In a recent Harvard Business Review podcast and accompanying article, Peter Cappelli discusses a number of criticisms about human resources and expresses a need for HR to adapt and change to solve these issues. In response, Molly Kelley, Senior HR Business Partner at Xenium HR, offers some illuminating commentary on several points made in the podcast. We encourage you to listen to the podcast in its entirety for full context of the sections summarized below.
Human Resources defines what people are like in the workplace and how to manage them. [0:01:27]
Molly: The role of a human resource professional done well recognizes that people are the heart and soul of your company, important in and of themselves from the get go. That is how I define HR and how I explain it to others: we are not a constant nagging force, although we’re all certainly guilty of that at times, but a partner to a wide variety of folks within the organization. A huge portion of what we do certainly is human psychology. The role we often play for managers is that of coach and interpreter, because people are so varied and unpredictable.
HR is the singular part of an organization that tells everyone, from the lowest to the top level, how they need to behave and treat each other. People, particularly at the executive level, don’t like being told what to do and how to treat another person. [0:03:28]
Molly: This makes me realize how unique HR consulting is, in that we are sought out to support companies that already realize they want and need HR, as opposed to sometimes being a required, and at times unappreciated, department within a company. If our clients don’t take the advice we give, that’s okay. That relationship in some ways actually frees us up to work on supporting the business as a whole. As consultants, we are less likely to become mired in the politics of an organization and more likely to provide advice that is based on experience, current employment law, and the needs of the business.
People tend to think they know what makes a good worker. [0:04:18]
Molly: In my experience, people usually default to using themselves, or their star employee as the yardstick, which is a dangerous place to default to. Part of HR’s role is to be the neutral third party that supports the needs of the business, which sometimes conflict with those of an individual manager or employee. Acting as a neutral set of eyes and helping folks step back from the emotions of a particular management decision is an extremely helpful function.
HR gets in the way of managers who are closer to the action. [0:05:04]
Molly: This stereotype, which may be in fact a reality for some less savvy HR folks, scares me. The comment was based on an assumption of in-house HR. If I can come in as an independent third party consultant who doesn’t even work in the same building as the employees and managers do and do the work required to get the lay of the land, assess motives and the needs of the business, and adapt to communication styles to build consensus during conflict, then my hope would be that most in-house HR Managers/Directors are also able to do so.
A manager oversees a star employee and is worried that if the employee doesn’t receive a raise, the person will leave the company. HR often says no, and the company loses the employee. [0:05:34]
Molly: I sincerely hope this was oversimplification of a chain of events. If not, then this example absolutely outrages me. Simply telling a manager “no” and failing to follow up
with some sort of education on the company’s compensation philosophy and salary bands is shocking and irresponsible. HR should be educating more, inviting managers and employees in to the decision making process whenever and wherever appropriate. As consultants, we live and die by this.In order for HR to stay relevant, quantifying HR efforts with data is necessary. [0:08:31]
Molly: This is very true. HR isn’t part of that discussion, and this worries me both personally and professionally. Personally because my math and logic skills are often lagging! But even I can see the need for HR to adapt to a world where real-time information and data is critical. We’ve got to become metrics gurus.
HR needs to shift from broad, slow-moving initiatives to quick, specific, project-based work and support. [0:09:01]
Molly: This is a really interesting and valid point, and changed my thinking. I plan to work from this framework more often.
There are more contract workers and short-term workers these days, yet not much focus on how to best manage them and engage with them. We tend to focus on the legal issues alone. [0:10:25]
Molly: Very, very good observation. I worked in the world of temporary staffing for seven years as a recruiter and often encountered employers who underestimated the importance of engaging and at times, respecting, temporary or contract workers. From a lack of training to an absence of performance feedback, these folks and their talents are often ignored, tolerated or even in some cases, mistreated.
HR is not in a position to lead culture change. This has to be done from the very top of the organization. [0:13:02]
Molly: I disagree with this claim. It might be my training bias, but I think HR can have a very valuable role in facilitating discussions that impact culture and nurture the culture a company has built. Specific examples of this include culture-based interview questions, onboarding routines, and tough conversations that all have the thread of “who we are/our culture” running through them.
Everyone’s buzzing about generational qualities. Regardless of whether these contrasts exist, so what? How do they change an organization? [0:14:00]
Molly: Funny in that we’ve been focusing on them too, but he’s right on the “so what?” Many of the things millennials want including work-life balance, more frequent feedback, flexibility and diversity in work, among others, are things that other generations would be thrilled with too.