HR In Control

There is an aphorism that business types (and others) recite in a wide variety of situations: Control the Controllable. It is a pleasant New-Age-y kind of sentiment. It means, if something isn't under your control, let it go. It's not worth stressing about. It's a good aphorism. I like to remind myself to Control the Controllable, and let the rest slide, every now and then.

But there's another side to the Control the Controllable worldview. If you let the stuff outside of your control unfold as it may, you have to take responsibility for the stuff that you DO control. You can't say "It's not under my control" and exempt yourself from accountability.

This is my problem with the way HR is practiced, so often. We say "I can't control the turnover rate." "I can't control the performance-review process." "I can't control the way managers sweatshop the Call Center folks." I'm only the HR guy, whaddya want from me?

If we're not in control of the systems and processes that direct our employees in their work, who is? A CFO couldn't get away with saying "We are terribly over budget, but you'll have to talk to the line managers about that." The CFO would be gone. But we HR folk get to say "Line managers make these decisions, and goldarnit, they won't listen to me."

The most appalling corporate 'badships' to me fall in the area of employee trust. We just don't trust our employees. Now, if I am shopping at the grocery store and I notice that the shopping cart full of groceries won't make it quite to my car (which is parked halfway between the grocery store and the TJ Maxx next to it) because there's a device on the cart's wheels that stops the cart at a certain point in the parking lot, I can rail and kvetch about that. But I have to allow that the sign on the cart makes some sense: "In order to preserve our low prices, we have installed wheel-stops that keep our carts in the parking lot." They mean that some people might steal the carts otherwise. I can live with that, because grocery stores don't get to choose their customers.

But employers do get to choose whom they hire. Yet we HR practitioners behave as though we have no control of who flounces in the door to work at our companies. "We have to monitor your Internet access at work, because, you know, some miscreant employee may steal time from us." "We have to have video monitors in the break room, because you never know when an employee might steal the coffee bags." Yet everyone on the payroll came in and stays in at our pleasure. Don't the other employees -- the vast majority of employees, who don't rip off the employer in any way -- deserve that we take responsibility for the hiring decisions we make?

We HR people have more power than we think, more influence and more force of will. I wish there were an HR appliance that HR people could purchase and install around our wrists, that would give us a mild shock whenever we utter the words "I'm sorry, that's out of my control." What's out of our control, really, if we lead the organization's HR function? The weather, politics -- to some degree, the behavior of our competitors - that's about it. Shame on us if we don't control the 99% of activity in our environments that we can and should control, influence or disrupt.
"It's out of my control" HR people get to keep their jobs at a high cost: they have to look at themselves in the mirror every morning. How much would an HR job have to pay to surmount that hurdle?

Caution: Don't Count on HR

This is the article that got me thinking about launching an HR-related blog. I got some flack for this story, but it was thought-provoking flack. No one who hated this article said "There is no perception that HR is ineffective." They said "We should talk about the good stuff we do and not dwell on the negative."

Here is the story.

Here is an excerpt:

I have been a human-resources person for 25 years, and I love the field, in the same abstract way that I love my country and the thought of peace on Earth. But I also see how things actually work in real-life companies, and that's why I advise employees to think twice (or three or four times) before they spill their guts to their local HR representatives. The fact is, sharing your woes with an HR person can be a self-destructive move.

For one thing, HR people aren't typically trained in employee counseling and their advice may not be so great. But that's the least of your potential worries when you lay out your troubles with an HR type. Human-resources people typically follow a confidentiality guideline known as the "Need to Know" standard. Here's how it works: When an employee comes to HR with a problem and asks that the conversation stay in confidence, the HR person can say, "Oh, absolutely. I will only share our conversation with others on a 'Need to Know' basis."

Well, what the heck kind of standard is that? I have asked HR people about this slippery standard for years, but I have never met one who can produce a written definition of it. I don't think such a thing exists. It's funny, too, because HR people document every other imaginable standard and protocol, from the number of pay-per-view movies an employee is allowed to watch during his business-travel hotel stays to the exact relatives whose death could entitle an employee for bereavement leave (grandmother, yes; step-grandmother, no). HR people are documentation and policy fiends. But the Need to Know protocol stands alone, undefined. And the risk is all yours.

Here is my favorite comment from someone who hated the article:


May 28, 2007 3:25 PM GMT
What Liz is really saying is as a former HR person she was powerless and couldn't be trusted. There are many of us who have influence and know how to skillfully use it to solve both tactical and strategic challenges.

Now, does the commenter say there is no perception in the real world that HR is weak and untrustworthy? No, he impugns my background. There is a name for that kind of argumentation but I forget what it is. Oh yeah -- ad hominem attacks. Last refuge of a person who doesn't like what he is reading and doesn't know how to make the icky feeling go away.

Beyond Strategic Business Partner

This blog is for people who believe in the HR function and the possibilities for creating effective organizations. People who work in HR and think things in the HR world are terrific the way they are may find other HR blogs that they like better.

Let us start by deconstructing the loathsome and insulting term Strategic Business Partner, an invention of some self-esteem-challenged HR person a decade ago who couldn't figure out how to be effective with the title he (or she) was already using.

Some time ago, the American Society of Accountants toyed with changing the designation "Accountant." Thank goodness, cooler heads prevailed. Titles change nothing; it's our worldview, our mental and philosphical framework for the work we do as carried out via our actions, that makes us effective or disposable. What would the Society have come up - maybe "Accountinator?" That would be better than the idiotic designation Strategic Business Partner, applied to HR people.

We'll start with Strategic. Think about it: if you are truly strategic, you don't put the word in your title. It's grasp-y and pathetic, in the original sense of deserving of pity. Not respect, but pity. Business is another one of those words that shouldn't appear in your title, unless you're a Business Manager for a retail store or a health club or some other arena where not everyone has a Business job.

And Partner -- that's the worst part of the Strategic Business Partner title -- it's wretched. Partners are people who voluntarily find one another to do business together -- Morrie and Solly with a Lower East Side deli come to mind. A person who scoots around the organization saying "Partner with me, please!" is a joke.

Sorry to be harsh. But Strategic Business Partner has go to go.