Flip Chart Fairy Tales blog, by leading UK HR blogger Rick. In this post - which demands to be read in full - Rick presents a comprehensive demolition of the Guardian article. He says:
For HR to be double-agents, as Ruth Cornish suggests, there would have to be two sides in the war. However, the dichotomy between 'management' and 'employees' was an oversimplification even when pit-heads and smoke stacks disfigured the skyline. These days, in many organisations, defining which 'side' you are on is almost impossible. [...] Most good HR people use their judgement and align themselves with those they think are doing the right thing. When commercial pressures and ethics collide, they have to make a call.UPDATE 5 (Wednesday 1 June 2011): I've had some very good responses to a LinkedIn discussion within the Linked:HR Resources group (membership required) around some of the issues raised by the Guardian article, focusing on the question as to whether HR should be considered the employee's friend or foe. These include a response from Dominic Agostino, who says:
I'd like to believe that HR is perceived as a "friend" by employees and managers alike. Unfortunately, however, I think we're considered "foe." You often hear the words by managers, "......don't have me send you to HR!" Human Resources in the 21st century needs to strike a delicate balance to help Management solve their business problems while helping build a positive corporate culture. In that regard, employees need to be motivated and HR needs to develop innovative programs aimed at motivating the workforce to be more productive. This will ultimately help the bottom line.Another response comes from Todd Noebel, SPHR, who says:
I'm not sure I accept the "either/or" premise. The reality is that HR is there to advance the needs of the business (irrespective of ownership structure) through/via it's people - which may or may not line up with the wishes of a specific manager or employee. I believe this holds true beyond the much maligned (and advanced in the article) role as rule police. It also holds true when we in HR act as advisors, change agents and tactical deliverers of business imperatives. So maybe the answer to the question is simply...yes.UPDATE 6 (Wednesday 1 June 2011): CIPD Head of External Affairs Robert Blevin has weighed in on this debate with a comment on this post. He says that he has spoken directly to Mark King (the author of the Guardian article) and to Ruth Cornish (whose views on HR are quoted extensively in the Guardian article), and that he has proposed that the Guardian run a follow-up piece "looking at what HR /is/ actually there for." Let us hope that this article comes to fruition, and that HR gets to have its say in the Guardian.
UPDATE 7 (Friday 3 June 2011): HR consultant Ruth Cornish, who is quoted extensively in the Guardian article, has commented on Twitter that she feels the article has been useful in terms of "stimulating much needed debate, and says that she is "V proud of our profession." She also says:
CIPD were a bit delicate but like the idea of the follow up about wot we really do!There have also been further interesting responses to the Linked:HR Resources group discussion (membership required) on whether HR might be considered the employee's friend or foe. These include the following from Tunde Adebayo:
HR is generally perceived as friends because we provide necessary system and people support to deliver the goals of the organisation. At individual level however, an HR practitioner may be perceived a friend or foe, depending on the situation and his/her approach to finding a business solution.And here is an extract from Iris Sasaki's response:
I opt for neither. We are not an employee's friend (how can we operated from an unbiased base?), and we are not a foe. Our position should be for the best possible outcome. This would include as much good for both the company and the employee as possible.Meanwhile, over on Focus.com, Nadine Coromel taps into the growing theme emerging from discussions inspired by this article, that HR needs to address its image problem. Here's some of what Nadine has to say:
HR people really need to be better PR people! HR leaders know their role in an organisation has evolved from 'friend', but it appears we as HR leaders forgot to tell everyone that we now play a very different role. [...] The world has changed, economies have changed and business has changed. If HR's role hadn't changed to suit the environment there just might not be an article in the Guardian discussing the relevance of an HR department at all...UPDATE 8 (Saturday 4 June 2011): Two further thought-provoking responses to the Linked:HR Resources group debate (membership required).
Ron Hamilton says:
HR is the advocate for the organization-not the employee, not management. There are times when HR will do the right thing for the organization but will be percieved as a friend or foe of the employee or of management.Jay Barrett comments:
It all depends on the situation. HR is there to fairly and appropriately recommend, develop, counsel, and administer to both employees and management based on legality, norms, standards, policy and documentation. Each situation may be looked at differently by the parties involved based on the issue.UPDATE 9 (Friday 24 June 2011: Is your HR manager a dud? This is the title of an article from today's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald. In this article, Leon Gettler explores similar territory to the Guardian article. Gettler writes:
The department that everyone loves to hate is HR, and for good reason too. Vagueness, indiscretion, and paperwork fixations are all warning signs that you might have a dud human resources team in your organisation. HR departments are often associated with duplicative and bureaucratic processes as well as acting as a handmaiden of the management team. Still, a good HR person - and there are some - can be invaluable when it comes to showing managers the ropes on people management techniques, giving advice on hiring staff and establishing programs that develop the workforce and allow employees to feel that they are engaged and part of a team. But many would say those people are far and few between.
| Tweet |
|
| Permalink | Email this |
Comments (9)
Um.... Did The Guardian get Ruth Cornish drunk?
Posted by Katie | May 31, 2011 7:13 AM
Posted on May 31, 2011 07:13
I think the Guardian are using one stereotype - the 'tea and sympathy' one against another to create a point here.
And it is interesting, but bear in mind that any HR process which costs time and money will have been cleared by the business first: HR is a business function and it depends on the business, and the department as to how much value and freedom HR has to implement programmes and policies which are beneficial to employees.
They don't do it to be nice: you have a good health plan or a fun place to work or a contributed pension not because the business is friendly, but because they think it will motivate their people, attract and retain talent.
The examples quoted in the article are mostly not 'bad HR' but 'illegal practice' performed by scared or pushover HR people who are not firece enough to say: "Part of my job is to protect the brand and the company from attack, legal or otherwise. By asking me to fire this person in this way you are putting the business at risk. We can do this in another way which achieves your aims but protects the company and the brand..."
Really good (fierce) HR practitioners are those who can spot engagement opportunities and 'sell' their ideas to the highest levels to get them sanctioned. And sometimes companies have intrinsically 'friendly' policies, like John Lewis, the oft-quoted. And how do you feel about John Lewis? Warm and fluffy and you'd probably like to work there - that's their ethos, their ethics, their brand.
And it's great that companies like them exist but they are not stupid, they know that they get to pick from the best people because that's their position in the market. And they know their brand brings them customers.
The Guardian seems to be making out that HR used to be a union for all employees or some kind of representative of the people. HR can listen, but it won't do anything unless it can prove value to the business in some way. That's not evil or cynical, that's just the way it is.
Ask Laurie Ruettimann if you don't believe me.
If you want a representative, join a union. But you can't expect HR to take sides here. It's a business function, not an employee service.
Posted by Charlie Duff | May 31, 2011 1:06 PM
Posted on May 31, 2011 13:06
See also the Q&A dialog on http://www.focus.com around whether HR Should be Beholden to the Company or the Employees...really good debate:
http://www.focus.com/questions/human-resources/should-hr-beholden-itself-company-management-companys/
Posted by Charlie Judy | May 31, 2011 4:40 PM
Posted on May 31, 2011 16:40
Thanks for the comment, Charlie, and also for the link through to that discussion on Focus.com.
I'd definitely recommend that all XpertHR readers check out some of the HR discussions on Focus - there's a lot of top quality expertise and information being shared over there: http://www.focus.com/topic/human-resources/
Michael
Posted by Michael Carty
|
May 31, 2011 5:02 PM
Posted on May 31, 2011 17:02
The problem is, judging by the model described above is that you have HR whose job is to advise management but they have no management experience.
Nothing wrong with recruiting people from an admin background, pretty much every place I've worked would stand or fall on its admin and I've been really lucky but admin isn't the same as management.
The other problem you have as a manager is that a poor HR officer's agenda is different to yours. They don't have to continue to manage an employee who might be causing a problem, they want to get the case off their desk asap. They may therefore try and persuade you to accept 'solutions' which are inappropriate, or might just bury issues under the carpet. This means that one off issues with an individual can develop into long term cultural problems for the organisation which is much more difficult to deal with. They have power without responsibility and in my experience are quick to hide behind their 'advisory' v 'decision making' function when it hits the fan.
I'm sure that my views are largely influenced by working for an extremely dysfunctional organisation where managers at all levels left a lot to be desired and when I arrived the cultural problems were well embedded. Others will have had much better experiences I'm sure.
Posted by Andy | May 31, 2011 5:37 PM
Posted on May 31, 2011 17:37
I've been following the various online debates about this article. I've also now had positive chats with both the author of the article and the editor of the Work section, as well as with Ruth who was quoted extensively in the article.
Like others, my main concern in relation to the article is not to try and sweep under the carpet the undoubted fact that there are examples of poor practice in HR (as in any other profession), but that the piece started and finished with the "tea and sympathy" view of HR. I'd have liked them to have had a chat to us at the CIPD, or to one of the excellent bloggers and HR commentators who've commented on their own discussion thread / here / elsewhere for a serious perspective from HR about what we see our role as.
I think there is a myth out there that HR is some kind of cosy, staff representative function. Tackling that myth wouldn't prevent the real examples of poor practice in the Guardian article being a Bad Thing, or deserving of being reported in the Guardian. But it would have helped place the article in a better context.
I've said all this to the Guardian. I'm talking to them about opportunities in the future to do a piece looking at what HR /is/ actually there for. And I'll keep pursuing that.
But, overall, I think my main reflection is contentment at the consistent and confident online response from articulate HR professionals to the debate the article has sparked.
I must get on. But thanks to Michael for "hosting" this, and to all for the engaging comments.
Cheers,
Rob
Posted by Robert Blevin | June 1, 2011 11:51 AM
Posted on June 1, 2011 11:51
Thank you for taking the time to comment here, Robert, and also for helping to take this all to the next stage by contacting the Guardian and Ms Cornish directly, and voicing your concerns.
Yes, I completely agree that the original Guardian article really should have included input from the CIPD, rather than just the fleeting mention and quotation from the Next Generation HR report that made it into the final piece. I do hope that the proposed future article that you mention - "looking at what HR /is/ actually there for" - comes to fruition.
As Darren Newman suggested via Twitter this morning, Rick's blog post (entitled So, HR manager, just who are you working for?) would be a great response piece for the Guardian to run, should they be so inclined.
I also completely agree with you in finding much to be pleased with in "the consistent and confident online response from articulate HR professionals to the debate the article has sparked."
These qualities are demonstrated every single day via countless tweets, blog posts, forum discussions, etc from the international HR community. The controversy generated by the Guardian article has provided a focus for much of this energy over the past few days. The response from the international HR community has once again been nothing short of inspiring.
Now let's see where it goes from here.
Michael
Posted by Michael Carty
|
June 1, 2011 12:38 PM
Posted on June 1, 2011 12:38
A Sermon for Sunday
I occasionally find myself sympathising with the poor, increasing beleaguered, HR community but the feeling soon passes. Thankfully.
HR reminds me of a semi-religious sectarian group that have a weird, yet harmless, view of Industrial Relations and that if they just kept to themselves they would not ensure the wrath of a growing number of those who actually do work. Unfortunately, for the sect, this has not been the case.
Their rise to the forefront of Industrial Relations has not been due to working people embracing, in their droves, HR’s upbeat mantra of a utopian, cooperative, individualistic workplace but has rather been at the behest, the invitation, dare I say, insistence of the Employers.
Unfortunately, like all sects, HR has been exploited to serve the interests of a more powerful group, the employers. As the Protestant Work Ethic once legitimated the excesses of employers over employees so HR has been exploited in the same way. Whereas, once the hardship, degradation and sheer physical excesses exerted on workers was to be rewarded in heaven now these same excesses are to be rewarded here on earth with positive feedback, training (when not in a depression), Personal Development Plans, Performance Related Rewards and other much sort after treats as contained in the HR holy books of Motivational Rewards.
Employer’s prime use for HR is that it dispenses Mogadon to the masses on an individual and personal basis. HR extols the virtue of individualism in its credo. It despises all things collective especially where working people are concerned. In fact it has no mechanisms to cope with conflict on a wide scale as it does not see or comprehend why any relationship between an employer and an employee should be confrontational in a highly competitive ‘global’ economy. For the HR holy books teach us that the interests of both the employer and the employee are the same the glorification of the organisation.
Those who do not adhere to this credo are heretics, they are troublemakers, or worse still they are not getting the message contained within the holy books.
There has obviously been a breakdown in communication and thus extra sessions on certain core fundamental areas are needed to bring the miscreant back into the fold. Those who cannot see the ways of HR are ostracised and left unemployable.
To employers the credo of HR is manna from heaven. What employers do not want is a return to the old pagan ways pre 1979. The mass hordes of illiterate Northern tribes of thugs and scallywags marching under colourful banners rampaging over managers' God-given right to manage in a way that they, and only they, see fit. Harsh physical and political battles courageously fought by our wonderful Southern police and righteous far-right politicians won the day for the victorious employers' army. Today the gurus and acolytes of our beloved HR sect are manfully, well womanfully, preaching employees the only one true and rewarding way to participate in any employment relationship. Servitude, compliance, always be cooperative, be ever true to one's team and leader and treat with respect every utterance and platitude of your employer as they will always have your interests at heart.
Rather than viewing HR as being the prime mover and shaker in the Industrial Relationship they are, unfortunately, being used just like the rest of us.
Posted by GrumpyLecturer | June 5, 2011 1:16 PM
Posted on June 5, 2011 13:16
One of the biggest challenges for HR professionals who are involved operationally with employees is to manage the balance between being fair, friendly and approachable on one hand and the expectations and perceptions of their professional role in the organisation on the other. This is quite tricky in practice because it is necessary for people to understand and respect that the HR professional represents the organisation and must have its best interests at heart. However, a good HR professional who is operational will also be friendly and fair to everyone and work hard to ensure that individuals and employees as a whole are represented effectively, treated fairly and that their side of the psychological contract is also met. They will work to maximise and optimise opportunities for employees and the employer in a synergistic way.
One of the most difficult areas is around having 'friends' at work - this is tough because a true HR professional knows that there could be a situation where they will have to act in the employer's interests although the individual may not like it or want them to do so. It is to manage that unfortunate, and hopefully unlikely eventuality that the HR professional must be able to have set those boundaries and expectations before such situations occur in the interests of everyone, and the sad reality is that they may well lose a friend through matters outside their control.
Posted by Jessica Diggins | June 8, 2011 10:10 AM
Posted on June 8, 2011 10:10