They say- HR is an opinion. Well, that is my view too....!

Years ago, I attended a ten-days offsite training program in Kolkata called, curiously enough - Strategic Human Resource Leadership - in a scenic and serene resort outside the city called "Vedic Village". Ironically, it was here that I gathered and imbibed a lot of "vedic" (meaning "spiritual" in this context) wisdom about the field of HR. It was indeed an enlightening and literally "mind-blowing" program, unique in several respects with a deep socio-emotional impact. The memories that I carry to this day about the event, along with the multitude of relationships, associations and acquaintances that blossomed over the ten memorable days amidst pristine settings are alive and thriving to this day.

The opening session of that program is still firmly etched in my mind. A brilliant professor from one of the prestigious B-schools in the country launched the proceedings with a case study titled "The Robin-Hood problem". Till date, I have been struggling to crack the intricacies of this puzzle. Which leads me to the central theme of this piece, that the academician so eloquently phrased in the follow-up to the case : "HR is an opinion!"

If one compares different domains such as Finance, Engineering, Mathematics or Science, there is a thread of 'commonality of principles and practices" running through each one of them. For example, in Finance, there is universal agreement on the way balancing of books needs to be done. All finance professionals have a common understanding and agreement of the concepts, methods and practices around debit and credit, profit and loss, equity and debt, accounts receivable and accounts payable etc. Likewise, in Engineering, whether mechanical, electronics or electrical, there are certain core tenets that are non-negotiable and almost etched in stone. For example, the principles of thermodynamics, mass and energy transfer, the laws of physics, voltage and electrical resistance etc. There are fundamental truths associated with these disciplines that are accepted and perceived in an almost identical fashion through a shared prism of understanding by all the practitioners in their respective fields.

HR however seems a different animal altogether. While the "pillars" of HR are by and large similar across organizations.....(note the emphasis on by and large).....there are significant variations in practice, and I really mean significant! Recruitment, performance management, compensation and benefits, employee engagement, training etc. are some of the common HR workstreams we find across organizations. But here is the kicker! There are multiple ways in which each of these verticals within HR can be operated in practice. And there could be other HR verticals in some organizations which are absent or termed differently in others, for example: organizational effectiveness, talent management, OD, talent development, diversity and inclusion, HR-legal, HR operations....and so on.

This is not to deny that there are commonalities between them. But the differences in practices can be subtle and profound at the same time. For example, Company X may have a written test and one round of panel interview to screen fresh campus candidates; Company Y may conduct a written test, group discussion and two rounds of panel interviews to screen similar candidates. Company Z may take a different approach altogether. the differences in approaches would depend on the "Talent-acquisition" leaders or the CHROs of those organizations, who may have different ideas on the design and execution of such activities.

Likewise, with respect to performance management. In this area we can observe a lot of diversity in practices. Many companies may swear allegiance to the famous "bell curve" for the distribution of performance ratings among their employees, some others prefer to position it as an "indicative or recommended distribution" curve, or mandate differentiation without a prescribed curve. More recently, with the clamor to get rid of the bell curve (that generally results in creating career graveyards for unsuspecting victims labelled "poor performers"), some companies have resorted to "frequent performance check-ins / feedback sessions" minus any numerical or qualitative ratings, while grappling with dilemmas around performance differentiation and the intention to inflict minimum pain on employees. There have been a plethora of conferences, seminars, webinars, debates, discussions and arguments on this burning topic. However, I am given to understand that the jury is still out on this one.

Companies can choose to reward and compensate their employees in a variety of ways. The diversity in compensation structures and reward and recognition policies is remarkable, perhaps the only constraints being statutory regulations pertaining to tax laws. Likewise, grade-level career ladders and organizational structures can be designed in many different configurations across organizations.

The wide variety and significant diversity of HR practices points to one common element - the human belief and decision paradigm. A senior management team of one organization with its Chief Financial Officer and another corresponding competitor need to align to the same set of financial accounting principles and report their financial metrics in similar ways, as required by law. Not necessarily so when it comes to HR. One HR team can project a diametrically opposite philosophy from another on the same dimension, based on what they believe to be appropriate in their context. Designing and creating HR policies could serve as an appropriate illustration of the notion of diversity of thought and beliefs. I have been part of several "brainstorming" sessions to craft policies on leave, recruitment, performance management and talent development, that have run into hours, days or weeks, simply because of the myriad of views, opinions and perspectives that had to be acknowledged, managed, integrated or declined. Another example of personal preference and choice is the realm of HR technology. The digital revolution has engulfed HR as well and its landscape is dotted with an abundant variety of e-HR applications and software tools which are either uniquely different or strikingly similar, or both, depending on how you choose to perceive them. The only convergence among practices that I notice is around statutory compliance - all firms need to report on statutory parameters in a similar way, perhaps because a third party (Government) imposes a common framework across the industry as a regulator.

A myriad of HR forums, associations, networks and groups, both formal and informal, ranging from registered and recognized bodies to Facebook and Whatsapp groups, as well as HR-related websites, journals, magazines and blog platforms bears testament to this premise. The innate desire to express one's personal opinion in the guise of articulating a legitimate and intellectual point of view in the HR domain manifests into a group identity that seems to have a multiplier effect across the community. Truly, the HR community is a mega-community of communities!

How does one reconcile the diversity of views, opinions and ideas expressed on various topics within HR? Take a look at any discussion thread around any hot trending HR topic in any of the formal or informal platforms, and you may perhaps understand what I mean. the other interesting facet of this premise is that non-HR folks, including relative novices or laymen and experts from other domains articulate their views on so called "HR issues", portraying a false sense of authority on the subject. I have also noticed that in some cases, the great opinion divide in HR does not remain at the level of a healthy debate, often spiraling into deep-seated ego clashes and conflicts between practitioners and non-practitioners alike, culminating in subtle or overt displays of power.

Where does all this diversity of opinion within HR leave us? To echo the diversity professionals, diversity works best through inclusion. At times, I do wonder how to put this idea into practice, to reconcile all the different views on different HR topics, such that all voices are not just heard but represented and integrated. Diversity of views is a natural occurrence, but inclusion demands conscious effort, particularly in the context of the HR ecosystem.

In summary, while other disciplines have anchoring pillars that practitioners align to, HR concepts in practice seem to be fluidic in nature, perhaps paving the way for the creativity and dynamism we experience in this domain. Using the analogy of human anatomy, if all the organs of the body, for example, the brain, heart, lungs and liver are mirrors of different departments in an organization such as Finance, Engineering, Legal, Quality etc., HR is akin to blood, the critical body fluid that permeates all the parts of the body and provides the vital oxygen for survival, growth and sustenance. My point here is not to sound dramatic, but to illustrate the difference between the "solid-like" relatively tangible domains of Finance or Legal and the fluid-state of HR.

I will be delighted if you align with my humble submission that HR is a field of opinion. If you disagree, it proves my point!

Note: The above article/post, with its contents is the personal view of the author, expressed purely in his personal capacity and is not related to any specific existing organization, institution, group or individual. Any such perceived resemblance or derived linkage or relationship as such is purely coincidental and unintended.