5 Comments so far

Wednesday, October 03, 2007 by Angus

Hey don't shoot the messenger - this is not tainted by a recruiter's view - if anything it's toned down particularly in terms of the derogatory language used to describe their opinions.

This gets back to something else Pete refers to which is, it being the responsibility of the CEO to make sure hirng practice appears on everybody's agenda.

You don't have the time to get to know the business, so is it any wonder that line managers often complain of the silo nature or vacuum in which HR seems to operate?

Line managers often complain about the standard of candidates they are asked to interview, partly because HR word matches the response in the first instance, or acts as a barrier to the good recruiters speaking to the line managers and therefore giving inaccurate briefs; largely because they cannot directly relate to the issue at hand.

These are the same Line Managers that often smile at you across the management meeting table, but in more familiar company they put the boot well and truely in.

There appears to be a stand off between many departmental managers in this instance; HR doesn't have the time, so doesn't do it, so why should the equally overburdened line managers who need to recruit. Someone needs to make the effort or it wil carry on and there'll just be greater isolation.

It's one of those roundtoits that many of us have in our calendar or cerebral in-box. I'll go down to the shop floor and spend some time with the CNC guy. I'll go out with one of the sales reps on some appointments etc. i'll go and see how many calls the IT Heldesk gets a week and see if we can help communicate some simple self hlep processes to the teams.

It doesn't have to start with HR but if it doesn't then will it ever start without the CEO asking for it to happen and then following up?

It'll hurt to start with but it will go a long long way to breaking down what in some cases are invisible barriers or deeply entrenched views or the importance and contribution of HR; unfortunately most people take a lot of what HR does for granted because it doesn't always have a great deal of visibility in the organisation.

However the bits that are very visible, like recruitment, matter a big deal and, due to the personal impact on the line managers of not having people on board, they can be very critical. Maybe there is another way that someone else can suggest.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007 by DavidJ

If I may say, your view of HR appears tainted by the recruiter's view, whereas in reality recruitment (not hiring!!!!) plays an important but minor part of the overall HR role.

Personally speaking I would LOVE to have more time to get to know the business and have co-managers who also had the time to share their understanding with me.

Speaking for the profession, we get what this campaign is about but the HR's role has become so overburdened that there is little room for anything else. Point illustrated by the fact that I'm on a blog discussing improving recruitment and it's 7.30am!

Monday, September 10, 2007 by Angus

In the 10 years I spent in recruiting in the UK and Europe I can honestly say that I could count the number of this "new breed" of HR that I met on both hands and still have enough digits left to play "3-2-1" with Ted Rogers and Dusty Bin. I don't know if the others had been so brow beaten by their employers or had simply given up because it was the easier option but the difference seemed to be that those who understood the business and could communicate things from a commercial, or financial, as well as a people point of view were the ones that got the respect and consideration that you speak of. So many of them seemed to operate in silos within their business and as such just could not relate to the other business leaders on a remotely equal footing. One Design Manager of a $400Million US manufacturer told me that the only time his UK HR Director who was based in the same building complex ever came near the design centre ( a centre of excellence with over 25 of their brightest design talents in it) was when he was conducting a tour and he always used the line "and here are the design guys - I have absolutely no idea what goes on in here but what you see out there (on the factory floor) is all their fault." Of the people I would include in that finger count I was referring to earlier three of them had not followed the traditional HR career route into their HR positions. One was Operations, one was Quality and the other an ex Finance head. They just did what they felt was common sense or grabbed a good idea when it came their way and as such hadn't received the more traditional HR schooling.

They confided that they often despaired when put with other so called HR pfroessionals at conferences only to find out that they could not really talk about their busniesses from a hoolistic point of view - their perspective was too insular. However praise be for those of you still fighting to be heard. It is worth it. And I'd be interested to hear what you think caused the change in the businesses to create the shift that you refer to - if you could bottle it and sell it you'd be a very rich man and British Industry would be much better off.

Saturday, September 08, 2007 by DavidJ

Speaking up for the UK here there many human resource professionals who might fit into what you describe as 'new breed'. I would argue that such people have always been around and what has changed is the businesses we serve are now giving us the respect and consideration the service we provide warrants.

Thursday, September 06, 2007 by Angus

I'd like to add that from working in Hong Kong and South China the very same conversations are being had - except that like in the UK they are very few and far between. HR is still often seen as a service provider (of questionable delivery) with a voice barely audible to the key decision makers in the business. The question that springs to mind in many of the recruitment related meetings that I have with my clients is who is at fault? Is it the HR representatives for letting themselves be pushed around or for letting their contribution to the business be marginalised or is it the other Board members for treating HR's role in the Board room as being that of minute taker or ensuring that they have those really nice chocolate biscuits with the silver foil wrap?

The encouraging thing about Asia is that there are an increasing number of what I would call the "new breed" of HR professionals who act as strategic business partners on an equal footing with their fellow Directors. They have created effective, passionate, motivated and eficient business units in their own right and are no longer satisfied with a role on the supporting cast of the organisation. They bring a dose of reality to the table during business planning meetings when sweeping statements are made about expansion plans and sales targets that rely so heavily on the current and potential human capital within the company. They have dispelled the myth about the magic drawer that apparently existed in the HR office that was full of brilliant people just waiting for the phone call to invite them to join the business. As one of my clients put it they now "hire bravely," meaning that they follow their instincts after they have really thought through the contribution they expect their new employees to make and followed a structured selection process. If somebody has the right attitude and level of desire but lacks a specific skill that can be developed - be it technical or soft, then they will still ask them to join them, believing it to be better to have someone can almost / just about do the job and really wants to rather than hire someone who can just do the job. They are then able to plug this training need back into the business strategy and highlight the potential impact on it. This greater level of business awareness is what makes this type of HR person a joy to work with yet it is precisely this lack of business awareness that restricts so many of them to taking notes and sorting out refreshments.