Raynor
21-08-2010, 02:13 PM
I watched recently as a conference speaker read the table of content from a "personnel" textbook from the late 1960's. The table of contents read just like those seen in the most recent editions of HR textbooks. The speakers point: look at other professions and the rate of innovation and change - look at biochemistry, engineering marketing.
Do you agree that the commonly held definitions of HR have not advanced considerably in 40 years comparative to other disciplines?
If that is the case, why is it that graduates still find HR degrees do not prepare them to add value to the profession if the body of knowledge is well defined and not evolving rapidly?
Why is it that so many HR professionals report that they struggle to define their role in organisations and continue to fail to win a seat at the executive table - and then use it to drive organisational outcomes?
How do you define HR and the unique contribution it makes to organisational success? What is it? Why have it? Is there an elevator pitch for HR?
What do you see as the emerging bodies of knowledge that make the greatest contribution to the profession?
Do you agree that the commonly held definitions of HR have not advanced considerably in 40 years comparative to other disciplines?
If that is the case, why is it that graduates still find HR degrees do not prepare them to add value to the profession if the body of knowledge is well defined and not evolving rapidly?
Why is it that so many HR professionals report that they struggle to define their role in organisations and continue to fail to win a seat at the executive table - and then use it to drive organisational outcomes?
How do you define HR and the unique contribution it makes to organisational success? What is it? Why have it? Is there an elevator pitch for HR?
What do you see as the emerging bodies of knowledge that make the greatest contribution to the profession?