This is a great article … and continued evidence that HR is considered a secondary focus of businesses.

And you can’t blame business leaders for giving HR a secondary focus - let’s face it - it’s hard to get an ROI on something so hard to measure.

And isn’t that why businesses invest in their different business divisions?

I think a big step in the right direction is holding HR accountable for financial results just like any other division. Even something as simple as investing in a hiring process or assessment tools and then tracking the productivity of the individuals hired under the new system and comparing it to the older numbers.

It’s really quite simple to do - if you can measure your revenue per employee - then you can compare different employees hired from different sources and using different methods.

HR will continue to be under appreciated as long as it’s measured with different standards than other business units.

It might make sense for HR Professionals to work together to come up with a generic strategy plan how to position itself and how to respond to the pummeling.
If the client (business) is not happy with delivered services (by HR) something is wrong and needs to be fixed. Who has fixed this problem? If there is anyone there, please let the rest of HR know how you did it.
Why is this problem seemingly a global phenomena and so widespread?

I understand the frustration, but somehow wish HR professionals would “quit whining”. HR is the business of doing business with people. It is an enabling corporate capability. David Ulrich said it years ago, CLC has validated it this year—you get the operational/administartive elements functioning adequately and then you need to focus on partnering with your business leadership. If things are going well, it is very hard to say it is because of HR—isn’t the business leader running the business? Instead of focusing on praise or criticism, the focus should be on results. Is the business achieving its objectives? Is leadership achieving its goals? You don’t see Finance executives whining that they aren’t appreciated. They have accepted that the business leader gets praised if the business is succeeding, and the business leader takes the heat if the numbers don’t make it. Why don’t we, as a profession, take a similar stance? If HR professionals would stop trying to distinguish their contribution from business results, and focus on sharing responsibility for those results, we’d see a huge change in the perception, appreciation and respect won by the profession….and those surveys would start to look quite different!

Based on the Executives I have frequently found myself working with, I sm seeing HR being harpooned as a convenient scapegoat.
I have seen, in 25 years of HR Management, a lack of focus by business leaders on both strategy and communication, which leaves key managers focused on minutiae for lack of a more compelling message. OK guys. Start leading and we’ll start managing. Until then, even with the most proactive and strategic HR Manager, you will get nothing but more of the same. The HR Manager is NOT the CEO.

To punctuate Mike Nacke’s comment, it seems to me that HR goes out of its way to endorse systems that could bring quantification to its operations. Time and again I have seen projects to implement systems be approved at multiple levels only to bog down and die in HR. This only punctuates the notion that HR executives, as a whole, don’t get it.

Correction…HR blocks systems that could bring quantification to their operations.

This issue of HR being forever incapable will never go away. I’ve found over my 20+ years in the profession that operations/finance managers look elsewhere first for responsibility of their failures, and the easiest place to pen them on is an overhead department such as Human Resources. When poor production/financial planning takes place, or when insufficient measurements and processes have been developed by the operations/finance management teams, it’s easier to blame the inevitable poor results on others rather than take responsibility themselves and suffer an inevitable negative career change. Because top management usually is staffed by the feeder chain of operations/financial management, this business condition is self-perpetuating.
HR is constantly bombarded with flavor-of-the-day business initiatives that are generally established by top management with little careful forethought and supportive business evidence. The first business unit to respond is generally the HR group because these initiatives usually entail changes in staffing and the formal organization structure itself. As a result, HR is supremely visible on the front-end and throughout the process when it comes to success or failure of these initiatives, and operations/finance can take credit when things go well, or blame HR when things go poorly, despite a yeoman’s attempt by HR to make the intiative a success with only token involvement on the part of operations/finance.
My views are somewhat negative on this issue because my experience has been seeing top management administer typically from a reactive stance rather than a proactive stance. And my organizations have definitely fit the norm where HR is viewed as not part of the strategic development process. I am jealous of those HR professionals that work within a pro-HR organization. Some may criticize my thoughts and experiences, but organizations need to give HR professionals an opportunity to participate in the planning process rather than condemn them as incompetent or incapable without allowing them to prove it.

Earn the right to be at the table- naming and claiming does not work for the would be “Strategic Hr Business partner.” Enron was brought done by an heroic HR leader, who said enough and brought down the whole rotten, constipated, leadership mess. Sabanes Oxley can thank a set of courageous HR leaders who held corrupt leadership to task.
Like most other endeavours in life you need to servant lead to be professional and provide stand up professional stand up behaviour in all HR situations- most particularily when Business partners are asking you to carry out the toxic waste situations in organizations where ethics are something that Nerds pontificate on and do not practice.
If you want a place at the table, earn your keep.

This issue has been going on for years and will always go on. HR is traditionaly a rules and paperwork type of organizaiton and not an orgainziation good at aquiring talent in an effective manner (recruiting). HR’s time frames are not the time frames of the end customer (most of the time). Over all HR needs to be tied to finanical’s in some shape or form.

John - Your comments are exactly on target. HR needs to be trained to think like a business unit, and other business units need to be trained to think of HR as one of them. HR will first have to prove themselves and here is where Mike, I agree with you that HR needs to be measured in the same way as other business units. However, HR people need to be trained effectively and with a more business oriented approach than they are in schools today. Emphasis on a more holistic business approach to HR is essential to allowing HR professionals to team up effectively with the rest of the company’s business units. Students of HR should demand this training while in school, and possibly curriculm will change.
It also wouldn’t hurt business majors to get an idea of the challenges HR faces when trying to fulfill the scope of workforce requirements. Again, training, particularly and simply, in school would be a start.

I manage HR & I completely agree that HR deserves all the flaks it gets for not getting it.
In HR, we see ourselves as HR people first and (if at all) business people second. Consequently, we are often blind-sided when change happens and the CEO comes knocking.
The business of HR is Productivity. For as long as HR people don’t accept this,we have no right to demand to be taken seriously by the business managers.

The key to HR being a “strategic business partner,” “having a seat at the table,” or whatever cliche you prefer, is linking what HR does to business results. For example, non-billable overtime is a critical success factor in the contract security guard industry and HR’s ability to source, onboard and retain talent in a cost effective manner directly drives this key metric up or down and therefore, gross profit.

The reason HR does not have a seat at the table is because they don’t want to be there. 9/10 times when HR is asked to step to the mark and play a “strategic role” with the business, they look a deer caught in traffic, and freeze on the spot. Their inability to react timeously to the task at hand is the reason the business looses confidence in HR. The other reason for HR not being prominent in the business is because they have the ability to provide the business with tools and tasks that the business does not really require and they fail the mark completely in terms of what the business really needs. Business Partners is definitely what they are not!

HR should be considered a division of the company not unlike any other revenue stream. There are standard practices that any business has to pay for - payroll, recruiting, strategic succession planning, legal compliance, etc.
The business needs to recognize the costs of insourcing this “value” and attribute a reasonable cost to it, or just outsource all of it — then there are no “whiners” left –then the other businesses can complain about their consultant charges.

Great, another survey used as a blunt instrument on the dead horse that is the self-loathing HR community. Interesting how this latest o’spinion piece was hatched by a bunch of HR mercinaries who make their living replacing in-house HR operations. Does anyone question the validity of such a self-serving “study”? Smells like a white paper that they want to use in their marketing dossier. Captive HR professionals need to find the means and the spine to make their contributions difficult to live without. And this doesn’t come from getting an “A+” in compliance - unless of course that’s your only responsibility. Open your eyes, get in the fray, don’t be afraid to muscle-in and if you get your nose bloodied, take note of how and why that happened (and who did it), and stay in the game. That’s what they (the bosses and customers) want - an HR function that gets on the field and competes - not passing out towels on the bench. Every time an HR professional keeps a termination from going bad or a bad hire from happening, the managers need to see this HR influence in broad daylight. When HR inserts themselves into staffing and business strategies, good things happen. When HR stays “off the grid” in a manner of speaking, HR gets the lack of notoriety it asks for. Get in the game, people! It’s fun!

The only way HR will escape the attacks is by forsaking the wasted time and resources in traditional activities like ineffective and unappreciated performance reviews, diversity programs, and pep rallies. If anyone in HR wants to be taken seriously, he or she will need to act like a first-rate business person and begin finding ways to improve productivity, quality, cycle time and customer service.
Learn the core business, develop consulting competence, role up your sleeves and get something done that directly benefits the business. That’s how to get respect in the business. As long as HR staff insist on administering programs with no added value, instead of taking the plunge into real business problems they can expect to take a beating all the way to the outsourcing company.
So far a few have figured it out and have accomplished remarkable results in their businesses. Unfortunately, most are still stuck in self-inflicted traditional roles.

HR in an attempt to become strategic has become mere order takers of leaders at the expense of employees.

I cannot help but wonder if a big part of the problem is in faulty expectations. First, we expect HR professionals to know all the intricate details of the HR profession - details that continue to grow with added laws/regs like Sarbanes-Oxley. This in and of itself is huge and requires someone who can focus in on details. Then we also want them to be able to lift their heads out of the details and be “strategic business partners”. Yet, when we find the rare individual who can be both detail focused and visionary/strategic, we all of a sudden expect them to understand the financial side of the business as well as the accountants do, the marketing side of the business as well as the marketing departments does, etc. And we cry “foul” when one person can’t be an expert in all those areas. We don’t blink an eye when the finance dept. doesn’t “get” how to properly manage people; we laugh when there is conflict between the creative folks in marketing and the numbers driven folks in accounting. We don’t expect either area to be an expert in anything but their little world. Yet we expect so much more from HR. Why is this? Some might say it is because HR is “whining for a seat at the table” and to earn that seat they have to be everything. I challenge that - yes they want a seat at the table, and should be there along with marketing, finance, etc. But I think both sides should be realistic in what they expect. An excellent HR person is NOT going to be an excellent finance person, marketing person, and visionary all rolled into one. HR shouldn’t expect that, and neither should the CEO. That said, HR can provide valuable input, but it will only be heard when both sides are clear about what HR can realistically deliver. And to date, it seems both sides expect something that very few people in the world can deliver.

When I entered HR (then personnel) in 1969 it was the place they put people “who can’t hurt anyone”. Some HR depts have made total change to the point of being a critical function. Others have not. The tools are here to measure HR’s effectiveness as well as predict ROI from current investments. The only thing missing is the people running HR in many companies. They just don’t have the skills and courage to be a leader. They are often good administrators and followers, but not business leaders.

Within my professional career, I have heard much of the same from business leaders and line managers alike. The fact that HR is solely responsible for the overall outcomes of “flavor-of-the-day” projects is preposterous! Let’s face it HR should be focused in several areas of the business. As a close colleague of mine says it best, we need to drive results through Human Resources. In other words, “headcount, productivity, and wages…or more simply put, people, time and money.” Both finance and accounting should capture what has happened or could happen in the business, whereas operations should focus on executing a well developed plan. HR can find its seat at the table by acting as a medium between both players. Again, HR should be focused in several areas of the business, though upward driven results are often achieved collaboratively and are not the sole responsibility of one department.

Being based in the UK, working in HR for 10 years, it really is different over the water. HR should help the business change, and deliver a strategic partnership managing the people agenda, however people management is down to the business. Someone once said that people do not leave the business, they leave the manager. HR should be targeting that manager to understand what they do to make people leave.

I have to agree though about HR Getting out of the office, how can you be a part of the business sitting in your nice little cubicle…

Hi guys, can we please get on with the work. Human resources management had ever been the backbone of organisational success.

I have worked at two amazing organizations where HR was Strategic. In these organizations, the CEO or business manager was the left hand and HR the right hand of all business decisions. This role was also mirrored in the lower levels of the organization.

HR was not a partner in the first business I worked at but knowledge, tenacity, business sense and the ability to build relationships positioned HR as a strategic partner within a year. The people of this Company were open to influence and wanted to bring the organization to a higher level through growth and profits and we worked together to acheive the goal.

In the second job, HR was extremely influential and never considered a secondary citezan. Change Management was essential we worked with the business units to acheive our goals.

My current job does not value HR. I have never felt as disrepected and under valued as I currently do.It will not change in this organization unless leadership “leads” this cultural mindset and since its every man for himself it will never happen.

In 15 years as a professional, HR and business were one (until this recent stint). My experience shows the effectiveness of our role and why its important to push for what is right. Sooo, once in while we work with boneheads, we move on and add value elsewhere.

Great CEOs value HR, good CEOs tolerate HR, and bad CEOs don’t care about HR. In my opinion, great management recognizes the value of HR and will demand that their HR staff think strategically. They will have nothing less. On the other side of coin, bad management work hard to keep HR in a transactional role because they don’t understand the value of having HR as a strategic partner.

Once again the point has been missed. The people that are consistenly surveyed are C-level management. These are the same people that actively block HR intiatives on a regular basis, and do not think they have a place at the table. Until they allow HR professionals to demonstrate the value they add to planning and development, they will never benefit from the knowledge and expertise HR could bring. What a waste of a very valuable resource. The money saved would go straight to the bottom line. Give us the opportunity and reap the rewards!

If you want to “sit at the table” where the business strategists are, go into a field that provides the best path to get there. That path is not, and is not likely ever to be, HR. It has nothing to do with whether HR provides a valuable service or whether HR practictioners are good at what they do. HR is a specialty, and one that can provide great personal and job satisfaction, but a specialty none the less. If HR is not taking you where you want to go, don’t try to change everyone else, change what you can - your own path.

“Quote: Anyone can promote anybody but themselves”.

One way to independently demonstrate the potential contribution of HR to the organisation, with a future orientation, is to conduct a Human Resource Management performance audit (under the relevant auditing standard, not the warm fuzzy HR review approach). The combination of audit and HR is potentially value creating (Hyland and Verrault 2003)and has the advantage of being an outside source of verification for HR activities. It’s not new - it just works.

I agree finance and demonstrating ROI to our business leaders is a strong defense but not the solution to the dilemma at hand. Surely, most HR professionals can explain how hiring quality vs quantity and how a particular system implementation can effect their bottom line. The truth of the matter is most HR folks are not equipped to play the political game. How could we, HR is tasked with the responsibility to train our business leaders to be honest, fair and at all cost avoid liability to the business. Office politics has no room truth or fairness, its only focus is to climb the corporate ladder regardless of who gets knocked off that ladder on the way up. This is why HR is not considered to be a true business partner to many business leaders-they hate to be told they can do something by a group they believe are not in the game.

HR is in the game, we just play with different rules.

The flak HR receives is directly related to the lack of support it receives from the executive Management. Most other departments have administrative support to help allow the Manager to have time to think strategically and prepare for interaction with upper management and the business goals. In many companies sized small and medium, there is a HR Manager who is performing the day to day administrative roles and the Strategic role. The day to day clerical tasks eat up all the time and leave very little for creative long range planning time. HR Professionals have added the PHR and SPHR certifications to their “Tool Box” but unless the company gives the HR Manager time to be involved in the business planning HR will continue to get bashed and be viewed as not worthy of a seat at the table. It’s time for these companies to get a clue and stop setting HR up for failure.

HR managers need to look in the mirror — and blame themselves for not deserving respect. Also, CEOs, COOs and CFOs need to insist HR managers either produce profit improvement — or lose their jobs. It is that simple.

I have delivered hundreds of speeches and seminars on my book — “Turning Your HR Department into a Profit Center.” HR managers listen excitedly, and often obtain my book.

But then, when I talk with some of them later, they say they have not bothered using my 6-Step HR Profit Center Method — to measurably improve profits and produce positive ROIs.

Laziness and no ‘carrot-+stick’ are two reasons so many HR managers do not focus on measurably improving profits.

I uncovered 35 HR management techniques that can be measured and used to increase profits. Any HR manager can do this!

Solution = CEOs, COOs and CFOs need to insist HR managers measurably improve profits — or face getting fired for doing a lousy job. That would create the ‘carrot-+-stick’ most HR managers apparently need to start performing as businesspeople, rather than over-paid social workers or administrators.

As we can see in the posts, there seems to be enough blame to go around. Unfortunately, there is very little talk of solutions. HR is not going to go away. It is now and will continue to be a necessary function in all organizations. This is especially true because our economy is changing from employing people in jobs manufacturing products to knowledge-based professions. This means HR must change its focus from mastering the transactional/administrative tasks of HR to learning how to focus on planning for, obtaining and retaining talent. Unfortunately, the HR profession does not prepare it members for this new world. For example, when you ask HR professionals about building HR infrastructure, they are generally clueless.
What this means is that while they are taught by lawyers how to comply with the law, we do not teach HR professionals how to use technology to design efficient and cost-effective systems to handle administrative tasks, manage projects or develop and implement efficient processes. Without these skills, HR professionals are mired in the daily detail.
As for backbone, HR professionals are just like everyone else, they need the job. This makes it difficult to “develop backbone” when management just does not “get it”. They want HR to keep them out of trouble, but do not want to allocate the resources to train supervisors and managers to document their actions so HR can help defend them. Executives are also generally reluctant to hold managers and supervisors accountable for their performance on HR issues.
Lastly, anyone can claim to be an HR professional. Unlike the accounting, medical and engineering professions where credentialing is required, anyone can work as an “HR Manager”. This means that attorneys, accountants and even engineers have called themselves HR professionals. This is improving with the SHRM credentialing exam, but we still often see organizations using HR as a dumping ground for employees who have no HR training. The irony here is that once these employees show some initiative and get training, management often ignores their recommendations as too costly or time intensive to implement.
So, what are the solutions? First, we know, change begins at the top of every organization. Therefore, we need to educate senior executives and management on the value a well run HR function brings to their organization. There is great research that has been done on how HR can build value in organizations. We need our professional organizations to quit telling executive management compliance with the law is an expensive burden but that it is a cost of doing business and provides valuable data that can be used to make better decisions on HR investments.
Second, we need to revise the curriculum being taught through our professional organizations. We need to spend less time listening to attorneys and more time learning how to build internal systems that are efficient and provide the business outcomes necessary for us to ensure successful organizations.
Third, we need to learn to demonstrate how investments in building HR infrastructure will contribute to organizational success. It is our job as HR professionals to show the business case for investing in the software; hardware and training we need to provide an efficient and productive HR function.
Last, we need to ask that we are held accountable for our performance on a business level. We need to use techniques such as the balanced score card and ROI measurement to show our success in supporting organizational mission accomplishment.

[…] If you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!David Hallon over at Workforce Management posted a great article to his blog this week entitled “HR Still Doesn’t Get It.”  He discusses a new study from Veritude that shows that HR continues to fall short in strategy, executive influence (AKA “a seat at the table”), and driving change.  You can see his full post here http://workforce.com/wpmu/bizmgmt/2007/11/01/hr_punching_bag/. […]

HR will continue to be viewed as the ‘Business Prevention Unit’ when they continue to tell the business leaders why things cannot be accomplished. Most HR leaders have been trained to ‘keep us out of court’ versus let’s figure out how we can move forward and adjust as we make progress.

I am sooooooo sick of HR being the “bad guy” in these scenarios.

When I look at this thing from a hiring perspective, I’m sick of managers in other business sectors who can’t see past their own “needs” (translated: desire of the week) and see that the HR people are responsible for seeing that various hiring rules are followed. I’m a Federal HR Specialist and I see this all of the time. My thing is that I don’t make up the rules; however, I have to make sure that we all play by them. The merit system was created for a reason and we have to abide by it. If you want to hire your marginally qualified best friend’s uncle’s cousin twice removed on Friday and it’s Tuesday, then you darn well need to cooperate with me in order to get it done. I may seem to be giving you a hard time by telling you that we can’t do this this way; however, I’m trying to keep us both out of hot water.

And then you have the folks “in charge” of the HR shops who for some reason don’t have the backbone to say “No” when it’s absolutely necessary. Talk about a mess!!!

I’m all for working with managers in other business sectors and trying to be strategic and cooperative with regard to their HR matters; however, I’m tired of it always being made to seem as if the HR person is the roadblock and the one that should bend over backwards to see someone else’s point of view. All of us in the various business sectors need to evaluate our constraints and possibilities realistically and work together to achieve our goals, compromising when and where we can.

Corporate HR groups need to completely overhaul, we need to practice what we preach and how we treat each other in HR. As an HR professional, I am frustrated with working with others in HR who are not sincere and have borderline ethics. Then we wonder why employees do not trust us enough to sit down and talk honestly with us, even when we have “open door” policies.

IT takes the same shots but they can choke off the operations of the company with a keystroke and so the criticisms are clandestine. Finance takes the same shots but they “control” the cash and so the attacks are guarded. Marketing takes the same shots but they created the language that defines “business savvy” and they have enough bravado to intimidate the critics.
This leaves HR in the role of poor, neglected cousin who can only whine at the unfairness of it all. If it is true that the best form of defense is an offense then what we need is an attack strategy.
We’re starting to roll up our sleeves for the battle but we need to remember that this fight for credibility won’t play by the Marquess of Queensbury rules and so we’d better liberate the inner guerilla if we want success.

Shaun’s comments about great, good and bad CEOs is right on. If senior management doesn’t “get it” no amount of measuring, begging or whining is going to gain respect for the HR function. I’d be willing to bet that if you looked at the top performing companies in the US, or the top 100 best companies to work for, you’d find CEOs that understand the value of the HR function. They demand performance from their HR leaders and replace them if they don’t peform. After all, while business may seem to be all about the numbers, it’s really about the people that produce the numbers. And great business leaders get this.

Hi,

Sorry for my english I live in Europe. I found this article very interesting. I have been working in HR for 12 years and have just left to create my own consulting company. From my point of view, this issue will never end.
1 - We are in world were metrics are important but for the best or the worst you cannot describe the human complexity with equation.
2 - I had to fight all my career to take a seat at the table sometimes putting my resignation in the balance. I must say that most of the HR people I have met saw their job as executing decisions from line managers. HR is to me the first community who is ready to “swallow the chunk”. That’s a pity but this is real.
3 - HR Transformation is a fairy tale. Taking into account the headcount reduction, HR business partners have to do part of the job of the former HR admin. They do not focus on business or strategy.
4 - HR developmment should be a major focus for HR, but the short term focus of most companies do not fit with org. development.
This is not very positive, but the light in the tunnel for HR is organizational behaviour & development. HR have to be come expert with these. Beforehands, they have to lobby for this new approach.

All the best,

How is HR performing and do they get it? Perhaps it is just the vagueness of this intangible that has us stumped. Let’s look at some things that are tangible although not immediately recordable on the bottom-line.
For example: One simple measure seemingly overlooked is how HR conducts themselves during candidate screening and subsequent broadcasting of company goals, values and contributions to the community to prospective employees. One goal – or accomplishment critical to HR performance is excellence in recruitment (and later retention.) Yes this first recruitment encounter is significant to company Branding but it also reveals mounts of information about how HR is performing. Are interviews structured, do they have pre-defined objectives agreed to in advance, can they communicate to the applicant how the position plays a vital role as a cog in the wheel of on-going production – success of the company and other employees. How does HR perform when they are not closely monitored during this often secluded time spent with prospect candidates? Should the CEO know? If the CEO underwent this interviewing experience today – would their employment interest remain high or unimpressed by this first exposure?
Also, conducting employee surveys and communicating employee preferences and criticisms can be invaluable and eventually contribute significantly to this bottom line. Or have we forgotten that without the human fragilities that exist in the work environment we would not have the innovation and success of deliverables that only occurs from these key players. Perhaps we need to questions those who are asking – do they get it?

If HR were so important, as a business leader, I would have every high potential employee do a stint in HR to apply their potential, business acumen and at the same time learn the role and importance of the function to the overall health of the organization. No way - All too often, this role is skipped as a developmental step to senior management. Is it any wonder that the role is not thought highly, asked for their opinions or securing a place at the table with executives and in the corner office?!

Another observation - The stigma of negativity rests with HR as the work paradigm has changed in America. HR - the people who take away, downsize and close plants. For a time, when the world of work was more positive for the masses, HR too rode the wave of being the good guy/gal. From the get-go, they gave you the hire-on bonus, the extra benefits and added vacation time, the extra holidays and perks in the relocation package. They made things happen for your family when medical claims bogged down. They counselled your daughter on her college applications - and after college, on her resume. They got your teenage son that after school job, between school a work summer assignment at a higher than entry wage and the coop assignment while in college that adding extra credit and dollars to your kids first employment offer. Times were good and HR shined. But we are becoming a cut throat society where it’s every person for themselves - find your own pension plan, seek your own health coverage, go find another job - I can’t give advice because I’ll be sued, this job you had may have been called full-time, but we really meant project duration…1 year… HR has limited or no positive impact except to pull the trigger. The weapon is given to them - they don’t wear it on their hip - its not part of the HR make-up.

Ask HR to be all business and they’ll never get anyone to join the company - candidates will run the other way (unless they enjoy massocism) - it will come off as cold as ice. Until business realizes that its employees are really assets and not comodities or worse yet liabilities, and that HR is the designated and respected care taker of this critical business asset, HR will not fit into the mold of cold hard financial measure. If this is what is desired to sit at the table, is it what HR people really wanted when they sought out the profession? I dounbt it. Is it what business really wants from HR, I hope not.

Another thought - where is the advocacy for employee fair treatment? Do we really believe that all business people in other professions will look at both sides of the picture? Would we have the burdens of law and litigation - title VII and other regulatory reporting on our corporate shoulders if those other business elements gave balance, fairness and respectful treatment to all people? Would we have as many contract lawyers if these same business elements treated customers and suppliers with the same balance, fairness and respectful treatment?

HR is (or should be) the equilibrium. the balance point within the organization - keeping it filled with the right talent, advancing human development for successful succession, coaching management on the human element, overseing fairness and equity, becoming a confidant and key player on the team. These are not necessarily well regarded attributes in business. “Get em’ in and get em’ out, and by the way, I don’t want it to cost anything and get rid of those lame ducks who drive our insurance costs up, and by the way cut that training budget because they won’t be here long enough for us to benefit from it… and lets start planning that next layoff - we’re short of cash.”

When will business learn the they’ve pushed the pendulum too far to one side and need to get it back in the middle? HR carries that role - they will not be respected by those who wish to push the pendulum even further askew unless they join the one sided fracas. That’s not what most HR people joined the profession to do.

Now on the other hand - business is competitive. today you are a star, tomorrow the competition has eaten your lunch. Legislation has brought down borders, and cost is paramount to profitability - there is no room for compassion, time is an enemy, cah is king. I acknowledge this, but Business leaders must also take full responsibility for guiding the company and keeping it above the competition, ahead of the legislation, innovative and ahead of the markets - when they don’t, the resulting liability falls on the workers who have very little say in the strategic direction of the firm. Management allocates R&D dollars, Acquisitions, Business structure, market targets and strategic initiative and planning. Workers are the implementors of Corporate oversight and strategy. If it is misjudged, who is there to criticize? Boards of directors have been written up as incestuous entities - with limited impact - thus we have more regulation - Sarbox as one example - and try to get reasonable errors and ommissions insurance for your boardmembers… Good luck.

And when measuring who pays the most taxes - it is still the little guy. Oh yes, the pundits will tell you that most of the taxes in the US are paid by the Top 10% of the earning population, mostly business leaders. The reality of it is that the stockholders are paying it from lost dividends as companies pick up the tax bite on out of wack compensation perks and packages. I think with all of this, senior management could take a lesson or two from HR on how to run a business ethically. Perhaps they’ve got it all backwards and the executive team should work to fit at the HR table. Just some ramblings to think about.

For the past 25+ years that i have been a coach to executives, I have been hearing senior leaders say the same thing as this survey; HR gets in the way of the real work.
But, there may be a solution. Instead of HR professionals begging for a seat at the table, they can provide the services that matter to the bottom line of the business. People are assets, and very expensive ones at that. If HR professionals would spend more time on learning business practices… GET AN MBA… they would have more ability to be heard and to persuade senior management. As for the time it takes to get this degree, they only need to look at the fact that many people with engineering degrees also get MBA\’s. So, in the business world, this is the degree that \

For the 25+ years that I have coached senior leaders, they have all said the same things as this survey, except more directly!! Instead of HR begging for a seat at the table, they need to do what has made other people successful..get an MBA. This is the degree that “speaks”. It is partially what is needed to be heard and to be taken seriously and teaches all corporate professionals how to communicate with each other.

This is quite scathing, but very true! I am very tired of being bruised, but then I strive to only work with companies that recognise the improtance of HR and with CEOs or GMs that understand and demand a high level of numeric and planning competence from ALL their senior managers. Additionally, when I interview or talk to persons wanting to enter the profession that if they are not interested in number and business then this is not the profession for them. Colleges and Universities need to include finance and accounting and business management course in the H R programmes. We have to start at some point to get through that ROI, Matrices and the changing landscape of business affects us all.

I agree HR could be much better business partner although I think most CEO\’s get the HR they want and what they want is often not a strategic partner. However, I am always a bit sceptical about any survey by a service provider that says that X function is not being done right … even when it does not baldly state \’so hire us\’.

As an HR Manager who recently relocated 600 miles and lost their job of three months for being too employee friendly and leadership oriented in an ego-driven, cold and unhappy work environment, I can completely understand the frustration of Human Resources Professionals. Many organizations ask for HR professionals to lead and implement change, however few actually like the empowered, fair, happy and transparent workplace that results. Unless HR can somehow quantify it\’s accomplishments, this will continue. Money is power. In reality, nothing else but the bottom line even matters.

However, I would also take a look at what we do to each other. Have you ever sought resume advice from more than one HR professional? If you have, you know the result is that you never get the same answer! How can we prove our worth to a company if we can\’t even get on the same page about an issue? And how does industry-specific experience really make any difference in HR Administration? Do benefits, employee relations, training and development, and compensation really differ that much across business sectors? As one potential employer answered when I posed this question regarding my rejection, \

Let me preface my comments by stating that I am not an HR professional; I’m a Professional working at contributing to the company by performing HR functions. (I am so aware of the HR stigma that when I left production to join overhead I insisted our office be called “Employment”).

True, HR still doesn’t get it, but, then again, very few “get” HR. Part of our (my) responsibility is compliance with the myriad laws and regulations governing corporate behavior in an insanely litigious society. That makes our office a necessary evil. Another part of our responsibility is to find, hire and retain good people. Can our contribution to the bottom line be measured in that venue? Nope.

Come on, folks, let’s get real. Measuring HR’s contributions in terms of the bottom line is not feasible because HR does not control the quality of training or retention, line managers do. Can we find good people and get them hired? Frequently. But, it is the immediate supervisor who determines how long they stay. (“Manage Programs – Lead People” is best left for another day.) Every person who reads this knows the causal relationship between retention and the bottom line. HR’s ability to impact the bottom line is directly proportional to its authority. Responsibility without authority is nothing more than being the scapegoat.

Ultimately, IF the CEO (President, Boss, Person-Really-In-Charge) makes it clear to the entire staff that HR is an equal, contributing member of the management team, vests their authority, backs their decisions and then holds them accountable, HR will get it. And, everyone will get HR.

History lesson folks: Top management who doesn\’t care or listen to HR are unionized or soon will be.

Bravo John for continuing to keep the discussion of HR\’s role in corporate America at the front.

Sadly, this is an issue that is shared by both HR and executives alike. That said, HR has to own this issue because it is their issue. In my humble opinion, HR is squandering the opportunity created by the heightened and intense conversation about HR (the result of critical research studies and the Why We Hate HR piece)to become more relevent and more strategic. Turning the criticism into success was an available option and one that most HR leaders have neglected to convert. The business leaders must also own some of the blame for HR\’s innefectiveness because they have continued to deprive HR or valuable resources, technology and adequate business training to get their game up to par. They have also been far to passive in allowing slow change in HR. If HR doesn\’t get it and isn\’t thinking strategically enough after being given the proper resources then they are out of excuses and new HR leadership and direction must be established no matter how painful that change might be. Business leadership needs to stop tolerating status quo mediocrity from HR and HR needs to make a more cogent business case for why they are deprived of adequate resources.

I urge everyone to read WL Coffman\’s comments (11/6 at 6:37 a.m.)…well said, well said. Amen to pointing out this \

Here here! I second William Kowalski\’s suggestion about WL Coffman\’s comment. DEAD ON!