= Member Only
July 30th, 2009
GM’s Big Changes: A Slap at Traditional HR, Out-of-the-Box Thinking … or Both?
What can you say about a large, tradition-bound, old-school manufacturing company that decides to shake up its management team by promoting someone with no human resources experience to lead its HR function?
That’s the question people are asking about the decision by General Motors to replace its longtime human resources chief, Katy Barclay, with Mary Barra, “a top executive with an engineering background who worked closely with former GM chief executive Rick Wagoner,” according to a story by Workforce Management staff writer Jeremy Smerd.
“The retirement of Barclay, 53, who has been vice president of global human resources since 1998, was seen as long overdue,” the story says. “ ‘She is one of the same senior leaders who is responsible for the destruction of the company,’ said Rob Kleinbaum, managing director of auto industry consulting firm Rak & Co. ‘She is responsible for it and should be accountable for it.’ ”
That’s a pretty heavy load to lay at the door of the HR chief. If it’s true, it probably says that Barclay did indeed have one of those coveted “seats at the table.” (Note to all who still long for such a perch: Be careful what you wish for.)
By contrast, here’s a bit about Barra’s HR-free career.
“Barra, 47, is vice president for global manufacturing engineering and has been with GM since 1980,” according to the Workforce Management story. “She has served in a number of engineering, manufacturing, management and communications positions and was plant manager for the Detroit Hamtramck assembly center. Barra was appointed executive director of vehicle manufacturing engineering in 2004 and was named to her current position in 2008, the company said in a release.”
There’s no doubt that GM is a troubled company that is in need of some huge changes, but does putting an HR novice in charge of the company’s people function makes sense at this critical time?
According to auto industry consultant Kleinbaum, appointing an engineer with no HR experience as the department’s head suggests that General Motors is looking to infuse the company and its workforce with a greater sense of the manufacturing principles of continual improvement and operational efficiency.
“It’s a positive sign they want to make deep changes in HR and don’t want to draw from the HR community,” Kleinbaum said in the story.
It depends on how you look at it, of course. Large companies have tried this in the past. We wrote about Wal-Mart’s attempt to do it, without any notable success, back in 2005, but I know of no research that indicates that there is any higher degree of management success for someone with a non-HR background than a more traditional human resources leader.
Plus, GM’s new vice president of global human resources has some baggage of her own. As noted, she worked closely with former CEO Rick Wagoner—the guy who was famously “fired” (terminated with extreme prejudice, as I put it) by President Barack Obama.
The question I keep coming back to about this move is this: Does GM’s decision to promote someone from outside HR into the top people management job reflect out-of-the-box thinking, a big slap at traditional HR, or a little of both?
I’m thinking it is more the former than the latter, but only time will tell if this move makes much sense—and if it’s possible to make meaningful change without a grasp of what makes HR tick.
Get my latest blog updates, HR news and human resources trends by following me on Twitter.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://workforce.com/wpmu/bizmgmt/2009/07/30/gm%e2%80%99s-big-changes-a-slap-at-traditional-hr-out-of-the-box-thinking-%e2%80%a6-or-both/trackback/
Comments
Post a comment
Blog Index
Would any major company appoint someone as CFO who had no financial education or experience? Would they put someone in charge of scientific research whose only education and work experience was as a lawyer? Would we go to a doctor who had trained only as a research scientist in a non-medical field? GM’s leadership is saying (1) we don’t believe tht HR is a professional discipline; (2) we think that any one with executive experience can take charge of this essential non-professional function; and (3) HR has been a part of the problem rather than a leader of solutions. Even if the former HR exec at GM was a total incompetent, they could well have looked outside GM for one of the best HR leaders, and they do exist.
Posted by: Naomi Bloom | July 31st, 2009 at 3:38 am
Putting someone without HR experience isn’t as common as news accounts can make it appear. It gets reported on when it happens, as Workforce has done so ably, but no one comments when an experienced HR professional takes on a leadership role. And that’s happening every day. You highlight one example of where a non-HR executive didn’t work out with WalMart; another is IBM, where Lou Gerstner brought in a former bank president to head up HR. He was gone within 18 months. If there was a report that his lack of HR experience played a role in his departure, I missed it.
I think you’re right that GM has to make a very visible change to telegraph that there’s a new sheriff in town. But note that although the head of HR will be from engineering, the head of labor relations is a HR executive, and they will sit on the executive committee. In the context of GM and it’s relationship with the UAW, this makes sense. And I’d bet the ranch that GM won’t put someone with no labor relations experience in the role!
Posted by: Sue Meisinger | July 31st, 2009 at 8:06 pm
I just can’t wait for Barclay to tell her side of the story on what and where she failed to deliver her goods. I mean you are talking of a person who had served more than 30 years, 10 of which was at the executive table. What I would like to know is what was her scope of accountabilities and authority in decision making on operational matters.
I hope this will become a landmark case to revolutionise the mindset of all “stakeholders” in appreciating and understanding the point Naomi Bloom and other HR “professionals” trying to impress.
I would like to see Harvard and other notable institutions take up the study to highlight the challenges of HR Role in GM. And, most importantly, I want to know those what those “deep changes in HR” that Kleimbaum claimed and led to ridiculing the HR community.
This case is a window of opportunity for the HR Community to present and arguing their case against unfair treatment and undermining HR as a certified profession. The time has come to turn the table in questioning business leadership on the issues of accountability and authority in executing the HR Strategic agenda. It is time to step up the game and assume a proactive stand in auditing and reporting the performance outcome of HR initiatives and programs. Stop playing cupid and Mr/Ms nice guy between line, executive and Employee/Unions. Stop condoning non-compliances and under-performance, even if its from the top gun.
Why does HR have to beg for representation at the Board. If you (Board and Shareholders) want to hear the truth on customers satisfaction index, operational performance, leadership development and corporate governance, without having to listen to lame excuses, make HR your direct report. Anyone care to debate?.
Posted by: Yuvarajah | August 4th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
HR cannot demand a seat at the leadership table, reap the rewards of a companies success and yet be exempt from accountability when the organization fails. Barclay held this coveted seat and therefore is liable. Further, she certainly wasn’t unaware of the Company’s performance and should have made the proactive decisions regarding her career with General Motors long ago. One can only assume that she received a generous separation package and now hopes to come out on top. In due time we’ll see if her strategy works. I find it unlikely that her contributions will be highly valued in the job market. Certainly she received her fair share of recognition over the years but now knowing the state of General Motors and that their troubles didn’t happen overnight, were the acknowledgments she received in the past even warranted?
Posted by: Thomas Carr | August 6th, 2009 at 8:04 pm