Is HR the Enemy in Your Camp?
By Jennifer Munro
CEO’s and Senior Management are not having the fun they thought they would upon attainment of these decisive and influential positions.
The trouble may not be the competition, the market, the economy or even ever-growing regulatory requirements. It may be coming from within.
There is a growing threat to the health of American companies; it is elusive and not easy to understand. It appears in the most gracious, ostensibly nurturing and peaceful of disguises - the Human Resources department and its “professionals.” Even though HR professionals may hold titles or positions of leadership, their motivations and interests may be obstacles to your goals and your vision for your company and may de-motivate some of your most valued employees.
The fact that membership in SHRM (Society of Human Resource Management) and the number of law suits litigated by employees against their companies have both more than doubled since the 90’s is not a coincidence. Nor is it just a coincidence that the number of HR positions has increased by more than 35% in the last 10 years while most other corporate positions have been downsized in that same time period.
So, you may ask, since we have had this growth in “human resources”, why do we have so many more employee lawsuits? Why has this growth in HR departments been accompanied by a decrease rather than an increase in employee satisfaction? The Department of Labor has been reporting for decades that 7 out of 10 people are dissatisfied with their jobs, supervisors and companies to some degree; but in the l990s, the HR Era, that percentage grew to 8 out of 10. One out of 4 employees feels threatened at work, and says that the possibility of violence is a real concern. Morale, turnover and performance are not improving, and the only place where real progress and growth appear may be in the revenues of labor attorneys. Other beneficiaries of this depressing scenario are the “gurus” who prey on the HR professional. These special interest consultants are more divisive than helpful and more concerned with turning your company into a social worker’s paradise of political correctness and non-confrontational avoidance of resolution than with building a viable company in which employees really flourish.
I see many company leaders shake their heads in dismay and confusion about human resources. A lot of money has been invested in these departments with little or no results. We can’t say precisely what the results may be because HR is the one area of the company that shuns any attempt at accountability or measurable outcomes. So, with a vague sense of hope that something might eventually come out of it, and in an effort to send a positive message to employees, management continues to fund and support HR. But, since HR’s goals, if they have any, and its practices run counter to the make-up of a lean and efficient business model, such an outcome has a probability similar to a roomful of monkeys at typewriters eventually writing a sonnet, possible, but not likely.
Now, to be fair, many HR professionals are caring, nice and supportive people. They, too are frustrated because they sense their companies are looking for something from them and they themselves aren’t exactly sure why the HR encroachment isn’t working. I recently was asked to speak to a gathering of HR professionals who had completed a survey on how one of their trade associations could be of most value to them. They wanted to learn how to be “more respected, highly regarded, included in the top management meetings etc.” Because of my background improving morale, productivity and performance in organizations, I was invited to offer insight into why there are gaps between their sincere intentions and motivations and their results and lack of perceived value to their employers.
This request led me to an interesting observation. One of the most troubling facets of HR management over the last 20 years is the almost universal aversion among HR professionals to profiling or testing people to match their strengths to their jobs and to direct them away from jobs they are less suited for. The science today in this field is extraordinarily efficient, accurate and cost- effective. There are over 1700 such instruments available, some better than others, but the good ones are easy to spot. The science developed around the links between performance and behavioral profile is very sophisticated, trustworthy and powerful. Yet, most HR professionals would rather be dipped in acid than to allow this technology into their company, primarily owing to the basic fears and needs associated with the behavioral types of most HR professionals.
What is the behavioral type of HR? An analysis of over 800 behavioral profiles of HR professionals in almost every industry throughout the country tells us plainly. Out of the 800 surveys, 760 of them had striking similarities and basically fall into 2 groups; the “policeman” and the “social worker”. During the HR conference, descriptive words associated with each of these two types were listed on overhead slides. The HR staffers were asked to identify themselves in the descriptions listed on the overheads. Each one in the audience easily did so. They also agreed that a primary motivation and “buzzword” for them is fairness. They were comfortable with fairness being defined as “treating each and every person exactly the same,” which is essentially the same definition the Federal government would give, if asked.
The bad news is this definition has negative implications for the successful workplace because they believe people should be treated exactly the same regardless of skill, talent, ability, commitment or willingness. They do not want to deal with, and thus deny, the very real differences in people and how they perform their work. The fact is that all people are not the same: they don’t believe the same things, want the same things, or do the same things well. And, clearly, not all people want to be managed or led or treated the same. There is an abundance of tools and resources that can help every supervisor and manager learn exactly what every employee needs to be successful and contributing, and therefore contented and loyal. The question is why won’t HR allow managers access to those tools?
The answer lies in those core behaviors the two HR camps share. “They share the need to be liked or at least respected for their position, and to “belong.” They seek to avoid conflict and criticism, by avoiding decisions. This leads to codifying all behaviors in lengthy, redundant manuals, handbooks and training programs. Most HR executives believe training is the answer to everything, that the company exists for the employee, and that merit recognition is wrong and hurtful. They think employees need to be protected from the company and that the company should have a stronger social commitment to the employee than it does to making a profit and surviving. Hence, HR is counter-current to the fundamental requirement for all for-profit enterprises, within the bounds of ethics, to do what makes sense to the shareholders.
HR staffers may also believe that achievers are dangerous, selfish and insensitive and do not deserve to earn any more than a non-achiever. Without flinching, HR will lose a superstar to your competitor because he or she is out of the compensation range. They expect respect for their credentials and seniority, and think that intentions and appearances are more important than results and outcomes.
They abuse and misuse legislation and federal regulations and use bureaucratic by-products as a club to avoid the effort of doing exceptional references, scrupulous hiring processes and confronting disappointing performance. These are not business friendly attributes. (By the way, there is no obstacle to getting sound, sane and meaningful references, no law or prohibition).
Many of the activities of the HR department contradict what employees have been trying to tell us for years, that what really works is very simple. The number one source of satisfaction or dissatisfaction for most employees (and potential litigants) is and has been the relationship to their immediate supervisor. Also, they want to be recognized for what they do. They want to be differentiated when they do well and not treated or compensated the same as a mediocre performer working alongside them. They want to be viewed as individuals, not as interchangeable Legos. They want managers with the courage and common sense to make tough decisions and deal with poor performers.
Truly, the current trends and outlook in HR is bleak, but not hopeless. There were, after all, 40 HR profiles in the sample that are very strong business partners who share the vision of their leadership, can see clearly the importance of providing the right people in the right job, and who take responsibility for the success of those people. They recognize the primary factors in good performance and morale and are passionate about achievement and results. Not surprising, a quick look at those 40 showed that most of them came from another area of the company, i.e. operations, marketing, somewhere where results, deadlines and priorities were important.
A large corporation may be able to survive the counterproductive activities of its HR department, but entrepreneurial entities can be forever changed and damaged. The scariest observation may be the larger the HR department, the worse morale and performance may be.
The HR department may be the last place you would think to look when goals are not met, quality is not maintained, morale declines and the fun goes out of your job as a Leader. But, behind those smiles, good intentions and gentle spirits may lurk the forces that drain the energy and passion from your people and the focus from your vision. Take a look and compare the values, motivations and belief systems in your HR department with those of your own vision and the vision of your successful leaders.
The enemy may well be within.
Comments