No Image Available

Annie Hayes

Sift

Editor

LinkedIn
Email
Pocket
Facebook
WhatsApp

Colborn’s Corner: What’s the point of HR?

pp_default1

Quentin Colborn
The recent ‘Any Answers?’ situation posted by member Katie Dane regarding a manager’s tirade on the purpose of HR and their comment that there is, ‘no bl**dy point to HR’ provoked a huge response with 22 comments to boot; so what’s the truth of this? Quentin Colborn investigates.



It’s always interesting to hear organisations talk about their HR strategy. It’s normally automatic to associate this with the HR department, but what about those organisations in which there is no HR department – do they simply have no HR strategy to speak of?

I’m sorry to disappoint those of you who feel that the only organisations who have an HR strategy are the ones who have an HR department; in reality every organisation has an HR plan. It may be that the approach is a very simplistic one: “Treat them like dirt and pay them as little as possible”, you and I may not like it but it does show thought of sorts!

In a similar way, every organisation has HR. It may be done by line management, a team of highly dedicated professionals or it could be outsourced. It doesn’t matter they all ‘do’ HR in one form or another. The comment provided by Katie indicates that the manager fell into the trap of assuming that HR can only be done by HR people. And if they fall into that trap whose fault is it? Could it lie with the HR function?

Everyone does HR, whether it is recruiting, training, motivating or firing. However as a function we have managed things so that we are seen to be the experts on the subject, and in many cases the ‘gatekeepers’ whereby managers cannot do HR except through themselves. I believe that within many HR functions there is an implacable view that they are the only ones who can do things properly and in many cases that line managers cannot be trusted to do things correctly on their own. Arrogant or what!

When managers make abusive comments about HR it seems to suggest that we are not getting the message across effectively as to what we do. When I worked for the RAC the MD described the HR team as being his ‘right arm’ and indispensable. How often, in the majority of organisations do we describe HR as being a crucial part of the business mix? And if we are, is that because we have built up a framework around what we do to make it out of the reach of the ordinary folk. Or is it that we really are adding value?

My view is that there is comparatively little that we do that can’t be transferred to line managers. HR does not have a monopoly on interviewing skills, coaching people, or even on conducting disciplinaries. The last area is one of the greater ironies, within HR we actually conduct very few of these with our own staff – yet we are perceived to be the experts!

Of course there are areas where we can add value. We do have expertise in some crucial areas of business activity. But all too often we focus on the day to day issues of process and procedures, and more often than not telling managers why they can’t do x, y or z. Yet how many HR teams give a real focus to demographic change within the country? Where was HR in predicting the pension’s crisis? How often do we look up and take a long term strategic view of what is going on and what will the impact be on our organisations? I know for some this is being done and that proper long-term strategic work is performed with organisations that receive a real added value from their HR function. But what about the rest? What will it take to ensure that all managers see HR professionals as truly adding value?

Quentin Colborn is an independent consultant who helps organisations determine and develop their HR strategy. To contact him T: 01376 571360 or e-mail him at Quentin@qcpeople.co.uk

Colborn’s Corner: series articles

Want more insight like this? 

Get the best of people-focused HR content delivered to your inbox.

2 Responses

  1. Music to my ears!
    Thankyou, Quentin and Dennis. I can only agree with all of your sentiments. For years, I have continued to have the nagging feeling that the CIPD qualification continues to focus more on the admin and HR process side of things than the business (and I did my Grad CIPD as a mature student not so long ago). And yes, most of these things can be outsourced, and most should be done by line managers.

    I’m afraid that as a profession, we are often guilty of hiding behind our expertise in order to justify our value through professional mystique, when what we should be doing is coaching and empowering managers to learn to look after themselves so that we can spend time thinking about the business and it’s strategy, and the human capital implications. Then HR will have a B****y point to it!

  2. HR is it’s own worst enemy…
    Quentin has hit several targets in his assessment.

    ((By the way: I don’t think anyone would have predicted the Pensions crisis, unless they were to note tardiness among actuaries, the vindictiveness of the Chancellor and a falling market. Anyone who could have foreseen that, I suggest, would not be content with a mere HR job!))

    The gatekeeping effect is truly the saddest thing to watch in action…. The core HR business is surely about the most effective way of deploying people in an organisation, and will inevitably involve the investment and development of skills – and that really represents one element of the Human Capital equation.

    My personal feeling is that the profession is suffering from business inexperience. Many of the HR heads stream directly from university, via CIPD and into an HR job, without ever understanding how business works at a basic level.
    Further, and this will also put the cat among some pigeons, I don’t believe that the CIPD curriculum does enough to address that. Anecdotal evidence from HR practitioners with CIPD all points to that as a weakness. As a result, the qualification is disregarded as authority to speak in a Boardroom environment.

    HR people all moan about admin, but too many of them hide behind it as justification for their existence. If admin was taken away, just how many practitioners could truly take up a strategic role in an enterprise?
    And, if 80% of HR work IS admin, then why not call the business end of the 20% remaining something other than HR? Like, er, Business?

No Image Available
Annie Hayes

Editor

Read more from Annie Hayes