Already a member?
Welcome to Brazen Careerist!
Lance Haun is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Lance Haun and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Lance Haun is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Lance Haun and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
The US election is thankfully coming to a close. Is there anyone who is disappointed that it is ending out there? Anybody wish there were more attack ads, lies and deception to keep the great Republic running? Maybe the media wishes there were a few more weeks but I think everybody else has had enough.
Is this the best way to pick a leader? If you subscribe to the maxim that leaders can only be as good as those who pick them, how does this perverted process help us make the best decision? And when a good portion of the population is always dissatisfied with the process and choices, how do we move forward?
HR and the Failure of Leadership
I know what you’re thinking.
You’re thinking: “This somehow relates to HR (or at least Lance thinks it does).”
Of course it relates to HR!
When I was reading a blog post on BNET about “Why Everyone Still Hates HR” (thanks to the many of you who sent it) and it references the source of many angry HR rants “Why We Hate HR“, I continue to think that these people get the HR department they deserve. It is truly a failure of leadership (from ownership on down) when HR departments don’t execute.
Oh yay. I am trying to blame someone else, right? Not my fault, right? Not exactly.
Why Do We Treat HR Differently?
Imagine if your sales department was constantly under-performing. Other departments complained about its performance and thought it was really an anchor on the company’s success. Not only that, imagine that the sales department was more concerned with marketing the product rather than selling it. So they went to trade shows and instead of trying to line up sales, they concerned themselves more with branding and putting on a positive image. In fact, when a potential customer came up and said they were interested in ordering, they said they couldn’t do that there.
Quick quiz: If you are in the C-suite overseeing that department, what do you do?
What sort of insane person would not do number six? What if the response to the problems in sales were any of the first five? Could you imagine a company being in business for that long if nothing was ever done about the situation?
So why do we hate HR? If you are a rank and file employee, it is because their incompetence and organizational value is never addressed by the leaders of the company. If you are an executive, you hate HR because you have no idea how to fix it and make it better. And fixing it is fairly easy if you look at HR and expect the same things as you do from every other department.
The Scapegoat for Poor Leadership
It is sort of like how everyone bangs on the President or Congress but never changes their own behavior to fix the issues. If you consider that the American people are the owners of our country (and we are essentially shareholders), we become frustrated because we can’t figure out a way to get better leaders. So while there are a million posts stating things like “How did we get these choices?” or “I wish our Congress would do something for once” or “Why can’t our government be more pro-active?” there are very few posts on “How we can get better choices” or “How to get your Congressman to vote the way you want” or “How do we elect leaders that will see our problems before they hit us smack in the face?”
When you respond to attack ads and lies by doing the same thing at every election and never expecting much from the government because “that’s just how they are”, you aren’t much better than the executives who continue to allow HR to underperform and never expect more than what they delivered yesterday.
Sure, HR and our elected officials may be incompetent. Guess who picked them though? Guess who allows them to be incompetent?
My guess is that it is easier to pass blame than to take responsibility for your part.
HR should be a part of the 'C' suite! Even though I am not an HR person they don't get the respect that they deserve. Instead, they get cr@pped on for (as said) all the failings of leadership. Good leadership should work hand-in-hand with HR to determine training, etc. that may be required for the employees to function at peak performance. If employees are not working at peak performance then is that not a waste of resources? And in todays market, I can't think of many companies who can waste resouces!
Lance, I meant to comment on this over at your site yesterday but never got around to it. This is one of the best articles of yours that I've ever read.
I've seen time and time again companies that "have the HR departments they deserve," partially because they don't hold them to higher standards, and partially because they just don't value what they could do in the first place.
As you noted, it's a two way street. HR pros should be doing the sort of things that will earn them that coveted spot at the metaphorical table instead of begging for it.
Well done!
- Chris
I think you make a good point Lance. It's true, the reason HR sucks in many places is because the higher-ups employ sucky HR groups. But I do think you're scapegoating a little.
In the course of my (relatively short) career I've dealt with both good and bad HR reps. In that experience I've had some really positive experiences where HR was really devoted to helping people find the best career path internally, and making the workplace as positive and healthy as could be. I've also run into cases of blatant discrimination and abuse of authority by HR personnel. Usually my encounters have been relatively mediocre, dealing with HR reps that weren't smart enough or simply didn't care enough to do their job well.
The truth is, a great many people who work in HR are terrible at their jobs (just as with any other profession). That said, with the exception of IT and Management, there are few other groups in the workplace that have the sheer power and influence to make so many people hate them to deeply. The difference is that one bad HR rep can make an entire company a bad place to work through bad policies and handling of issues. A bad manager generally makes his or her direct reports miserable but has no direct impact beyond that. A bad IT person usually makes his or her mistakes on a one-to-one basis, so people hate the individual less than the group.
I think the biggest troubles with HR overall is that in many workplaces, HR has a great deal of authority with very little direct oversight. HR sets behavioral standards, dress-code, attendance policies, and pay-scales. Upper Management rarely pays much attention to these quotidian things because they don't care much, so many HR groups and individuals become tyrannical and petty.
I don't know if this is simply my experience, but it appears that the type of people that are attracted to HR are generally office-conservatives who take a very dogmatic view of propriety. As a result a lot of the places I've worked have had overly restrictive policies that they try to enforce with a cudgel.
@theo geer - I simply can't imagine any organization that would allow HR to "set behavioral standards, dress-code, attendance policies, and pay-scales" with little to no oversight.
And this is probably a little off-topic from what your point is, but I think HRs focus on those things instead of things that matter (how to motivate and drive employees to perform at their very best every day) is the reason we're so poorly respected in many organizations.
- Chris
Chris,
I agree, It seems there needs to be some sort of refocusing for HR in general. The good experiences I've had with HR all involved individual reps who were working with me to try and make my job better for me and the company.
You're right, my previous statement was a bit overzealous. I doubt any of the organizations I've worked for let HR set pay-scales without oversight. The point is, as you note, that HR is busy fiddling with things that belong in the domain of individual managers and groups when they should be working to help the whole organization achieve.
A lot of the issues I see arise because HR reps often seem to believe very firmly in some sort of blind-equality where every employee should be governed by the same policies and practices, instead of recognizing the differences in types of employees and positions. I know people who work in IT at companies where even the IT department is not allowed to access the internet (for work related purposes) for no better reason than "it wouldn't be fair for you to have access when the customer service reps don't."
@theo geer. You raise a lot of good points - A lot of that stuff is much better suited at the individual manager level. The issue you noted about equity is something I can sympathize with. Organization's need to be fair. That doesn't always mean treating people equally. For example, a higher performer should make more than someone who slacks on the job.
Great discussion!
- Chris
Lance - thanks for the dose of reality, and parallels to public policy. "My guess is that it is easier to pass blame than to take responsibility for your part."
The recent financial crisis brings this painfully to the fore. I think the causes for failure of individuals to take responsibility are a combination of fraud and stupidity. The idea that no one, in the last 10 or so years, caught on to the problems in the public and private sectors is baffling and reeks of negligence, not just innocent mistakes. I think what is more likely the case is that no one wanted to be the guy to stand up and blow the whistle to signal the party is over. Well, we need more of those guys to speak up and I'm hopeful they will start to do so. Oh yeah, and I plan to be one of them. : )
Hey everyone, thanks for the comments.
@theo - You're right: HR touches more people. I guess that's my issue with not holding them accountable like other departments. That's where the failure in leadership is: if you realize that a department is critical to your company's success, you make sure you've got it right.
This post has gotten me thinking about The Wire Season 4 when Mayor Calcatti is deciding on his platform and his advisors tell him to stay far away from the schools. It's a sink hole that will draw in all his time and energy and will never be truly fixed. If a CEO spends a great deal of time, resources, and energy to attract talented people to HR and fix it, how are we going to notice? Is anyone going to hire them because they have great HR? Our employees not going to take promotions at other companies because of the great HR department.
For you quick quiz above, I would add #7, Evaluate if this department is really necessary and discuss eliminating. The problem with your scenario above is that if there is not internal improvement or advocacy (explaining outcomes not just acitivites like Fast Times suggests), HR depts can be eliminated or scaled down. Companies can try going without HR and see if things aren't worse. Given the complaints that HR receives, that could be a reality. If a department has a talented manager who can promote talent, what's HR's value add?
If people don't recognize the value of HR and if HR can't prove that it is indeed improving retention, growing talent from within, and improving culture than I don't see how you can see others as responsible. The main problem that I see is that an HR function can be eliminated and replaced with technology before people start seeing it as something that they have a role in improving.
@Deadhedge - you're looking at HR from an administrative perspective: Move paper around, process new hires and terms, administer benefits and so on. That's not where the real value in HR comes from.
HR, when done right, creates a competitive edge for a company by ensuring that their employees are behaving in ways that support and drive the organization's business strategies. I've written about this at length on my blog, which is where my catch phrase, "Don't ask for a seat at the table. Earn one." stems from.
Sounds like your view of HR is more in-line with Personnel of the 1980's instead of strategic people management.
- Chris
Deadhedge: If HR isn't bringing value to the organization, then it is the leader's obligation to correct that, right?
The assumption of the post is that HR is needed in most organizations. I think that is true. But if HR ultimately doesn't bring value and is creating more problems than solutions, HR won't dissolve or fix itself: it requires action. You fix it or junk it.
The problem is that most corporations do neither. Why is that? It is easier to just let the problem fester. That's the issue I have personally.
Deadhedge makes a really good point. There are times when HR simply isn't necessary in an organization, or the HR structure that exists is too convoluted or has too much authority to do any good. All of this really comes down to organizational structure.
HR, like every other group, needs to be structured and guided by upper management in a way that helps the overall company. When that is not being done lots of issues arise.
One of my favorite HR blunders is one that I'm still a little engrossed in. My organization rolled out a Time Tracking system to all users almost a year ago, and of course our small, (IMO unqualified) HR group controls the strings to it. HR has dictated that every employee (salaried and hourly) record everything on an hourly basis. This of course includes our IT and Development departments. More, you can only enter a days time in increments of 8 hours or more. (We checked, this is a requirement put into place by HR, that can be changed easily.) For Developers (me) and IT people, working 3 hours in the mid-day on Saturday is pretty commonplace. Even if we were inclined to try and track our hours with a system like this, we simply can not accurately record our data.
To this day, HR hounds us about the perceived inaccuracy and incompleteness of our time-tracking, even though our CTO has repeatedly told them to stop, and impressed to us that we should not sweat it. This creates completely pointless tension between our group and the HR team, primarily because HR is trying to force an illogical solution on a team that doesn't have a productivity problem in the first place.
Lance has it right. The solution is to either fix the problem or junk it. I would prefer it be fixed, because I've seen what a good HR team can do to help a company, but I'd rather have no HR than bad HR.
Wow...I am so suprised at how strongly you are against HR. I guess it depends what company you work for. Where I work, HR is more than just paper pushers. They are actually strategic business partners with the executives of the company. They help with budgeting, forecasting, employee relations, training, hiring/firing, protecting the company from lawsuits, advocating for the employees when needed, and much more.
I'm sorry you have had such bad experiences with your HR departments, but sometimes it also has to do with who's running the company. HR can't simply go ahead and do what they want. Usually the President or CEO of the company along with his top executives are the one's who tell HR what has to happen and then HR is the one trying to figure out how best to relay the messages and/or policies to the employees. "Don't shoot the messenger". And sometimes HR is the one trying to bring about change but it's top management who wont let it happen.
@Chris. I did not talk about sick policy, organizing stapler appreciation month, or processing forms as HR functions in my post. Specifically, I said the following:
"if HR can't prove that it is indeed improving retention, growing talent from within, and improving culture than I don't see how you can see others as responsible."
This the value that HR can offer and my question for you is: Prove to me that HR can do that and demonstrate vs having talented managers do the human management in their department. I don't really feel like you fully read or saw my post but rather saw just a "I hate HR because they messed up my tax withhold comment"
@ Lance- A leader can choose to fix their HR department by eliminating it so I think that HR really needs to hone their value proposition. I work in health insurance, an industry that may very well be eliminated or turned into a goverment function. Our challenge is not to talk about how short-sighted regulations makes ill informed policy decisions, or employers just care about the price and not the value, or how employees are irresponsible about their health but rather prove how we can improve the health care experience.
When I see a post about senior leadership not understanding the value of HR and being part of the problem, I don't see share the blame but rather a real problem demonstrating a value proposition.
I have no ill well towards my HR department but I just don't see them as capable of those things that I listed in the comment to Chris. Some companies HR departments do it well but I question if HR can consistenly perform at a high enough level. Given the complainst and the life of the Fast Time article, it's still a valid question.
@Lance,
Realizing, I didn't completely answer your post but I think that you can tell that I do not agree with your assumption that HR is needed. I think that still needs to be proven given other posters comments that no HR is better than bad HR. We often hate IT but I don't think that anyone would say no IT is better than bad IT.
@Deadhedge - If you head over to my blog, you'll notice that my central theme really centers around holding HR managers accountable for proving their value to the organization, hence my tagline: "Don't ask for a seat at the table. Earn one."
I think Lance's point here is this: If a sales team sucks, senior management is going to demand that they perform better, or fire the crappy leaders that manage the underperforming team. Yet for some reason, HR isn't held to this same standard. It's almost assumed that HR is supposed to suck, and so no one takes action on it.
I think you and I may be arguing the same point in two different languages.
- Chris
@Deadhedge - You aren't addressing my point that leaders aren't addressing issues with HR. Getting rid of HR is one of those actions. Hiring smarter HR execs is another. Not doing the same thing over and over is another. Analyzing the value proposition of HR for your organization and making the decision is another.
You are defending the leader's inaction. Of course HR needs to carry that weight. I have written thousands of words about that. But when business leaders and CEO's complain about HR not doing their job, it is like Donald Trump complaining that he is hungry. Feed yourself! Fix the issue!
As for your example of IT, that is laughable. I have seen plenty of companies who have outsourced their entire IT departments. Any onsite IT support are contractors working for the outsourced provider. I've seen plenty of companies who have used PEOs or HR consulting firms instead of in house HR.
All of that is fine with me. These business leaders took action to fix issues and analyze value. I still think HR belongs in corporate America but that is a different argument completely. Business leaders have allowed the issue to fester and instead of doing something about it, they let problems lie in the mud. They wouldn't do that for any other business problem but nobody wants to address THAT. People look for excuses to bang on HR when there are plenty examples of great HR orgs out there. The possibility is there but the leadership doesn't grasp it.
Lance, you may have hit upon a solution.
Why don't companies outsource HR the same way many outsource IT? Clearly most management teams don't have the experience or knowledge to hire and maintain a qualified, well-performing HR staff or they would already be doing so.
Are there HR-consulting organizations? If not why not? Has it been tried and failed, or is this an untapped market with potential?
@Chris and Lance,
I realize that we are probably saying similar things so I'll refine my point. Given HR's current reputation, be careful of advocating for leader's to change the situation without a clear value proposition or proposal in place. As one poster, said outsourcing may be the solution.
A senior leader's current approach may not be to make HR better but make it irrelevant. You are right that leaders need to do something rather than let HR suck. But if I were in HR right now, I wouldn't want leaders looking at me with more scrutiny unless I had a very good game plan in place. Your organizations may be in a position to do that but I don't think that your typical HR organization might be.
9a0jy48l7zg8m5pd
Email
Print
