Has HR ceased to evolve?

[Raynor]

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?

[The Y-man]

HR needs to evolve from a "cost centre" to a "service provider" IMO.

Most corporate HR depts are "cost centres". How many HR professionals here know where their (own) pay and office costs come from, and how these are allocated? This means that there is no drive for efficiency and more importantly a consideraiton of services offered.

One way to deal with this is to become a "small enterprise" in its own right within the organisation. The HR manager needs to run their dept as a business ("non-profit" in most cases intra-org).

In other words, HR needs to offer the other depts services - just as any external provider would, and effectively "tender" for the business.

So the choices can be presented to the depts as "you can use us, or you can outsource this - you are free to choose. Here's what we offer, and here's our pricing".

Now for an internal dept, you SHOULD always have the price advantage - as you are AT COST as an internal department (inter departmental cost recovery), whereas external providers have a profit margin.

BTW if your HR dept CAN'T compete on cost - you shouldn't be there. That's a sign of bad efficiency, and the business SHOULD outsource in this case. If you don't know how to cost up your services - TIME TO LEARN! (not easy the first time - it's an iterative and ongoing process - so don't worry about getting right so much as getting it started)

So how will this get you credibility at the executive table?

You've shown you understand what services need to be offered (you understand "sales/marketing" - albeit internally, but that doesn't matter - treat them just as you would an external client). You know what functions of HR are in demand with your clients, and what is not needed.

You've shown you can run efficiently and are cost concious (because if your HR department isn't able to compete with outsource providers, you've got too much costs and/or too much resources and/or and/or incorrect resources and/or your not allocating your resources to the "in demand" services). You know how to reads the monthly "P&L" (journals and recovery figures - don't worry - there are people in Finance who can help you!)

It forces you to look at the costs of the services the HR dept uses too! Are you paying too much for you internal IT services? Do you know how much they even are and do you have a written service agreement with them? How much are you paying for phones etc - are there better plans you could be on? etc etc.

Cheers,

The Y-man