Managing the HR function by CONVENIENCE

The importance of the people function and its potential to be a key differentiator has been spoken, written, discussed and agreed upon for a long time now. And understandably so. If we accept the premise that in an intensely competitive world, it is the intangible assets of an enterprise that create competitive advantage, the importance of human resources is a natural corollary.

In this era of metrics and analytics, one would believe that the vast body of knowledge would stand the HR function in good stead and provide it with the bandwidth to be reckoned as a function that needs knowledge, experience and expertise at all levels – from the operating level to the board level.

Alas, data shows that it is not necessarily so…….

There are many instances of not only a lack of proper succession planning within HR but deliberate placement of someone who has never before worked in the HR function being brought as head of the HR function.

Now, as an exception to the rule this could happen occasionally when you need to bring in a ‘fresh breath of air’ and or one comes across some one who is exceptionally gifted in terms of having the right aptitude for the people aspect of managing an organization.

It is also equally well accepted if you are giving a much-needed exposure to a high potential fast track line manager one stint in HR so that s/he gets a hang of this function which will stand the candidate in good stead once s/he rises to occupy the role of CEO.

As a department or function that provides a wide range of customer services to a wide cross section of employees, it is understandable – perhaps even inevitable – that there will be many dissatisfied customers or stakeholders. Sometimes legitimately and many times out of sheer ignorance.

For example, it is not uncommon for employees to believe that HR decides performance appraisal ratings. Similarly, it is equally common for employees to believe that it is HR or its L&D arm that decides training nominations.

Even after the employee grows in the organization to learn that this is not so, those early impressions tend to stay with the employee and cloud their judgement and decision making when eventually some of them reach those levels in the hierarchy.

In organizations that provide an almost lifetime of employment, some of those who develop strong views (and dislikes) towards the HR department reach critical decision-making levels in the organization couple of decades later.

That is when they get into action. One of the common things or decisions taken is to bring in an outsider to the HR function as the head of the function. With no background nor any body of knowledge, these decisions do a lot of damage especially when the incumbent does not have significant growth potential and therefore no stakes.

And if you thought that this does not happen at the Board level since there is ample measures for due diligence, think again – in state owned / semi state-owned enterprises, there is a lot of role and interference by political powers. And despite the process rigor and due diligence candidates with limited or poor credentials get hoisted to the top job in HR (or any other Board level position).

Some of these organizations even figure in the various lists of best employers not necessarily because their HR practices are the best but simply because these lists can be easily rigged. At times, perceptive employees within the organization get shocked when they find their organization find a place in the list of best employers.

Whenever such decisions are taken, the collateral damage can be devastating and may include, besides higher attrition, poor D&I index, toxic co-workers, significant lowering of employee engagement etc.

In progressive organizations, one would need certifications and other evidence-based credentials to occupy a key role in any function. But in some organizations, the prejudices and biases of the decision maker(s) decides who will head HR.

I welcome your experiences, thoughts and opinions…………

Malvina Ashok