Post-Ulrich HR Structures

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul Kearns on June 6, 2008 at 10:54am

Maybe a new paradigm will require a new function?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ant Hesketh on June 6, 2008 at 11:45am

Now that would make sense: one which which adds value, you might say? But a new function, or a radical overhaul of what's already on offer? Do we need to reinvent the wheel and create another layer of organization? Or do we need a new way of thinking about the impact of the Function (whatever that may be), hence the location of this debate in the metrics section ...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Vijay Edward Pereira on June 7, 2008 at 10:55pm

Hello Anthony,
I hope you remember me. We met at Lancaster to discuss my Doctoral application in this area. Currently I am pursuing the same at Portsmouth apart from lecturing. Interestingly the questions you raise are what my research is intending to probe. I am in the latter part of my research. Since your expertise lies in this area, I have been following your work closely.

I personally met up with Ulrich in Bangalore last year and asked where according to him was HR headed post outsourcing/shared services etc? (from the horses mouth!) His answer was that ‘HR would have to answer and play new roles that were demanded from them’. Now he has been reiterating this in his changing thinking suggesting there is no single definitive model. I personally believe that the key value of Ulrich’s model does not lie in outlining new structures but in his analysis of HR roles.

In regard to what Paul says above, I think the HR function is already undergoing a change but not to an extent that it becomes a ‘new function’. In fact it cannot be a new function till the time people are part of an organisation, though the naming would change as it has from personnel to HR (future could be Human Capital) and so forth. I would say it could be a ‘renewed function’ or perhaps a ‘transformed function’. Also a lot would depend on which people would come within this renewed function? By this I mean that there is evidence that people from other functions are moving into HR and HR is no longer for people with primarily HR skills. Ulrich had said that HR folks should go and learn the business to become strategic (or even to survive), but then people with experience in the core business or from other functions have moved into HR too. This internal competitiveness has again been a thorn in the flesh for predominantly HR people.

Another aspect I found interesting was to whom HR is reporting to now. An example from a MNC, headquartered in India showed that the Chief Strategy Officer of the organisation was responsible for HR. Hence national Strategy officers had the remit of HR among other ‘strategic’ responsibilities. Thus instead of ‘another layer’ being added HR was merged within the existing structure. HR folks who were in sync with strategy were retained. The bottom line meant performance-wise it was ‘Strategy’ that was responsible for HR being strategic, adding value and delivering. Organisations are thus resorting to such innovative methods to enhance HR's contribution to organisational success.

Vijay

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ant Hesketh on June 8, 2008 at 2:20am

HI Vijay
I'm afraid I don't remember your PhD application - which must have been on something slightly different to post-Ulrich HR, otherwise you would have been snapped up! To be honest, I receive over 50 applications a year from prospective PhD students, and keeping up with the doctoral students I have is challenging enough without remembering others who've applied! But I'm pleased you have secured a place to continue to your work - you must come up and present to the team at Lancaster some time: we'd love to hear more about your research.

As for Ulrich's statement, it's as wonderfully elusive as it is profound. HR certainly needs to understand who the customer is, but most customers are not as good as they think at articulating their needs as they think they are. And this is partly because they themselves do not know what it is they are seeking to achieve. Bad customers make for bad HR services. Moving people under the aegis of strategy is certainly a step in the right direction, but many would argue that this has already been happening for some time, with CEOs grabbing the people agenda, let alone the strategy director. HR's running for the strategy agenda is what I refer to as the "Titanic Syndrome": the boat is sinking fast, so people run to the top of the boat, only to go down with the sinking ship! HR needs to evolve beyond being the gophers of strategy and ops.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Kearns on June 9, 2008 at 2:46am

Hi Ant/Vijay

as a long time critic of Ulrich's 'model' I am firmly of the conclusion that the new paradigm does not involve the 'HR team' of yesteryear. What is needed is a totally new hybrid role.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James Hayton on June 9, 2008 at 4:01am

Hi Paul, could you elaborate on this - hybrid between what?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Kearns on June 9, 2008 at 5:12am

Hi James,

perhaps the most succinct answer I can give is the comment I received from an HR director who was on my 'HR business partner' programme last week (not the Ulrich version I might hasten to add). She said that the role I had described was a combination of 'a politically savvy accountant, economist, organisational analyst, organisation designer, consultant and generally all round business person'. To which I answered yes, of course - but added that all of those roles already existed individually and the new 'HR' paradigm not only combined them all but added a fresh ingredient, a human capital perspective (people as value adders not costs incurrers) that identified that most organisations are still run as a series of silo functions and that the new 'HR' model would make sure they were run as a single, self-sustaining, learning system.
Of course, 95% of the existing HR people I have met over the last 30 years are not up to this job and neither are 'silo' managers - hence the need for a new hybrid breed. And I'm standing here in the middle of the 'bridge' waiting for some to meet me.
Does that help?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alessandra Capezio on June 12, 2008 at 1:16am

Hi Paul,

do you agree that part of redefining the role and contribution of the HR function would require stopping HR people from being passive recipients of the HR 'business partner' discourse?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ant Hesketh on June 12, 2008 at 3:39am

Hi Alessandra

I'd be tempted to agree with the sentiment behind your question, only after a second thought, I'd suggest most HR professionals are certainly active constructors of the business partner discourse. Indeed, my own view beginning to take shape is that HR has 'infested' the business partner discourse to such an extent that the original concept is almost redundant. Paul could well have a point.

Permalink Reply by Paul Kearns on June 17, 2008 at 1:52am

Hi Alessandra,

The 'HR business partner' model seems to be predicated on the other 'partner' to this deal being a 'non HR' person. If HRM is to mean anything in management terms surely it has to move to an integrated model, not one with an explicit divide built in? For example, a team leader will have selfish interests when selecting their team (and wanting to hold onto them). A more mature team leader is thinking about wider issues of succession planning etc. The HR business partner tries to make sure these objectives do not conflict - not by offering 'best practice' professional advice but by helping the team leader reconcile them in their own mind. There's no divide here. For me, it's not about redefining the role of HR - its about redefining the role of management

Permalink Reply by Cam Caldwell on October 28, 2008 at 9:15am

Paul:

Your perspective, in the main, makes a great deal of sense to me.

I also work with HR practitioners and most of them are inadequately trained and lack both the vision and competence to make much of a difference to their organization. But the fault is top management's lack of insight to some degree. The metaphor is much like NBA basketball. . . a 6'3" power forward does not have the tools to be effective.

Jim Collins identifies the need to get "the right people on the bus." The ability to add value in organizations demands a refined combination of skills -- combining a knowledge of core competencies, financial ramifications of decisions, and a broad array of HR tools that can take years to develop. Trust is not instant pudding. Most line managers have no reason to believe that their HR staff members understand their problems . . . because HR professionals lack the ability to speak their language and demonstrate that they "get it."

The average line manager also suffers from relying on the conventional wisdom that Pfeffer (1998) decries in his explanation of why so many businesses fail to create high trust and high performance work systems.

I would enjoy connecting with you. Perhaps we can develop ideas and share insights that can enable Top Management Team members to rethink who they ought to hire as HR professionals.

Cam Caldwell
McNeese State University
ccaldwell@mcneese.edu

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alessandra Capezio on June 17, 2008 at 3:35am

Hi Paul,

You raise some important points. Coming back to the issue of measurement, how do you think the contribution of HR to organisational effectivess can be measured? I'm still struggling with this one. This all depends on how we construct the role and contribution of HR, which if i understood your comments correctly, would involve, inter alia, enabling line managers to think more strategically and analytically so they can consider the impacts of their decisions. For me HR processes, and the capabilities of both managers and HR people need to be considered alongside more traditional descriptive HR metrics.

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page