One of the things that I have seen is a shift in the compensation markets for HR talent. Several years ago, I am pretty sure that the big money was in consulting (HR with a P&L). As companies became much more focused on the power of being a superior competitor in talent markets, they assigned a higher value on HR. Then, they paid more; more than the consultants.
Business people know about risk and reward. And... they will go where the money is - (Willie Sutton does HR).
We will get more business people, as, and we are, paying people like business people.
Steve Roesler
· 1 year ago
Frank,
Just had a CEO client do exactly that after a thoughtful discussion.
He took a guy who had run two of the company's businesses and made him VP, HR.
So far: businesses are thrilled that there's a "businessperson" running HR; the VP/HR is actually having some fun learning a completely different aspect of the organization.
Note: It took some convincing re: the position. He was concerned that the CEO was "demoting" him to a staff position. CEO did excellent job talking about on-the-job development and the importance of understanding--first-hand--everything in the corporation.
So far, so good.
Chris Young
· 1 year ago
Frank - looking at some recent research from the Corporate Leadership Council business acumen was identified as the trait that has the largest impact on determining the strategic role that an HR executive has within his or her organization.
This isn't really that surprising.
The problem seems to come from the fact that HR departments are commonly inbred and promote from within the ranks. In most situations I don't have a real big problem with this. However, within HR the effects seem to be more pronounced as most people enter HR in a highly administrative role and never get any real exposure to how a business operates and provides value to its customers.
By the time that someone makes it into a senior HR position they have likely become so accustomed to dotting all the i's and crossing the t's that they have lost all sight of how HR can be leveraged to provide real value to the organization.
It's hard to blame the C-suite for not taking HR seriously.
The real issue is how do we get the right people into these key roles to articulate the strategic role that HR plays in a business. I think Steve's CEO client made a brilliant move by putting an individual who has lead several business units in charge of HR. Kudos to you Steve!
Ken Burgin
· 1 year ago
I've been talking to quite a few HR people lately and noticed a fair amount of ice in their veins.
Lots of suspicion, and an unwillingness to share or consider alternative approaches. This joyless front is bad for business when you have to market your offer in a very tight market.
Frank Roche
· 1 year ago
Steve, Chris, and Ken. I'm going to move your discussion to the front page this week.
Ken, that "ice in their veins" comment is spot on.
Chris, the inbreeding thing is it! It's insular.
Steve, it's amazing how well businesspeople can do in HR roles...even when some HR types say "He doesn't have the HR qualifications." Hmmm.
Regina
· 1 year ago
History repeating? As an identifiable profession, HR was populated with many veterans of the armed services (and the previous recession) during the great U.S. corporate growth period of the 1950s and 1960s. These individuals exhibited those qualities that many find sadly missing in today's inbred HR operatives. A 'tour of duty' in HR was part of(but hardly the career path to) development of executive mgmt. It was considered additional subject matter to be learned by individuals (both men and women) who already had experience and aptitude in leading people, making growth happen, and producing goods and services to sell. It's interesting to see business practices come full-circle, to some extent, and again value business acumen over stultifying processes and a "dotting the i" mindset.
Lee Boyd
· 1 year ago
HR will remain a second or third class citizen in many companies as long as we are more concerned about what I call "HR Sludge" than understanding how our companies make money-i.e. the "business side". An excellent example of our profession focusing on the wrong target is Susan Messinger's comments in her "From the President" column published in the June 2007 HR Magazine. She referenced Dave Ulrich's study that says we in the HR Profession now have to be "Credible Activists, Cultural Stewards, Talent Managers/Organizational Designers,Strategy Architects,Business Allies,and Operational Executors." You have got to be kidding me! This is useless HR Sludge-no wonder, as Rodney Dangerfield said-"we don't get any respect".We spend more time coming up with these stupid phrases than we do paying attention to our employees. How do we get respect from our own organizations? Become positively obsessed with (2) things-developing our employees and learning as much as we can about the operational side of our companies. Susan Messinger did more good than bad as President of SHRM. However, she needed to retire, because she NEVER "got it". (Just read the entire article from June, 2007-you'll see). She has absolutely no idea about what it takes for HR to be seen as a strategic ,valuable member of the management team. One more example of why we are viewed as an afterthought in many organizations. Several years ago the lead article in HR Magazine was about a cross-dressing truck driver. I remember it like it was yesterday. I was embarrassed by that article.If I had shown that to my President, he would have laughed me out of his office. Do what it takes to make more money for your company by being a consistent advocate for the company's most important asset, its employees. Until we do that, we need to shut up, because we have no right to whine about our second class status.
All Comments
Business people know about risk and reward. And... they will go where the money is - (Willie Sutton does HR).
We will get more business people, as, and we are, paying people like business people.
Just had a CEO client do exactly that after a thoughtful discussion.
He took a guy who had run two of the company's businesses and made him VP, HR.
So far: businesses are thrilled that there's a "businessperson" running HR; the VP/HR is actually having some fun learning a completely different aspect of the organization.
Note: It took some convincing re: the position. He was concerned that the CEO was "demoting" him to a staff position. CEO did excellent job talking about on-the-job development and the importance of understanding--first-hand--everything in the corporation.
So far, so good.
This isn't really that surprising.
The problem seems to come from the fact that HR departments are commonly inbred and promote from within the ranks. In most situations I don't have a real big problem with this. However, within HR the effects seem to be more pronounced as most people enter HR in a highly administrative role and never get any real exposure to how a business operates and provides value to its customers.
By the time that someone makes it into a senior HR position they have likely become so accustomed to dotting all the i's and crossing the t's that they have lost all sight of how HR can be leveraged to provide real value to the organization.
It's hard to blame the C-suite for not taking HR seriously.
The real issue is how do we get the right people into these key roles to articulate the strategic role that HR plays in a business. I think Steve's CEO client made a brilliant move by putting an individual who has lead several business units in charge of HR. Kudos to you Steve!
Lots of suspicion, and an unwillingness to share or consider alternative approaches. This joyless front is bad for business when you have to market your offer in a very tight market.
Ken, that "ice in their veins" comment is spot on.
Chris, the inbreeding thing is it! It's insular.
Steve, it's amazing how well businesspeople can do in HR roles...even when some HR types say "He doesn't have the HR qualifications." Hmmm.
As an identifiable profession, HR was populated with many veterans of the armed services (and the previous recession) during the great U.S. corporate growth period of the 1950s and 1960s. These individuals exhibited those qualities that many find sadly missing in today's inbred HR operatives. A 'tour of duty' in HR was part of(but hardly the career path to) development of executive mgmt. It was considered additional subject matter to be learned by individuals (both men and women) who already had experience and aptitude in leading people, making growth happen, and producing goods and services to sell. It's interesting to see business practices come full-circle, to some extent, and again value business acumen over stultifying processes and a "dotting the i" mindset.