Global membership in The Society of Human Resources Management, http://shrm.org exceeds 250,000 and is the oldest association in the US. Human Resources is often referred to as Human Capital Management, Talent Management or simply HR. The world’s first HR association formed in England in 1919.
The concept of human relations management began in the early part of the 20th century, and has grown to become the pivot point for all businesses that employ as few as one or two workers. Organized workforces fall under the scope of HR in addition to all others. Unionization drove many of the principles and behaviors that shape the industry and formulated the state and federal laws and regulations we are governed by.
Stan Epstein, an organizational development/effectiveness consultant, says that he is finding that HR generalists are being asked to accept more central roles in planning and managing organizational change. “This is in addition to their other roles in administration and policy formulation and enforcement. This change is creating new challenges in terms of time management, capability development, and role conflicts,” he says. “Since HR executives are often asked for advice on issues like compensation, promotion, and so on, it is unreasonable to expect that managers will open up to them about organizational issues if they feel doing so exposes their vulnerabilities and deficiencies. Yet, this type of information is exactly what is needed if the HR executive is to be as helpful as possible as a consultant to the manager and to the organization. While it seems desirable to expand the roles and capabilities of HR generalists, this unforeseen outcome makes this change a costly one for everyone concerned.”
There are quite a few segments or facets to HR, but they all pertain in some way to the human aspects of business. While some companies perform HR responsibilities internally, many companies outsource some portions to reliable third party vendors.
The complex department that is Human Resources is a topic that encyclopedias can be written about, and this article cannot do it justice. We offer this information as a means to a higher level of understanding the importance of HR in any business environment.
Departmental facets of HR:
• Recruitment
• Training & Development
• Benefits Administration
• Payroll Maintenance
• Change Management
• Policies and Procedures Administration
• Executive Development
• Governmental Compliance
• Staff Nurturing
• Communications
• Staff Nurturing
• Benchmarking
• Safety
The current economic storm presents both challenges and opportunities to firms large and small. Any business leader concerned about retaining talent, nurturing staff and maintaining the competitive edge knows to pay close attention to the human resources department. CEO’s roles in HR are varied and sundry, with internal success every bit as critical as external growth and sustainability.
Key HR Factors for CEO’s
• Talent Management- CEO’s need to spend sufficient time to interface with human resource department heads ensuring a well-executed talent management strategy.
• Succession Planning - The next generation of top talent for any organization requires careful planning, and CEO’s should be involved in the training and staff development process for senior management. Mentoring those aligned for future responsibilities is not only HR’s responsibility, especially when executive leadership is involved.
• Governmental Compliance - Compliance may not be in the CEO’s wheelhouse, but when it comes to fines and government scrutiny, the buck stops at the leader’s desk. Sufficient oversight by the business leadership in tandem with HR will be an ongoing agenda item for company leadership in general.
There is no clear-cut definition for HR per se, as the task lists and job descriptions for it are pervasive. Additionally, dependent upon the size and complexity of a business entity, HR departments have varying degrees of involvement. Regardless of size, however, aspects of HR exist in every business, from the entrepreneurial endeavor to Fortune 50 firms. With continued growth into the global marketplace, as firms grow so does their need for competency in this critical business segment.
In the past, Human resource departments based their decision-making on intuition rather than metrics and standardization. Today’s technologies provide ease of use and scientific analysis of performance, manpower needs, productivity, and so on.
No longer is HR an expense department, but a critical element in revenue and productivity enhancement, as well as cost reduction.
Whilst I would agree with the last sentence of the article, the article itself is very simplistic of its’ definition of HR. It does not outline the difference between Strategic, Transitional and Operational HR functions. Nor does it give any mention to the difference between the role of a HR Manager and a HR Partner (often taken to mean the same thing, especially when you read job advertisements in the UK, when they are in fact totally different). When looking at the list of HR functions listed in this article, they are what I would consider to be traditional HR functions. HRM needs to go much further if it is to aid/enhance efficiency, effectiveness, productivity and quality throughout an organisation. It needs to have an understanding of exactly what it is that an organisation is trying to achieve and of how the end ‘product’ is to be achieved so as to be able to provide targetted support to its’ internal customers.
I like the last sentence in this article best!
46 years of being involved with and studying administration has reminded me that God is generally perceived as being on the outside, looking in, rather than on the inside looking out. When you look at an illustration of something, or a report about something, it is easy to have the impression that you are not actually attached to, or part of, what you are looking at.
Organizations suffer from not all of it’s people looking out and being together, AS ONE. Officers / Managers have to look at and ensure that things are going according to plan, but that does not mean they are detached from it. An Organization is its’ people. HR is the Organization, because it represents all of it’s people. It is ALL of those people who will determine the success, or otherwise, of the Organization.
An Organization is made up of what it’s personnel are, before what they do – albeit that both are important in order to get the Organization’s product. This is why I preferred the title “Personnel” rather than “HR”. To me “HR” paints the picture of a commodity, rather than part of a living organism.
HR certainly needs to get to grips with all aspects of what enhances, or detracts from,
the efficient / planned running of the Organization – including Management, it seems! Try and see if I am right. Try looking out from within as well as in from outside. Of course, the human being has a problem in that you can see others, but don’t know how those others feel. Likewise, others can see you, but do not know how you feel. But there is a third feature, the only feature that solves the problem – Communication.
You know what the Organization wants. Now all you have to do is to get your only real asset to provide it – As One. That goes for system interaction as well, otherwise the system becomes it’s own creation – bad news!
The article referrred to by Marc has certainly provoked some interesting comments. The listing of roles/duties in the article were not, I am sure itended to be exhaustive. However I do think that the role of HR has certainly evolved quite a lot over the last 40 years or so. It also seems to differ depending upon the nature of the organisation you are looking at/working in.
Having said that we are certainly agreed that the people in the organisation of whatever kind are its most important asset and in order to make the most of that asset they have to be managed well and motivated (though engaged seems to be the in word these days). None of this will work without effective communication to all concerned. To me this means that there has to be a consistent and well planned programme of internal marketing (communications). This will help to ensure that all of the staff know how their role helps to keep the organisation functioning at its best to achieve its overall objectives. And keep everyone in work too.
I guess there will be a lot of HR professionals out there who are getting too much experience in making people redundant and much less in recruiting them for their liking.
With everyone working together for the good of the organisation and each other it has to be a better way.
I am in agreement that employees are the most important asset within an organisation and, often, the most costly asset. It is therefore important that people within an organisation are ‘engaged’. However, there are two distinctly different parties to be served by HR professionals – the employer and the employee. To that end, there are two main models of HR management. The Michigan Model (Hard HRM) proposes that individuals should be treated as an organisational resource, obtained and resourced as cost-effectively as possible, developed and ‘exploited’; fit should be achieved between the individual and organisational strategies by selecting the most suitable individuals to achieve its business activities and promoting optimum performance to achieve business objectives; monitoring and appraising performance and providing appropriate feedback to employees; rewarding performance and developing knowledge, skills and competence to achieve business objectives. In contrast, the Harvard Model (Soft HRM) suggests a more ‘humane’ side to HRM where employees, albeit seen as an organisational resource, are also seen as being human. There are four HR policy areas that are important to this model: human resource flows: recruitment, selection, utilisation/placement, appraisal, promotion, termination of employment; reward management systems: pay, motivation; employee influence: power, delegation and responsibility; work systems: aligning people with work design. Beer et al (1984) suggest that the use of the Harvard Model leads to the achievement of the ‘four c’s':
Competence of employees – skills, abilities, capabilities.
Commitment of employees – to the organisation and its culture.
Conguence/fit of employee and organisational goals.
Cost-effectiveness of the human resource management function.
The Michigan Model aligns itself well to strategic HRM which serves the organisation as the employer, and the Harvard Model is very much aligned to transitional HRM in that it serves both the employer and the employee. In truth, if you look at most organisations you will find that, either knowingly or unwittingly, both models are being used in the management of the workforce. As Derek has rightly highlighted, HR has evolved a lot over the last 40 years and, with changes such as LEAN management, a number of organisations have seen fit to bring in HR Partners to manage HR strategy whilst leaving HR Managers to oversee the Transitional HR functions (Douglas might wish to rename transitional HR functions as Personnel functions and I do not have a problem with that-in fact it would fit quite well).
Whilst I agree that there is a lot of pertinent detail in what George says. As a more general management person (with a marketing and sales background). I would be concerned with the use exclusively of the Michigan model of HR. The Harvard model is much more in line with the kind of management principles/theories that I have taught over the years. That is to get the best out of employees whilst rewarding their efforts fairly and equitably. Strangely (some would say) an idea put forward by F W Taylor (some who misunderstand him would say that he was an exploiter but they would be wrong).
Quite a few commentators from the late 1800′s to more recent times would still agree with that. Though they would probably couch it in different language implying that what they have to say is new!
Derek, I couldn’t agree with you more – exclusive use of the Michigan model would be disastrous. This is why many organisations are now looking at splitting strategic HRM away from Transitional HRM. The primary role of the HR Business Partner is to align HR stategy with the overall Business Plan and organisational goals (very much in keeping with the Michigan Model), whilst the HR Manager is responsible for the day-to-day interaction with the staff primarily using a softer model of HRM (such as the Harvard Model). If you look at my own profile you will see that I am responsible for Manpower Planning, Resourcing and Deployment. I have a great deal of interaction with line managers but very little with their staff. The HR departments (and there are many in our organisation) are responsible for the day-to-day interaction with employees. My role is purely strategic.
I have not been keeping in touch with HR over the recent years, so I am finding this discussion very useful in terms of how things are viewed and what to read. The discussion itself has been more informative than some of the “long winded” blog explanations online. George makes the distinctions very clear.
Employer and employee are definitely two different structures. I know this from being the only person in my Company and having to do both. It feels a bit like you are playing against yourself at Chess and keep changing to the opposite side of the table to reply.
Employees handle 60 (6) seconds = 1 minute. 60 (6) minutes = 1 hour. 24 (6) hours = 1 day. 6 days = 1 working week. This leaves day 7 (the employer) to deal with the not so straightforward i.e. there are usually 30 days in a month, but. There are usually 365 days in a year, but. Then, of course, every now and then some “bright spark” realizes that we have 8 days too many, so those days have to be taken out of the calendar. But, is this straight line between two opposing, but co-operating, points actually a triangle laying on it’s side?
It was reading Derek’s entries in the discussion that I noticed him assert the subject of sales and marketing. It appeared to me as though he felt that they were being neglected somehow. Forgive me, I might be wrong, but that is the impression I got. Then I remembered how much attitudes towards customers have changed over the years. You will all have your own view on that, no doubt. I could see the accuracy of positioning in the presentation of the two different HR models, as illustrated by George, after his explanation of Beer et al (1984). Something was not clear though.
My view on much customer treatment at present is – see if “frequently ask questions” solves it or pay large amounts of money for a person to tell you what you should have been told in the first place. Something I have found in my own study is not a new thing, in fact you hear it frequently – “Things happen in threes don’t they”? I must confess that it was the term Human Resources that gave me the final clue to what I was looking for, which is that clients / customers are a resource. Some people even consider them to be human. Perhaps then customers can be considered as a human resource to the Organization.
Yes employers have to control what goes on. Yes employees have to get the work done, but what about the customer? Not the sales person, the customer! This is a return flow. George finishes with a classic last sentence in his first comment here. I just wonder if HR needs to have a third string to its’ bow – external customers. Do HR need to be “the customer” when interviewing sales people, maintaining training or supervision? Knowledge of the Organization’s type of customer would be essential, giving room for controlled expansion of the type of customer would perhaps be beneficial?
As I say, I am out of touch and this may already be covered. Maybe I am just “off the planet”. I apologize if that is the case. If there is data on this already, I would be pleased to receive it or know where it is.
Douglas: you raise some interesting points here. However I will address the ones that I think I am most qualified to deal with. I mentioned marketing and sales as being in my background purely to differentiate myself from being in HRM. However marketing always comes before sales as the marketers find the markets and the ways to market for the product or service concerned.
My saying that marketing should be involved stems from the fact that marketers are usually skilled communicators. They are also responsible along with board directors for setting the companies strategy; for if it is not market orientated the company will sooner or later fail. Companies often neglect to communicate effectively with their employees so to address this marketers should be involved. However HRM needs to address any of their issues about the direction in which the company is going and to some extent how the staff can help the company to and survive and thrive in these difficullt times. And it is the marketing communications people that can help them to do this. If all staff are not aware of how important a customer is (i.e. they pay the wages) you will get the kind of indiferent “customer service” with which many of us have been inflicted this past few years. This procees of communication with the staff is referred to as internal marketing. Enlightened companies increasingly see this as important to their ongoing sustainablity.
Unfortunately many of us have been the victims of poor customer service because the staff have not been made aware of just how important customers are!
Hence the need for internal marketing thus trying to ensure that any point of contact in the company will treat customers (or potential customers with respect rather than indiference). Whilst I am firmly on the side of customers, I do not subscribe to the old adage “The customer is always right” because in my many years of experience I have found that they are not.
However if a customer has the wrong perception about a product or service it is up to the company to do something to correct that (marketing perhaps). And they should train the staff to be helpful or redirect to someone who can be helpful. Unfortunately it seems that customer service departments are chosen as the department to downsize or outsource and this is where we poor old customers come in for poor service. This happens even when calling O800 numbers. I would not like the telephone bills of firms who leave people on hold for 20/30 minutes at a time. It is even worse when you get to speak to someone who is outsourced from India or Eastern Europe who can not speak English properly.
Stop me! I’m feeling a Victor Meldrew moment coming on:-).
I hope that what I have said above helps to clarify, rather than muddy the waters.
Derek, Douglas, you both make very good points. Many organisations have now realised that there is a need to continue with traditional HRM, to look after the needs of the employee, whilst also employing someone with a wider understanding of business operations (as well as having a HRM background) in order to be able to align HR strategy with Business strategy. The quality of the product received by the external customer will be very dependant upon many areas within an organisation (including HRM). It will, of course, depend upon the style of management and the ethos within the organisation as well. If management stifles initiative it will also stifle innovation, which in turn will give competitors the edge. Ensuring that you have the right people, doing the right things at the right time is essential in business. But you also need to ensure that they are given responsibility and that they are also given the space to develop.
George. I think that the last two sentences of your posting above are of considerable significance to the matter under discussion. Hopefully UK Plc is looking in and taking note.
Derek, George, thank you for your last comments. Your replies have helped me to get to grips with what is going on. Developments look impressive, although there seems to be a need for much repair in the wake of technological advances during the last 20 odd years.
Sadly, much of this repair relates to people i.e. the handling of customers which has gone digital, along with the products that they buy, and also the negative side of employment i.e. unemployment.
With the new structure of HRM I wonder if Companies are in a better position to consider striving, where possible, toward expansion, rather than reducing the workforce, and, if so, whether this option is actively pursued? Is the new HRM in a position to influence such a balance in any way?
Thank you Derek for your explanation on Marketing and Sales. The way in which you put the subject across, took me to the earlier part of the process that I had to look at – what is it you are marketing? I knew, but my customers didn’t. This was something that my new website designer had to point out to me recently, when it took me about 5 minutes to explain what the logo meant. He was impressed with the data, but not with the fact the subject was not obvious from what he was looking at. I had the answer and now, correctly focused, I can present it.
Finally, Derek, your last comment reminded me of just how important George’s last two sentences are. I have a memory of being at lunch with my boss and an American associate. If ever what I was saying disagreed with what I was thinking, it was then. The things you do to keep your job! My fault, I should have been honest. It would have been to everyone’s benefit in the long run. The food was excellent!
Douglas, I am not sure that it is just HRM that needs to change in order for companies to expand. If you think back to some of the products that have been manufactured, only to have ‘add-ons’ because different customers have required a slightly different spec, you will see the problem for yourself. UK plc has been fairly slow to adopt LEAN manufacturing. Yet LEAN systems provide an opportunity to make quick changes to systems (and machinery) allowing a company to manufacture exactly what the customer desires. LEAN is often associated with a reduction in manpower, but if managed properly (and with innovative leadership) it can often release manpower (or womanpower) to allow for the production of new products or even for customising a product that is currently being manufactured. In this way a company can produce a much higher quality product, at a competitive price and increase its customer share in the market place. The new structure of HRM very much supports this idea, providing the organisation with the ability to have the right people, doing the right things at the right time. However, you need to be aware that LEAN is a bottom up, as well as a top down concept and so requires a move away from traditional leadership and management styles. Not only does it provide people with an opportunity to be innovative, it requires people to take responsibility and to show innovation in order to ensure quality through every process (not just in the production of a product or provision of a service, but throughout the organisation – including business administrative processes such as HR, Finance, Marketing, Procurement etc). It also requires a change in attitude from suppliers in that they also need to take a LEAN approach so as to ensure that they can provide the right component/service just in time for it to be processed (part of LEAN is ensuring that you do not stock-pile components etc – this is an aid to cash-flow, thereby allowing the company to spend money on product development – leading to expansion or increased sales). I could go on for hours on the subject of LEAN. But I think that I have provided sufficient information to give a good idea of where this is leading.
I have just been looking at a job advertisement for a HR Partner. I am not going to name the organisation, but thought you might be interested in the following extract:
‘As a key member of the HR team, you will have a real opportunity to work with managers as their HR Business Partner from day one, and have the flexibility and autonomy of getting to the heart of operational HR factory issues, developing fit for purpose solutions. You will also be involved in a wide range of organisation design, development and culture change activities to bring about a continuous improvement mind-set and getting the factory to look for ever more efficient ways of working as one team’.
George, thank you for the very articulate response to my continued comments. I felt a lot more “grounded” after reading what you had to say. Wow, that advert! In practical terms I think it answered my concerns, didn’t it? I feel that the HR Business Partner will imbue a customer outlook, which rather completes the picture for me. Thank you once again!
I like this web blog very much so much excellent info.