Navigation
Search
New Comments
Handy Links
Syndication
Main | How newsletters should be done »
Human Resources --I hate them SO MUCH!
On August 22, 2005 by Jamie Madigan
Well, not me, actually, but the author of an interesting article on Fastcompany.com. He writes about what's wrong with Human Resources. In some ways it's more of an invective against the whole profession than prescription for how to fix things, but it does raise a few interesting points. In fact, the author organizes his "Why I hate HR" theme around 4 points:
- HR attracts dunces and chowderheads
- HR is more interested in doing stuff than getting stuff done
- HR is too busy with the compliance game to create value for the company
- HR is an organizational outcast that never gets to hang out with the cool kids who smoke cigarettes and strategize
I'm lapsing into hyperbole for the sake of entertainment, but those four bullet points pretty much sum up the article. It's full of its own hyperbole, bizzaro logic, and lazy generalizations about a whole field based on a few case studies, but I do find myself agreeing that these are at least common pitfalls. As one contributor to the listserv that first brought this article to my attention pointed out, the problem with a lot of HR professionals is that they're long on "should do" and short on "how to." Yes, I know that we should hire the best people while maintaining a diverse workforce. How is that accomplished? I know measuring the effects of training is a good thing. How do you do that? And then how do we improve those metrics? and PROVE it?
This is where many (not all, but many) HR people fall on their face because they don't have the analytical skills to follow a scientific research program. And I'm not saying that every person from Payroll to Benefits should know the difference between a t-test and a tea set, but someone should be able to calculate the utility of a new selection program vs. the status quo. So that HR can show its value and actually be strategic in that it provides resources for making important organizational decisions. Isn't it convenient that the better I/O Psychologists are trained to do that kind of thing?
Existing comments:
Posted by Jamie at August 24, 2005 3:17 PM:
Looks like Susan Meisenberger, head of the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) sent off a reply to Fast Company over this:
http://www.shrm.org/images/05meisinger.pdf
Only slightly smug, and pretty terse. Kind of reserved, in fact.
Posted by Spence at September 28, 2005 6:43 PM:
When I began working as an I/O psychologist I had the naive impression that I would be working hand in hand with HR folks to build competition crushing selection systems that provide the foundation for great companies (my biased view). Instead the pattern has been as follows:
1. An engineer, training manager, operations manager or company president (small company) makes first contact (never an HR person). Their focus is always the same-get me better people.
2. After initial discussions we eventually get to a point where somebody from HR becomes involved and, typically (not always), the reaction is some blend of apathy, pessimism and hostility, all behind the face of a somewhat friendly smile. In order of priority the HR person seems to be worried about how much work they are going to have to do and real or perceived issues of compliance. New hire performance is off the radar.
3. In spite of HRs lack of enthusiasm, the project is finished and the process is managed by somebody other than an HR person.
Who knows, maybe I (we?) just repulse HR folks?
Posted by Bryan at October 15, 2005 6:26 AM:
Spence, to me the situation you described means one thing: lousy HR management. Good HR managers "get it", hire smart folks, and hold their people accountable. These ideas are of course as old as dirt. The fact that some in the HR community consider this to be revolutionary when applied to HR itself is scary.
Post your own comment:
