In his second series for HR Zone, Paul Kearns an outspoken critic of HR practices that cannot clearly demonstrate the value they add to organisations, looks at leadership and asks why do we need HR leaders?
Why we need HR leaders
Do you know why unions still exist? Because no one has convinced unionised organisations that they would be better off without them. More importantly, no one has had the leadership qualities to lead the way towards a viable alternative. The same could be said about most of the really big, serious issues in HR:
- strategy
- diversity
- corporate social responsibility (CSR)
- human capital management (HCM)
They sound like good ideas but where is the leadership that is going to make any of them a reality?
If HR is renowned for anything it quite the opposite of leadership – ‘followership’. Most HR teams try to copy each other in their pursuit of ‘best practice’, whatever that means. Or they wait for the board to decide their business strategy and plans and then aim to follow with their own policies.
In the public sector HR tends to follow the latest flavour of the month to come out as a diktat from Central Government – Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT), Best Value, Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) and now ‘Capacity Building’ – whatever that means. In fact, when you think about it, leadership is conspicuous by its absence. ‘Initiative-itis’ is almost a perfect indicator of the absence of leadership and clear strategies.
So why is this issue of HR leadership, or lack of it, now more important than ever before? Well, we as a society demand so much of ourselves these days. We expect excellent customer service, low prices, low taxes and we have an insatiable appetite for more products and services, both from the public and commercial sectors.
This places huge pressures on the organisations we work for and it would be nice to think that, because we are employees as well as consumers, we should all be doing our best to work in the common interest. The reason this does not happen in practice is because a lack of leadership leads to all sorts of bad and negative behaviours.
The first bad behaviour by the Government is a ‘quality control’, ‘inspection’ mentality. They don’t trust teachers to do a good job so they give us Ofsted, police officers have the burden of an inspectorate and the NHS has more layers of management control than they know what to do with.
We would hope that commercial organisations are much better at adopting a more positive ‘quality assurance’ approach. Ensuring that quality is looked after at every stage in the process. If anything, with the advent of Sarbanes-Oxley, here too we are taking more steps backwards to tighter audit controls because we cannot trust the people we pay to do the job properly.
There is a crying need for leadership of the HR variety. It cannot come soon enough.
Related items by this author
Please tell us what you think of the HR elite series – by posting your comment below.
2 Responses
initial presumptions are not always an indicator of wisdom
Paul’s deliberately provocative opener makes an assumption that the complexity of modern organisation superceeds the inherent conflicts of interest between labour and capital, and neatly avoids the importance of the need for the acceptance of a shadow culture within any thriving and learning organisation
WE need leadership which does not stereotype, and which recognises the complex interrelationships between real business imperatives and human capital. The market, whilest fast becoming the primary driver for most things, is not the only one. Performance must also be measured by such considerations as the utilisation of tasit and explicit knowledge, which is not only deliverable through technology. It is best encased within human beings who’s individual and diverse contribution needs to be nurtured and maximised.
Our leaders should not therefore automatically disregard the mechanisms which employees have historically developed to represent their legitimate interests.
HR people need to be personally and politically powerful before
Paul Kearn’s comments about HR leadership or lack of it apply in Australia too.
The departments of HR Controllers and ‘cold war’ IR Warriors have mostly been demolished or disbanded. But one still encounters too many who are over subservient to their executive management or more in love with processes and measures than engaging with people and achieving business relevant outcomes. Delivery of efficient HR products and services is expected, but not valued as much as client-centred, development and execution of business solutions. At the pinnacle of the HR profession are a few agents and leaders of change who are not daunted by risk of failure and the enmity of those who defend the status quo. They promote their organisation’s strategy without reservation and fearlessly represent the legitimate interests of employees when management hubris gets out of control.
To survive, win respect and achieve as a contemporary HR professional, you must be
• A professionally competent performer
• Well informed and connected
• Personally and politically powerful
• Both Advisor and Actor
• Open to feedback
• Willing and able to continuously learn.
The profession is rife with ’Wannabies’ ‘Gunners’ and heroic apologetic ‘Might have beens’ whose evidence of achievement is the elegance and volume of their inputs, programs and processes.
The only worthwhile measure of success is the evidence of effective action and tangible outcomes.
Your concern must again be the answer to the questions
• What was supposed to be achieved?
• What was actually achieved?
• What was done well and badly? And why?
• What will you do differently in future?
• What will ensure sustained improvement?
BARRY SMITH
Melbourne
Australia