Mailbox

Workforce, March, 2003

HR As Employee Advocate

The "HR Is Dead" article (January 2003) is well done but misses why we in HR are here. It's not that complicated. An HR person should be an employee advocate, which includes assisting in making the organization successful. "Human Capital" as a name downgrades the human side of what we are all about: people. "Human Capital" sounds like "product," not real people. The best names should continue to be People Resources, Employee Relations, and Team Member Relations.

It's critical that we focus on why we are here: the staff and a successful organization, not a "product."

Ross P. Alander

alanderconsulting.com

Tampa, Florida

Does HR Really Get Business?

Thank you for raising the issue of HR at the crossroads ("HR Is Dead, Long Live HR," January 2003). You did an excellent job of pointing out the urgency and seriousness of the issue as it impacts the profession. It may be interesting to note that when I was in college 20 years ago, organizational behavior and HR management were offered only as graduate programs, and program content was almost totally about strategy. What was missing then is still missing now--the business knowledge piece. In fact, given the resistance I got when I signed up for a record number of classes offered in the business school, you would have thought I was leading a revolution.

When colleges began offering undergraduate HR programs, they seemed to focus more on nuts-and-bolts application and less on strategy, probably in part because of the plethora of new employment laws enacted each year. In my estimation, HR professionals were only too happy to accept the black box of employment-law compliance because doing so satisfied an apparent need and provided a degree of job security. Even professional associations dedicated to the advancement of the profession fed the view of HR as an administrative function by consistently covering topics like HR processes, employee safety, diversity, employee morale, performance reviews, health-care administration, etc. Rarely did they tackle the issue of total HR and organization strategy beyond how to efficiently implement HR programs.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that business leaders are finally questioning the value of HR, and HR professionals are pleading for a place at the table. Should HR be outsourced? Of course it should, along with everything else that, by being outsourced, would benefit the business. If we really want to make a contribution to the business, how can we truthfully argue otherwise when we can't make a solid case for keeping us? Would we do things differently if we were making the decision and could see HR only as an overhead function? Probably not.

The concern I have is that so many HR leaders still don't get it, as you pointed out. They don't understand what it means to show business value. Even the example in your article of HR transformation at General Motors talks about "standardizing processes" and "creating HR centers of excellence," both traditionally references to HR administrative functions. Not that those things aren't useful, but for HR professionals to show real value, they will have to move past transforming processes and begin looking directly at impacting the bottom line by the strategic work they do in the business. Instead of spending their time trying to streamline processes and developing relationships with executives, they'll have to show those in operations and elsewhere how they can help them solve business problems that affect profitability, quality, and other key success indicators. Right now, I don't see too many HR departments prepared for this kind of challenge, even among those "transforming" their HR departments. Will HR die as a profession? I doubt it. But I believe there will be few people in the kinds of roles HR professionals are playing now, and those who survive will be those willing to take some serious risks in terms of developing new skills and behaviors to be able to show real value added.

Kevin Herring, President

Ascent Management Consulting

Tucson, Arizona

United's Employee Challenge

This is in response to your "United's HR Tasks Will Soar," (January 2003). The U.S. commercial airlines are in distress. HR faces a monumental task in overcoming the fears and concerns of airline employees. Daniel Mitchell's statements, if quoted correctly, are rather simplistic. Members of the National Mediation Board under the Railway Labor Act have emphasized to labor and management the need to work together. The history of labor-management relations in the airline industry has been confrontational. The move toward conciliation was negated after 9/11, when airlines fell on hard times and employees were notified that pay cuts were a necessity for company survival. Shortly before 9/1l, United pilots became the highest-paid in the industry. The already delayed [machinists'] contract was further delayed after 9/11. Adding to this was the demand for reduced pay. Morale and confidence in the leadership plummeted. United is employee-owned, but this cannot guarantee pay or jobs. The HR departments at U.S. airlines are faced with the challenge of overcoming these major employee-related problems.