"You see we need a HR person to be here all the time" said the manager
"Why?" I asked
"Well, when people come late, or don't behave according to organizational norms, HR should point it out to them?"
"And why can't a leader/manager like you do that?"
"Well we have to get work done through them, and we can't spoil our relationship policing them, therefore we need HR to do that" said the manager.
This conversation happened in the recent past.
Those of you who share the feelings of this manager, please evolve. It's the manager's job to discipline and point out when people step out of line. Not the HR professionals'.
What is the job of HR then?
ReplyDeleteconducting parties? organizing cricket matches? persuading people to participate?
Hi Gautam, I am a Conference Producer based in Singapore and I am currently in the process of designing a regional workshop on Change Management. However, I would like to determine whether there is a need for this topic to be addressed at this point in time as based on a couple of inputs frm HR practitioners, this area was 'big' a couple of years back and not so much now. Yr views on this pls. - Anita, Conference Producer, UNI Strategic
ReplyDeleteHi Vivek
ReplyDeleteThe role of HR is to set processes and policies that enable the best people to apply to the most suitable role, to motivate them to stay and to enable processes of growth for growth.
Parties and cricket matches is not the job of HR.
Hi Gautam,
ReplyDeleteI am all for managers discharging their managerial leadership duties. Unfortunately, in many organizations, we want the managers to do the performance management part, but we put non-validated restrictions and severe limits on their ability to hire who they want, fire who they want, decide on reward (within boundaries), and be the sole source of assignments to their direct reports.
HR can't have it both ways. If they want managers to be accountable to do this, they must also ensure that managers have the authorities they need to be successful. This is what HR should be doing for managers - clarifying and reconciling managerial accountabilities and authorities.
See: http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/leadership-by-proxy-causes-low-employee-engagement
http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/we-dont-work-for-companies-we-work-for-managers
Regards,
Michelle
Hi Michelle,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more :-)
I wish we could get as close to that state as possible!
Valid comments Michelle. I believe there are four key authorities that anyone in a 'manager' role must have, if they are to be accountable for the output of their team. Ian Macdonald in 'Systems Leadership - creating positive organisations' Macdonald Stewart Burke 2007 (with reference to Jaques) writes of these four authorities as V.A.R.I:
ReplyDeleteVeto selection (of people into their team); Assign tasks; Review, recognize and reward differentially; and Initiate removal from role. These must be there for the line managers to do their jobs. It is NOT the role of HR to take on these authorities ... that would be bizarre ... one would then have HR having authority to take certain actions but someone else (the poor manager!) being held accountable for what then happens in their team.
Unfortunately such strange muddling of authorities and accountability is not uncommon. In response to anonymous conference organiser: Perhaps the issue of roles of HR vs line manager is less spoken of these days, however, in terms of change management, I belive there is much useful work to be done in getting this 'authority and accountability' issue sorted out in organisations. And this is by no means limited to lack of clarity between HR and other roles in the organisation.
HR Professional eh?,
ReplyDeleteThere's one profession that looks for no profits, manages thousands of young & middle aged people, demands high integrety & value systems,looks for cooperation and coordination amongst its employees AND a faith that can move mountains!!! AND THAT, IF REQUIRED THE EMPLOYEE IS PREPARED TO LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR HIS LEADER!!!! This Industry does NOT hire HR professionals!!! It creates LEADERS who can lead the MAN into DEATH!!! it is queer, yet true... how men down the ages have sacrificed their lives... for his LEADER, for his BOSS(but that's not the word used! well u guesed it RIGHT. It is the PROFESSION of Arms...THE ARMY... I wonder what stuff these men are made of? Any answers???!!!
Wow, more than one and a half years and still no answers to Jyoti's amazement. Better late than never.
ReplyDeleteA retired soldier and current Corporate HR practioner, I will try to conceptualise how the military differs in comparison.
You see, the entire purpose, philosophy and spirit of the military is founded on a entirely different set of values that shapes a system, structure and culture.
In the military, everyone and everything is about mission critical to the business of operations. Unlike, the private or corporate sector teamwork rules and we don't use bell-curve analytics to determine who climbs the latter and who gets how much bonus!.
When the military is not engaged in war or operations, what it does is train. By training, I mean "serious" stuff that progresses from individual to team and culminates in simulated war like scenarios. There is no "vacation" type training for the pleasures of time-off from work.
Also, the word manager is unheard of. In it's place we have and that which has been seriously lacking, particularly in the profit-based businesses, is LEADERSHIP.
In name, we may be called a commander, but in spirit and manifestaion we act out the competency behaviour of leadership. If we have a issue with one of the men, WE (so called line managers)sort them out ourselves. The buck does not get passed to HR, unless it warrents termination.
It's an entirely different ball-game, for which most managers like Vivek are not ready or willing to step up!. The culture is build on the lofty ideals and uncompromising principles - trust, loyalty, ethics, self-sacrifice, dedication, etc.
We work together as a team and reap the benefits and failures as a team. The spirit they share is, "no one gets left behind". Can you say the same of the work culture in business, where everything revoves around, "what's in it for me ?. And, it seems like leadership and employees have resigned to accepting it as a norm. The big joke is there is much rhetoric on the value of teamwork, yet no evidence to reward or promote, beyond the customary teambuilding retreats.
Yes, the men in uniform are indeed made of steel - cast in discipline, professionalism and serving the selfless purpose of subordinating individual interest for the sake of team and mission.