By Steve Nutall who can be contacted at

www.hr.com 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In a recent conversation with a senior HR professional, the subject turned to outsourcing. "Oh, that's people losing their jobs isn't it"? It was a depressing response - whether or not outsourcing is right for an organisation should be matter of considered business analysis, and can significantly enhance both corporate performance and individual opportunity. But this glass half-empty approach gives the impression of a conservative profession that is more concerned with protectionism than of driving businesses forward.

Now I don't want to give the wrong impression - there are many thought leaders in HR who paint pictures of how the future can be very different, about how successful Human Capital Management can be at the heart of a winning business strategy. They stimulate debate. Yet when you get to the coal face of HR it all seems too difficult and too many practitioners seem happy to fall back into welfare mode. Or even worse is the "well we tried that once but it didn't work" approach, without understanding why it didn't work, and how it could be made to.

It really is no wonder that regular surveys show HR to be held in much lower esteem by the rest of the business than it would like to see itself. But that is the reality check that needs to be faced. If it is not addressed you wonder how along HR can continue in it's current form.

Many HR departments are stuck between a rock and a hard place where they feel that the people inadequacies of an organisation are not really their own fault. Departments often have very good HR people who, on a daily basis, spend most of the time processing paperwork, answering general queries, fire fighting and making up for defects within line management. This last point is particularly important:

"AT THE HEART OF ANY SUCCESSFUL HCM STRATEGY WILL BE LINE MANAGERS WHO TAKE FULL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE RESOURCES AT THEIR DISPOSAL - AND THEIR PERFORMANCE IS MEASURED AGAINST THIS" (EDITOR'S CAPITALISATION OF SENTENCE)

If this does not happen, does HR fall into victim mode - "what can we do about managers not doing their jobs properly". Or does it fall into parent mode - "well if you can't do it for yourself we'll do it for you".

How often does HR take a proactive approach and demonstrate the clear business case for managers taking full responsibility, for the benefits of proper development strategy as opposed to hire and fire, or an understanding of what motivates and the extent to which motivation drives success?

The HR business partner model developed in part to provide support to such a structure of managers assuming responsibility, but in many cases still focuses helping out with disciplinaries or making sure the performance review forms are completed, rather than finding the hard evidence that informs business strategy and enable everyone to improve their effectiveness.

So when is the people strategic thinking done? If the Business Development or Operations departments operated without appropriate strategy it would be seen as a monumental business risk. But too often organisations are reacting tactically to internal or external people issues without any overall context. There is a great big hole here, and therefore an opportunity for someone to be developing, monitoring and informing strategy. If HR does not take the lead on this, they will surely find themselves forced further away from the top table.

The time has come to stop thinking about HR as department staffed with people who know about employment legislation or how to collect employee data, and treat it like a business in it's own right. To do this consider how it would be if we considered HR activities in the context of the separate aspects to any purposeful venture - strategy, advice, operational and informational.

The HR strategy must be developed from within and, to be successful, must be aligned to the company's business strategy. It should to include all aspects of resourcing, rewarding, development and engagement. If the prime role of the Board is to set strategy and ensure it is implemented, the prime role of the senior HR team is to ensure the organisations desired approach in those four key areas is clearly stated, is fully aligned with the business and is fully supported by the business. It is the only aspect of HR that must be done by the business itself - no-one else can do it for you. Yet to often it does not appear to happen at all.

The next stage is how to implement the strategy - the advisory and technical element. Most of us feel comfortable about accessing specialist external legal or technical advice, or say using specialist recruitment agencies. There may be a feeling though that we need to retain a broad knowledge within the organisation to provide interpretation and advice that take full account of the culture of the organisation. Understandable, but do you know how necessary this is - can you show it is the most effective way of delivering what the organisation needs.

Then there is the general administration, the day-to-day queries and the processing and analysing of information. This ties HR departments up and prevents them from focussing on the big picture. Some are getting comfortable with outsourcing bits and pieces - payroll or benefits administration say. Some are setting up shared service centres, often combined with other functions, which have been successful in reducing costs. The big opportunity still to be taken here is to show that they improve service - employees and managers get the information they need when they need it first time every time. Models aided by smart and flexible technology are making significant progress here; those that do not have access to such technologies for whatever reason will fall behind in effectiveness as more and more time is spent fire fighting.

The final step in the HR function is analysis of information. Do you know what it costs not to have an active absence management program? Do you know the true costs of your recruitment methods? Is your turnover rate high and is that good or bad for your business (both may be the case in different circumstances). Do you know what value your employees put on the benefits you provide them? Do you care?

The last question is I hope rhetorical, but although many people will read the above and say "Yes we know all that and we would do it but....". That shows how much you really care.

The next five years will see dramatic changes in HR. The introduction of technologies is making a massive impact and allows internal customers to take control of their own HR administration. This will become the norm and will allow HR to oversee the process and offer strategic advice rather than processing the paperwork. The focus of HR becomes setting strategy, making sure it is implemented, monitoring the results and acting on the information. As long as the advice is well-founded and the processes are followed, risk management procedures are in place and the data can be turned into information that creates knowledge for you, why waste your resources on doing that, especially when it distracts you from the things that matter?

Given that many HR teams' focus seems to exactly the opposite of this, it is going to be really interesting to see how the different approaches will impact the success of their businesses. Surely as a minimum it is incumbent on all HR professionals to open their eyes to different approaches and start to do the real hard analysis of what will work best for your business. Because if you do not do it, someone else will.

So will HR end up like the dinosaurs? Or will it remain a victim and say "We know the ideas but we can't really do anything"? Or will it be the hero takes control and is seen as being the driving force behind ensuring that their organisation has the resources it needs to deliver on it's dream? Your choice....