I was cleaning out my materials from my Masters program because I am totally out of room in my office and something had to give.
As I was looking at what I collected over six years (yes, it took that long to finish), I found an article that grabbed my attention (again): The Transformation of the Human Resource Function: Resolving the Tension Between a Traditional Administrative and a New Strategic Role.
I thought, wow – how timely. I long to see Human Resource be the force that I think they can be.
So I leafed through the article and was amazed to find that it was authored by a professor from the Harvard Business School. Huh? It’s unusual to find HR as a topic of the Harvard Business School. Then I looked at the date … The article was published in Human Resource Management in Spring 1997! That got my attention, as I thought the topic would have been more contemporary. Then I started to read.
Making a mid-90s case for more strategic HR
The author makes a case for the needed paradigm shift to a more strategic HR:
- “Competition, globalization and continuous change in markets and technology;”
- “A flatter, less bureaucratic, less hierarchical, faster and more responsive organization is emerging as the model for the future;”
- The need for “far higher levels of (1) coordination across functions, business units, and borders; (2) employee commitment to continuous improvement; (3) general management and leadership competence; (4) creativity and entrepreneurship; and (5) open communication.”
- Pressures for cost reduction within Human Resources.
The author goes on to describe an organization where the CEO found that his HR Director was not “up to the task” of driving the strategic change in organizing and managing people. What is particularly interesting is that the HR Director had been hired five years before because of his excellent record, and had created nationally award-winning HR programs for the organization. But line executives “saw an expensive HR organization adding negligible value.“
How many times have we bemoaned that we weren’t getting the “seat at the table” or being listened to?
A 1997 vision for the “new” HR
The author describes his vision of the “new” HR function (remember, this was 1997):
Article Continues Below
Recruiting when you only have 1, 3, or 5 hours in a day
- HR will have shed the admin, compliance and service role;
- HR will focus on developing the capabilities of the organization and the leaders;
- Admin functions, enabled by technology, will be centralized, allowing time for strategic work;
- HR will question traditional programs that don’t add value (he cites performance appraisal and pay structures);
- HR will become evidence-based in determining value-add;
- HR will develop leaders to do leadership work;
- HR will provide expertise in “organization design, organization change, and intervention methods;” and,
- “Corporate HR will be small, and focused on compensation, management development, diversity and organization effectiveness.”
And finally, the author describes the obstacles including the skill and competence of existing HR practitioners, and the lack of understanding on the part of the CEO about what HR should contribute.
So, the two things that strike me about this article:
- First, it doesn’t feel like we’ve progressed very far in 16 years.
- Second, when will this profession that has so much opportunity to really drive business success take steps to grow?
Just as a lark, I recently looked at the SHRM.org front page. The “most popular” topics were benefits/health care (4), Payroll/taxes (1), Job descriptions (1), EEOC (1), Engagement surveys (1), Interviewing (1), Training (1).
Is this the work that will position HR in a place of influence on the business?
This originally appeared on the ….@ the intersection of learning & performance blog.