FC NOW: The Fast Company Weblog
June 28, 2006
Why We Hate HR--Counterpoint
At the risk of reopening old wounds, allow me to present the findings of Jacquelyn Thorp Kinworthy, a professor at Cal State-Fullerton and CEO/founder of HR-Coach Products and Services. In an effort to counter my story from last August, "Why We Hate HR," Jacquelyn polled HR execs at small and mid-sized firms about their work, their careers, and their companies.
Here's what she found...
1) Companies hire inexperienced and unqualified people to handle HR, but expect them to perform at higher levels than they are qualified.
The survey showed that most people enter HR without being qualified for the job. Companies hire people to be HR Directors who have no higher education, certifications or experience - then expect these people to be strategic partners. According to Hammonds, "In a knowledge economy, companies with the best talent win. And finding, nurturing, and developing that talent should be one of the most important tasks in a corporation. So why does human resources do such a bad job -- and how can we fix it?" The answer is for organizations to hire the best HR talent and to invest in educated, certified, experienced HR professionals.
2) Companies do not invest in HR as they do in other departments.
The salaries for HR may be "commensurate with experience". The survey shows that very few HR people make any where near 6 figures - in a 6 figure world. Over half of the participants have been in HR for more than 10 years. Half of the HR respondents have a PHR, SPHR, GPHR or other certification. There seems to be no distinction in pay between those highly qualified for the job and those minimally qualified for the job.
3) Many small to medium size companies have HR people that are strategic partners.
Most of the HR participants believe that they are strategic partners. It would be interesting to ask their CEO's and management team's opinion.
MY TAKE (this is Keith again): I certainly agree with Jacquelyn's first finding. Companies have to invest more to hire great people for this increasingly critical function.
On #2, it's not clear what better explains the HR pay gap. Is it mostly because companies don't value HR (which they don't) or because HR doesn't provide much value (which it often doesn't)?
As for #3, research from USC suggests that HR people consistently overestimate their contributions as strategic partners. Not that they don't contribute--but the line managers they work with typically value this partnership less than does HR.
In any case, many thanks to Jacquelyn.
Posted by Keith Hammonds at June 28, 2006 5:49 PM | Category: human resources |
10 Comments
ADVERTISEMENT
FC NOW MENU
NEWSLETTERS
FC NOW CATEGORIES
FC READS
While I don't doubt that there are many unqualified HR professionals out there, there is also a definite lack of excellent programs offering graduate degrees in HR. It is necessary that HR professionals seek degrees that provide them with the knowledge and skills to become trusted partners with boards and C-level executives. I personally have found an excellent program at NYU that is strategically aligned with SHRM's core competencies and teaches not only HR, but IT, business strategy and finance.
When looking for a top-notch program that would prepare me to be an HR leader, I found that there weren't many programs that were forward-looking. With all the talk about how HR will become a more important business function, it seems that universities (like some HR professionals and businesses) have also missed the mark.
But having less competition is also a definite plus for me as an individual, and will more easily allow me to command 6-figures.
Disclaimer: I work for Capella
We have a very good program in a variety of HR degrees. Our newest one is a Training and Performance Improvement developed based on ASTD standards. You can find out more about it here: https://www.capella.edu/schools_programs/education/masters/training_performance_improvement.aspx
As a former journalist in the field, the article in last fall's Fast Company bravely hit all the right points about HR and Training. It's stuff we talked about a lot over lunch at Training Magazine. I've always said it's a tough field because so much of it involves human behavior and that's so tricky to both control and predict.
In my experience, too often what HR professionals miss is a sound business perspective. Most HR people that I've worked with have a pretty good handle on regulations and behavioral pitfalls but a very poor understanding of risk. Everything is viewed as a possible worst case. Yet in other parts of a company, departments handle risk/reward/cost trade offs all day. Accountants for example, may decide that a small error on a tax return isn't worth the time and effort to fix because the costs to fix it are greater than the fine if the IRS finds it. Too often, HR doesn't make this judgement. They can't tell the difference between and unhappy employee and a true lawsuit about to happen. I found it interesting that in his book "Winning" Jack Welch describes HR's strategic role at GE and then mentions that his head of HR, the best HR person he ever had, came from Engineering. I don't think we need more HR training or degrees, I think we need to rotate HR employees into different roles so they better understand how an organization works.
2 points - First, I agree with Mark, many HR people I know (and I am an HR person so I know a lot of them) have a very narrow perspective - they know HR but they do not know business. I believe HR people are better off with a business degree than an HR degree.
Second, because I work in the consulting field with a lot of companies in my state, I have seen first hand how CEO's do not value HR. They do not ask their HR person's opinion, they leave them out of major decisions, and they proceed to make decisions without a clue of the consequences they are about to incur. I have seen this happen to some very competent HR/business people who have taken the steps to invite themselves to the strategic table. The fact is CEOs do not see any tangible dollars that HR can put in the company coffers; therefore, HR doesn't add value in their minds.
HR and HRD may not be at the top management level alone.It percolates downwards.And it is an essential tool for the growth of a company.Equally,I can cite a good number of companies where HR and HRD is in proper place and the company flourishes because of its employees.By the way,can we think with out employee?Proper or not properly educated HR exercise is a faulty policy.
ok, now on to reality. Polino came close to the
"truth." Report from the trenches: HR people need to be rotated INTO the trenches to learn all the jobs they place for three reasons. 1) they need to learn what the hell they are doing, and 2) they need to understand the damage they have been doing without that knowledge. 3) and lastly, when you get back into your little HR nest, you will finally learn that being the big boss' eyes and ears inside the corp will only earn you a set of cut up tires in the parking lot or a loaded glass of cool aid in the office party. Get wise, everybody in the company KNOWS rat them out to the boss.
The "Why we Hate HR" article is my personal favorite. I have three degrees (Commerce, Psychology and a Masters of Industrial Relations) and have been out of work for a year. I have worked for Fortune 500 companies where the HR departments were despised and avoided at all costs by all other departments, and so were completely out of touch with the rest of the company. The majority of people in HR are so wrapped up in politics and diversity programs they have no interest or time for activities that add value to the company's bottom line. They are "policemen" and view employees with contempt.
I follow the works of Jeff Pfeffer, Dr. John Sullivan and David Ulrich, but I see no evidence of their theories in practice in Canadian business.
It was David Ulrich who wrote in Human Resource Champions that HR has four roles to fill in an organization: Strategic Partner, Change Agent, Administrative Expert and Employee Champion. In small to mid-size companies, for a variety of reasons, it is the Administrative Expert and Employee Champion roles that the companies hire for. As one client once told me "We spend 90% to 95% working day-to-day issues and only 5% to 10% of our time on strategy." So it is the day-to-day issues that companies need worked which mostly fall into the administrative expert and employee champion catagories. Hence the major reason why most small to mid-size companies hire lower level folks to run HR.
Interestingly however most companies spend more on human capital that any other item in their annual budget, and many CEOs like to say that people are their most important resource. Yet, their is a lack of credible metrics that measure the human capital contribution to a businesses success. This is the real key for getting HR to the strategic table. If HR can demonstrate and take ownership for the aggregate human capital investment of the business and show how the productivity and ROI of the investment can be improved...they'll have a lot of influence in the management of the company and be "at the table."
When Jim Collins and his team did the research for "Good to Great" one of the challenges they faced was discerning the factors that made great companies great. In this spirit, answer the questions: What makes great HR functions great? Start with asking the CEOs of great companies led by former heads of HR.
With passage of time HRD has off late taken place,and it basically relates to human relations development.
You will agree that basic motif of all is the achievement of corporate goal and something unpleasant may come by.But HR has changed to human relationship development.