Thursday, August 13, 2009
HR With or Without a Seat?
The debate concerning the desire and the ability for HR to achieve and maintain a 'seat at the table' in many organisations both in Australia and internationally continues to saturate many articles and discussions about HR. A seat at the table for the HR function as well as HR professionals is seen as indication of HR having "made it" in the organisation. But can a position such as this truly represent the strategic position of HR? Can a seat combined with a direct reporting line to the CEO signify that HR is seen as an essential and important part of the organisation? As children we are constantly told by our parents that we need to earn respect. Furthermore most of us will recall experiencing employers, when first starting out in the business world, who introduced us to the business, showed us the ropes and also proclaimed that respect in the business must be earned. If the debate about HR still focuses on the need for HR to play a more strategic role, then one must agree that HR then needs to earn the respect of the business. Respect is not a right it is a privilege. But how can HR demonstrate the essential role that it plays in the business and more importantly how it adds value and contributes to the performance of the business?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a good point - and one of the takeaways for me from Judith MacCormick's lecture. It seems to me that HR has often considered it is almost a right to be viewed as business critical and our views should be paramount in the minds of the Boards & senior management teams. Not so lucky. When a new HR Officer starts and does the hard yards in payroll and conditions - you become something of an expert in the esoteric. And that can become your power base. Of course that does not necessarily wash with a busy Executive team (its can also blind you to a whole range of other business drivers). The rigour of supporting your brilliant HR strategy with hard data is not new - but it has not had the up-front'ness that it should have...
ReplyDeleteEarning a 'seat at the table' is achieved by demonstrating you have something unique and of value to add to the views expressed by other senior managers. A problem for HR has been that too often we haven't, notwithstanding some notable exceptions.
ReplyDeleteThe new analytics we have been discussing appears to provide the basis for developing both valuable information and a strategic approach that can demonstrably help the business achieve its objectives.
When HR professionals start to provide unique & valuable insights, and a contribution to the development of strategy and competitive advantage, there will no longer be a conversation about whether HR should have a 'seat at the table' - it will be redundant.
I was wondering whether it is always good for HR managers to be empowered to join the strategic role. As we studied in the class, the competitive advantage, which is the core value of the organization, is created throgh human resource. Thus, we can say that the strategic role of the HR is indispensable for the business strategy.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is also danger of empowering the HR. The HR has the right to determine promotion and wages, so the HR department are likely to abuse its power. In Fujitsu in Japan, the introduction of result-based payment instead of seniority-based payment ruins the corporate ethics. The HR employees are highly rated compared with others because of its position.
I really think that it is beneficial for the comapany to have the understanding of the strategic HR. However, we have to consider how much discretion the HR should hold.
A lot of my clients aim to restore their strategic role by reducing the administrative hack work often carried by the HR function. I agree with PHilMac's view that the question goes away based on a result.
ReplyDeleteIf we see HR professionals, such as IR specialists, etc as providing a service to line management, then it would seem logical to expect to provide a similar service to the CEO. However, rather than producing strategy 'for' the CEO, is it more logical that a HR Director would instead provide strategic guidance to the line management at that 'C' level, based on a wealth of demonstrable and referenced research?
To Hiroshi's point, the competitive advantage is provided by the interaction of the human resources' skills, attitudes, commitment, etc. Depending on the type of business, this will have a lesser or greater effect on the bottom line and therefore the role of the HR function in strategy formulation may get more or less credability.
According to the rencent business environment, HR should be allocated more power to be a strategic partner in organizations. It will be a huge advantages if an organization has a terrific human capital management. I agree with unique & valuable insights of Philmac. On the one hand, HR departments should show their abilities to improve performance of organizations. On the other hand, HR departments also need to have abilities to persuade senior managers to give them practical support and enough time to achieve initial targets.
ReplyDeleteHowever, CEO also needs to realise the potential risks to give power to HR departments. Like Hiroshi has said, organizations should avoid HR departments abusing power. Furthermore, if HR departments have a great amount of power in the organization, it is high risks that if staff of HR departments resign from the organziation and find a job in competitors. In other words, organizations should be careful about business spies and other relative events.