They need to be actively involved in the input process - be it training need identification, specification gathering or new system implementation.
Just as a Business Head makes a contribution to the performance review of his / her HR generalists, a specialists' performance evaluation should have one component that comprises Business HR feedback.
Having worked in both sides of the HR divide (corporate and generalist) I had come to the conclusion that the difference of the worldview of both these groups is due to the nature of work they perform.
A HR generalist (or Business unit/partner/HR manager) manages exceptions. A new leave policy is being rolled out? A good HR generalist will let you know what the 20% employees will be unhappy with it.
A specialist on the other hand, needs to focus on the 80% of the people who will be OK with the new policy.
This is where the dichotomy of viewpoints happen.
I am not sure if incorporating a change in performance evalution as Anuradha is trying will work or not. If anything, then it cannot merely be one way. A specialist must also evaluate a HR generalist on how promptly the feedback was given to change the first draft of any new proposal.
My advice for most HR professionals is that adding more metrics/evaluation might make this much more muddier and confusing. It has chances of succeeding in a much mature HR group.
What does need to change is the adversarial positions of these key HR roles and various HR functions need to do so according to their own cultures and methods.
I found the mention of 'adversarial positions of the various roles/functions in HR" to be interesting. Apart from the insufficient understanding/ appreciation of the other roles, there could be structural reasons that contribute to these 'adversarial positions'.
ReplyDeleteOften, the specialist roles/functions in HR are vertically aligned where as the HR generalist roles are horizontally aligned (i.e. to a particular business unit in a particular geography). This alignment is not just in terms of the reporting lines within the HR functions. It is also dependent on the key internal customers for the various HR functions (i.e. the business managers to whom they are primarily responsible to) and their expectations from HR. Often, these internal customers have conflicting expectations/ priorities.
For example, if the key internal customer of a specialist function (C&B, L&D etc.) is a global manager (or the CEO), he/she might like to drive standardization of the deliverables/functioning of the HR function across the various geographies (say from a cost optimization point of view). At the same time, if the key internal customer of a the HR generalist is a business manager in charge of the business in a particular geography, he/she might want the HR deliverables to be customized to the local/context specific needs.
Thus, at least at the practical (day-to-day) level, the priorities for a HR specialist might be at odds with those for a HR generalist (though ultimately everybody is working for the same company and hence they have the same overall objective).
Thus, I feel that, to minimize the 'adversarial positions', we need to address the structural dimension in addition to addressing the 'understanding/appreciation/keeping in the loop' related dimensions.
I agree that specialist roles and functions within HR can be aligned on different levels. It is important to create a structure that is conducive to positive communication across all levels of management. This will initiate working conditions that promote productivity naturally.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting topic Gautam!
Nick Del Carlo, M.S.M.O.B.
Organization Development Management (ODM)
www.ODManagement.com