When did human resource management (HR) shift from managing people to managing the organization? Aren’t CEO, VP’s, Directors and Managers supposed to do that? What is going on in the workplace today that executives seem to have relinquished organizational authority to the human resource department? Years ago, I recall when HR followed the authority and command of corporate leaders. It seems that has changed, and we have materialized at a place where HR is not only commanding management decisions but supervising what takes place in the organization. An illustration of this is where a department director feels he or she need to hire an extra employee and sends the job request to HR and HR declines the requisition adducing that another worker is not necessary because someone else in the department can, instead, fill the director's needs.
Another example, furthermore, is when management conceives one person would be a good match for a particular position and HR opposes and reciprocates by hiring someone of their choosing. Leadership tug-a-wars of this nature, between HR and directors about whether a department requires another employee, who the finest team member is for a particular role, and who should ultimately make hiring decisions, have from time to time culminated in organizational contention.Although some have alleged that the role of HR has transferred from administrative responsibilities to one that acknowledges the significance of aptitude technique and skills within the organizational paradigm, most employees this day still perceive HR as nothing more than hiring and firing agents. This impression is troubling given that one of the predominant roles of human-resource management is employee relations while the principal function of management is to increase market share.
Since HR is concerned with people and management is concerned with expanding shareholder’s profit, some infer that HR should leave the management of resources (finance, materials, supplies, supplies, resource, and holdings) to the executives. According to an ex-HR executive turn consultant Garold Markle, “HR doesn’t tend to hire a lot of independent thinkers or people…”
Since HR is concerned with people and management is concerned with expanding shareholder’s profit, some infer that HR should leave the management of resources (finance, materials, supplies, supplies, resource, and holdings) to the executives. According to an ex-HR executive turn consultant Garold Markle, “HR doesn’t tend to hire a lot of independent thinkers or people…”
The HR conceptualization applies to how individuals are managed by organizations and not whether or not executives should have to butt heads with the Human Resource Department. As previously touched on, the department should be about human performance and not organizational operations. As HR specialist Arnold Kanarick postulates, “HR …is about how you get the best and brightest people to raise the value of the firm.”
Hence, executives should not have to duel with HR and employees needn't be frightened of HR. Anthony Rucci, executive vice-president at Cardinal Health, Inc. says that, “business acumen is the single biggest factor that HR professionals in the U.S. lack today.” The separation amidst these roles couldn’t be any wider and shame on organizations that permit the role of HR to clash with the job function and seniority of management. According to Keith Hammonds, author of Why We Hate HR, “The truth is…most human-resources managers aren't particularly interested in, or equipped for, doing business. And in a business, that's sort of a problem.”
So then it would appear that the right approach for improving successful organizations is for HR to do its job, which is “…finding, nurturing, and developing talent,” and delivering value “…to employees and…managers.” Management need never cross roles with HR and Presidents, CEO’s and other organizational echelons need to guarantee that this never happen.
