= Member Only
February 3rd, 2008
From the Editor: Why We’re Writing About SHRM
Last month, I wrote here about “SHRM’s Leadership Challenge” in the wake of the retirement announcement by SHRM’s CEO and president, Sue Meisinger. Although I felt I gave Meisinger her due for what she has accomplished during her tenure, I also said that “her departure gives SHRM a golden opportunity to address the ongoing malaise that permeates the HR profession and, perhaps, help more human resource professionals move up to that long sought-after “seat at the table.’”
It’s not the first time I’ve voiced my opinion about the Society for Human Resource Management, and it won’t be the last. But what always surprises me is the reaction I get when I do write about the organization. “Interesting editorial piece,” said one reader in reaction to that blog post. “It sure went off track somewhere along the line. Frankly, it sounds like you have an axe to grind against the organization.”
Although I’ve come to expect comments like that when I write about SHRM, it still makes me wonder. Why do so many people get their backs up when reporting, commentary and scrutiny are applied to the world’s largest HR organization?
I’d guess it is because nobody has ever publicly scrutinized SHRM before, looking at how well it fulfills its stated mission and asking whether it is truly using its ever-increasing size and war chest to better help the 200,000-plus human resource professionals who each pay $160 a year to be a member. SHRM does strategic reviews of itself, and you can find individual critics piping up now and then on SHRM’s member message boards. But that’s not independent reporting or inquiry.
And that’s why the cover story in the February 4, 2008, issue of Workforce Management magazine, “SHRM at a Crossroads,” is well worth reading. It’s probably the first in-depth look at SHRM that’s ever been written.
SHRM affects the human resources profession in ways both large and small. “SHRM is the voice of the profession,” says HR author, Workforce Management essayist and University Michigan professor Dave Ulrich. “It services all types of organizations–large and small, public and private–and all types of HR professionals: junior and senior, generalists and specialists.”
In addition, SHRM is a not-for profit 501 (c) (6) organization. Although some parts of the organization are for-profit enterprises (such as HR Magazine, which competes with Workforce Management), SHRM in general gets special tax breaks because of its not-for-profit tax status. That alone should make SHRM a newsworthy enterprise that demands regular coverage.
And that’s where Workforce Management comes in. I don’t know of any other broad-based business publications that regularly cover HR that have the ability to devote journalistic resources to reporting about SHRM as both a large HR organization and a business that generates nearly $100 million in annual revenue.
“SHRM at a Crossroads” represents many months of work by the staff of Workforce Management. Most of the reporting, writing and research has been done by Washington-based Mark Schoeff Jr., a reporter who has worked in Washington for a long time, knows SHRM and sees it in action on Capitol Hill. He worked hard to make sure the story told all sides, and when you read the package, I think you’ll see that’s the case.
In the end, I’d say that Workforce Management is writing about SHRM because SHRM deserves to be covered like any other large, powerful and influential organization that has an effect on readers’ lives and work. I think you’ll find that “SHRM at a Crossroads” is a unique look at an important HR organization, and will offer insight and perspective about it that you won’t find anywhere else.
As always, I appreciate any comments you have about this story or about SHRM–either posted as comments at the end of this blog post, or sent to me directly at jhollon@workforce.com.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://workforce.com/wpmu/bizmgmt/2008/02/03/writing_about_shrm/trackback/
Comments
Post a comment
Blog Index
Dear Next President of SHRM,
Please lose the pearls, the brown football helmet hairdo and the ever conservative navy colored outfits. I will take you much more seriously if you do not look like a highschool principal. Thanks!
Love,
HR Wench
Posted by: HR Wench | February 4th, 2008 at 7:32 am
SHRM is achieving it’s stated mission? And just what mission is that? If it is advancing the profession then please tell me how allowing anyone with an interest to become a voting member advances the profession. Sounds more like supporting anyone can do HR. Please share with me how SHRM addresses the needs of the profession’s senior level practitioners. While SHRM alleges no influence over HRCI, please tell me how making the certification examination easier advances the profession. Need I go on?
Posted by: Don Herrmann, SPHR | February 5th, 2008 at 8:17 am
It sounds to me like you are asking why SHRM is not providing more expertise, information and resources to help HR departments become strategic. If that is your point, then I’m behind you all the way.
I’m an organization development (OD) professional and I’ve been distressed by HR departments that think they know organization development, change management and who have no interest in ethics of compliance issues. All of the above are strategic and areas where HR should be a strong partner.
What I see instead is in-fighting, territory issues, and resistance to engaging with those issues or partnering with those who can engage in those issues.
Measuring the results of training is hardly a strong strategic stance, especially if the training is wrong or unnecessary or undermined by management.
SHRM should be ashamed of itself. It has the resources and the position it make HR the strong strategic player it needs to be to improve not only the ROI, but the work-life experience and quality of American business. It’s not doing that, and that’s a shame!
Posted by: Kathryn Alexander | February 5th, 2008 at 11:28 am
My biggest problem with SHRM is that it so often focuses on middle and larger companies that have whole HR departments. It forgets about the thousands of small companies that have a 1 person hr department who has to know everything from payroll to employment laws. I have been a member for 4 years and it comes in handy when I need to look something up but many of their classes and their magazine deal with things that the little guy doesn\’t need or want to know. I use the magazine for material to help me fall asleep most of the time.
Posted by: JoAnn Turbin | February 5th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
SHRM has a purpose and serves a mission, just not the one that they put in writing. Where SHRM goes wrong is when they indicate that they represent a profession. The reality is they represent a large group of people that may or may not be HR professionals, but that do work in or with some HR functions.\
Posted by: Bo Carrington | February 5th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Mentioned as an issue in the article is the fact that SHRM essentially
takes all comers as members. This practice has been the subject of much
debate among regulars on SHRM’s “HR Talk” community bulletin board.
I don’t mind the presence of “newbies” and those whose primary function
is not HR. SHRM’s hope is that the access to SHRM’s wealth of
information and to the guidance of seasoned HR pros will help develop
such members’ expertise in and appreciation for HR. We more senior
folks will serve our profession better if we answer inexperienced
members’ questions patiently and graciously (even if it IS about the
zillionth time the particular question has been asked) than if we rudely
direct them to look it up themselves, or - worse - tell them to get out
of the clubhouse.
I do agree with those that suggest that non-HR practitioners should be
in a separate membership category. These individuals may have an
“interest in HR” but if HR isn’t their gig, then I question whether it’s
appropriate for them to vote on SHRM’s leadership and other matters put
before the association’s membership.
In terms of providing professional development opportunities, SHRM is in
a position similar to that of a teacher in a one-room schoolhouse. It’s
difficult to keep everyone engaged when you have those who need to learn
basic skills and those who are seeking advanced knowledge. I think that
this area is something SHRM should seek to improve. Several
suggestions: instead of one annual conference (which has grown so large
that there are few venues capable of accommodating the crowd) have
regional conferences that can focus on a particular career level and/or
a particular subspecialty; try to include in HR Magazine articles
targeted to different skill/knowledge levels; and add to the website an
area specifically for those inexperienced in HR.
I’ve been more than satisfied with the value I’ve gotten from my $160 -
which, by the way, is relatively inexpensive (World at Work is more than
$200 for an annual membership). I don’t even particularly mind that I
must pay for the membership out of my own pocket. Yes, there are some
things SHRM could do better, but for the most part it serves the
membership well.\
Posted by: cynbrandt PHR | February 6th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
First of all please allow me to apologize for posting a response that rivals the length of the original article.
But please consider:
Workforce is a competitor to SHRM. What else would you expect — praise or highlighting that SHRM has been recognized as one of the best run not-for-profit associations in the United States?
I was one of the first people who were called to be interviewed for the Workforce SHRM article.
It started with an assumption that SHRM was shafting its members since it had so much money. The question was why didn’t SHRM do something for its members, such as \\
Posted by: Mike Losey | March 14th, 2008 at 4:22 am
I appreciate Workforce’s articles on SHRM and appreciate the candid comments by members. SHRM has never been anything more than a lobbying group for big business who see all HR as Risk Management. Who else would lobby against federal legislation mandating medical coverage providing breast cancer survivors with reconstruction surgery? Who else but big business would oppose the mental health parity act? That a lobbying group would pose as a nonprofit to avoid taxes on assets like these is shameful.
How about when your membership is expiring? They send you renewal invoices about 5 months before your year is up and continue to dun you through the mail and email.
I went to one SHRM convention and it was a laughable rip-off. The registration was quite high and the speakers were mediocre at best, and I suspect free to SHRM as business development they way they hawked their wares through the presentations. The highlight was the free squeeze toys.
Posted by: Olivia Brown | April 29th, 2008 at 8:51 am