A few years ago, I remember being in conversation with a head-hunter of one of the well-known “magic 5” executive firms, not the one I had worked with myself before. This head-hunter was a veteran in the field of HR searches, often consulted by Chairmen, CEOs and GHRDs when they were looking to fill senior HR positions. I still remember the statement he made that organisations are getting the HR department they deserve.
He wasn’t too flattering in general about the quality of HR across organisations however was reluctant to attribute this to the people who choose to pursue a career in HR. He argued that businesses didn’t allow HR to have a full seat at the executive table where strategies were shaped and important decisions were made and as such missed out. They simply underestimated the role HR could play in achieving high business performance.
I am still unsure whether to (partly) agree with his statement or to completely reject this point of view and/or be a tad cynical about the fact that he was just defending the people he placed. All I do know is that ever since being an HR professional, I always have had an ambivalent feeling towards HR myself.
First and foremost let me get the following out of the way: I am a strong believer that HR done well boosts business performance. At the same time, I perceive many HR departments falling into the trap of being subservient to a strategy thought out in a room where they were not a full partner in the conversation. At times they mainly execute, don’t push back as much as they perhaps could, let alone help shaping the business agenda. They are satisfied when business leaders claim that people are their main asset, even when practice tells you differently. They aspire only for the HR strategy to be aligned with the business strategy, not informing it. HR can be seen hiding too much behind processes at times. Often processes that, ironically, end up being demotivating and disengaging workforce. As a result, the full power of people is still very much underleveraged in many organisations. is this the case for you too?
I like to call out for us all to be more ambitious and request more from the HR community. Based upon my experience, business leaders, owners and shareholders react often very positively when HR finds its voice and plays a more proactive role. A business strategy and HR strategy should not be a sequential thinking exercise but one that is intertwined. I like to think it is a crime if we, HR folks, don’t engage senior business leaders in conversations using business language, data and insights on the value they leave on the table if they kick off the business cycle with a strategic retreat not having concurrent conversations around culture, leadership and people. Just try it, you won’t regret it. Join the determined HR pack!
As a proud member of the Effragettes (1), I represent the view that most organisations would fare well with organising an HR detox. Reviewing all people processes and initiatives just with two simple questions:
Just imagine for a second in your organisation how much cleansing can be done, how much complexity can be removed, processes simplified or completely weeded out, initiatives made simpler, duplications removed. I guarantee you will notice newly freed positive energy, empowered HR people – across levels and generations– reinventing themselves, showing higher levels of effective performance/engagement, and noticing/feeling that what they do matters (again).
What I am preaching here is not just applicable for more conventional or “mature” organisations. I recall with fondness the day when I attended a mentoring matching event for Start-ups in Fintech. I was clearly the outlier. Participants, both mentees and fellow mentors, were often surprised, yet positively curious why I was there. When I set out my philosophy, the reaction was electrifying. I was spoilt with choice who to work with. My read of the situation is that entrepreneurs are geniuses in the area of product development, sales and marketing, finance and technology. When it comes to people, they are nervous. When you actually analyse what makes most scale ups fail to realise their full potential, often you will find that one of the defining contributing factors is that they underestimated all things people.
So going back to the head-hunter’s statement: Why does HR still suffer from a mixed reputation? Is it the business leaders who have not experienced the full power of what strategic (and effective strategically implemented) HR can result into? Or is there something to say about the type of person we attract to this profession? If there is so much opportunity to make a difference to people’s experience at work and the business performance, why don’t we – on average – compete for the brightest and best people to pursue a career in HR? Is it the lack of really truly innovative and relevant technology (2) which is still holding HR back with too much unappealing, mundane and administrative work (not roles!) and thereby making HR careers less attractive? Is it the beliefs we are holding as HR which prevents us from being brave, courageous and transformational discussion partners? Have we got a (perceived?) lack of business acumen / influencing skills? Or are we just not commercial enough in marketing and evidencing with data/insights that what we do matters? And if HR brings the value it could, would this not also translate into rewards packages reflecting this to attract and retain the best?
I am sure that the answer probably lays in a combination of all elements summed up above and probably more aspects that I have missed off. So I like to make a call to action: let’s start with our own organisation and do something about it as HR and/or business leaders? Shall we stop wasting time by getting lost in the dichotomy of generalists and specialists, living in the illusion if we upskill our HR business partners all things will be solved. Shall we just get rid of references to old HR paradigms, The Ulrich (3) one on top, on how to structure an HR department? Shall we stop talking in a demeaning way about HR? Shall we make a proper start with automating HR? Shall we stop the non-sense that HR is to be all consumed by “difficult” operational conversations and keeping the juicy strategic opportunities to the business?
Instead, how about if we start embracing the potential of HR by making them operate according to networked communities linked to strategic people and business priorities (not the people lifecycle or HR agenda(4)). How about waking up to the reality that portfolio careers will become business as usual and not just with generation Z employees or people close to retirement. If we want the HR department to fully live up to its strategic importance, we need to rethink how to best go about “our” HR people first: who to attract, how to operate, which demands to set and which accountabilities to allocate.
With entering an era where the pace of change will only get faster and AI, enhanced reality and robotics disrupting business, the impact will be particularly felt within the workforce. So what are we waiting for? Let’s just be leaders in transformation and change and Inspiring brilliant people to fulfil their ambitions and deliver innovation for clients (5). How naïve to think to achieve your best business performance in the future without the best of the best focussing properly on all things people…….wouldn’t you agree?
Caroline Vanovermeire, September 2017
(1) Alike the Suffragettes, we are on a mission of doing “all things people” right to boost business performance (see effraconsult.com). Mind you Suffragettes were not just females, the movement had many male supporters and members too joining in.
(2) Is the Ulrich model still valid? Blog by Jenny Roper in HR magazine, August 2016
(3)I am intrigued by the activities by Sandpit in this regard: check it out: www.thesandpit.com
(4) This represents too much silo thinking in my opinion. Also like to share that you might be well wasting your time if you don’t realise that people engage for the duration of a project which can be either representing a few weeks, months or years. This is especially the case in sectors where technology has an impact and employees change every 18 months or so. In my view, this is a far more relevant thing to bear in mind than whether people are on your payroll (…and you need to think of them in terms of the employee life cycle), contractors or consultants (the later too often even not cared for by the organisation). I am sure this point in itself is controversial but please react to it and happy to go into discussion.
(5)This is how Dentsu Aegis HR department redefined recently their purpose and vision. I like this a lot.
© 2019 Effra Consult LTD