Human Resources

[WhereamI]

It varies, in my companies the role is very limited, purely setting the policy for the department managers to follow. But in other companies they get heavily involved in all sorts of things from recruitment through appraisal to dismissal/resignation. I prefer to have department manager handle all of that.

[rog007]

HR, or to use its full title, Human Resources, which is a descriptor not a function, has gestated in to a management sub-culture to compensate for poor managers unable to lead and manage staff and staff issues. It has no formal boundaries and as such it's reach is usually as deep as the lack of competencies of those charged with the leadership and management of staff in an organisation, so someone once told me...

[buzzer]

I always thought HR stood for hand relief...

Every HR department I have ever dealt with has been staffed by a bunch of wkers

[edc]

rog007 said:

HR, or to use its full title, Human Resources, which is a descriptor not a function, has gestated in to a management sub-culture to compensate for poor managers unable to lead and manage staff and staff issues. It has no formal boundaries and as such it's reach is usually as deep as the lack of competencies of those charged with the leadership and management of staff in an organisation, so someone once told me...

As somebody who runs an HR team this can be very much true. I don't really want to get involved in managing other functional teams but there are times when you can coach and advise from afar and others where you have to be more hands-on. The other piece to this before you can let people loose is whether your managers can make consistent decisions and even the right decisions. These days HR is morphing into more an internal business consultant and a sounding board for broader business decisions. My job is arguably more general business management and finance than HR. I think to say that HR only reaches deep into a business due to lack of internal competency downplays the value a good HR person or team can bring.

Most people see the transactional side of HR: the employee manual, a form for changing your address, a dispute over terms and conditions, processing the salary review etc. In the same way that many employees don't see what goes on at the management or senior levels the same can be said for HR.

A lot of the visible HR activity follows quite a normal change curve. Take an appraisal system for example. These one-to-one reviews either once a year or more regularly are only part of a broader approach to managing performance and maximising the organisation's capability. Employees will moan about the "cr*p" appraisals they have had because nobody will buy into the system and the execution is poor. Managers will moan about the need to do them etc etc. After an initial few years of uphill struggle typically what happens is the organisation settles into a routine and everybody can improve the part they play and get more out of it. Managers learn to deliver on their promises as part of the appraisal and not to commit to endless training that is of no benefit to the organisation or that there is no budget for.

As an HR person who has the benefit of being near the top of an organisation hierachy I can clearly see well functioning teams and dis-functional ones, teams where the head develops his or her leaders to manage and achieve and others whose teams are dis-organised, teams which consistently achieve and others who lack focus. I also chair a number of employee forums or works councils and it is very evident that employees in different departments and at different levels will develop very different perspectives on how and why things are done. I get a chance to dispel some of those myths, take away any seedlings of dis-trust, free people to just get on and do their job. The difficulty is measuring this success or impact. This is an area where HR often falls down. So, then you get onto employee engagement surveys etc .....

[Gargamel]

buzzer said:

I always thought HR stood for hand relief...

Every HR department I have ever dealt with has been staffed by a bunch of wkers

I am sure they think highly of you too.


This is a little simplistic, a bit like saying all IT helpdesks are a bit useless.

HR can often be used in organisation as the department that has to say NO. Employees and the Employers have rules of engagement, then ther are a multitude of legal obligations, HR often get presented as the police for this compliance.

Look on most of the threads on here, people need clear HR advice.

[buzzer]

Gargamel said:

buzzer said:

I always thought HR stood for hand relief...

Every HR department I have ever dealt with has been staffed by a bunch of wkers

I am sure they think highly of you too.


This is a little simplistic, a bit like saying all IT helpdesks are a bit useless.

HR can often be used in organisation as the department that has to say NO. Employees and the Employers have rules of engagement, then ther are a multitude of legal obligations, HR often get presented as the police for this compliance.

Look on most of the threads on here, people need clear HR advice.

The smiley meant it was a joke

But when a girl from my last company called me up and told me to stop naming my delivery managers DM1, DM2, DM3 on the IT system as it was "Rankist" she got told to feck off!

[roofer]

rog007 said:

HR, or to use its full title, Human Resources, which is a descriptor not a function, has gestated in to a management sub-culture to compensate for poor managers unable to lead and manage staff and staff issues. It has no formal boundaries and as such it's reach is usually as deep as the lack of competencies of those charged with the leadership and management of staff in an organisation, so someone once told me...

Spot on, overpaid tts too.

[Sir Fergie]

As I understand it - HR had quite a wide brief - theres selection/recruitment of staff, performance management (if someone has been a naughty boy or gal - and needs to up their game), training and development of staff. Also theres the need to ensure that employment legislation is complied with, negotiating with staff, resolving staff issues - ie if the staff and managers are having issues etc.

Theres probably more I can't think off (the joys of half remembering what you've learned in college ).

Incidentally our HR lecturer at college was big into the concept that HR is every managers responsibility - not just a specific HR manager or dept. She also highlighted the idea that staff are the organisations most important resource.

That's quite an important point - if you take something like a hotel or Road haulage - good staff can mean a thriving business with a very good reputation - due to the staff doing a superb job.

Bad staff though can hold a business back - even something simple like one staff member underperforming and having a negative impact on the rest of the team.

So HR needs to be providing leadership in dealing with all this kind of thing - but yes having the line/dept/speciality (Quality control etc) managers involved in HR matters as part of the company HR strategy is a good thing imo if its done properly with the right training.

Best HR manager ive ever see in action was a lady in a small company - but she had a number of roles - not just HR - so yes its possible imo - for a manager to take on HR related stuff with the right training even though their main management role isn't HR. They could then be supported by a dedicated HR person if needed - even if that's an outside consultant.

Sir Fergie

Edited by Sir Fergie on Tuesday 11th June 16:57

[Kudos]

buzzer said:

I always thought HR stood for hand relief...

Every HR department I have ever dealt with has been staffed by a bunch of wkers

My missus is an HR Manager. She does give good HR