A recent industry study suggested that only 25% of HR executives are interested in measuring the satisfaction of their internal customers. Beyond the grand philosophical debate, this is a critical problem.
Ram Charan’s short opinion piece in the Harvard Business Review (It’s Time To Spit HR) makes the tired case that executive frustration with HR should result in a dismantling of the function. It must have been a slow news day in Charan’s content creation factory. The notion that HR is out of step and uninformed has been enunciated more clearly and better elsewhere.
But, this sort of broad generalizing is all that’s left of the once mighty HBR.
The entire army of HR pundits have leaned into the debate. (see Josh Bersin, Mindy Hall, SHRM‘s CEO, Sue Meisinger, Fistful of Talent). Unsurprisingly, each one of the commentators has an answer that supports their existing business model. Since most of them feed from the status quo, the industry’s response looks an awful lot like a defense of the status quo.
For twenty years, we’ve been witness to wholesale generalization slinging like this. The nuance that is the reality of HR gets lost in the chest beating. Some things need to change; some things need to be reinvented and some things need to be thrown away.
Hmm, that sounds an awful lot like my house. It seems normal. The crisis that would drive the change seems to be missing.
In Western HR Departments, the range of responsibilities is driven by organizational size, complexity and maturity. What one company does with its HR function could be what puts another out of business. (Holocracy, anyone?) There are unpleasant tasks that must be executed perfectly (comp, benefits, payroll, compliance). There are market facing responsibilities (recruiting, ecosystem HR). There are senior level communications issues (board conversations about executive comp and workforce planning). There are tactical level deliverable to line managers (performance management systems, learning tools HRDepartment performance metrics). There are on the fly problems to be solved.
And then, there’s the whole messy thing associated with the employee interface with the workplace. From user adoption to disciplinary measures; from urine testing to divorce counseling; from individual benefits conversations to leadership training; and, from organizational development to payroll glitches. The HRDepartment shoulders a level of work that makes the rest of the organization possible.
And, that’s not to mention diversity, picnics, can drives, perks, employment branding and more.
There are very, very few CHROs who are broad enough to have a working understanding of each area.
In other words, HR is a function that changes shape and content based on the context in which it is executed. Reactionary diatribes designed to build page views and consulting businesses don’t really move the conversation forward. Neither do defensive responses, no matter how well intended.
HR is changing.
In general, funding for HR initiatives vary with economic times. When things are good, HR is expansive. When it goes south, these are the people who execute the layoffs (just before getting laid off, usually). When economic times are good, HR can help move the business. When things are bottom line oriented, they often feel like friction.
A recent industry study suggested that only 25% of HR executives are interested in measuring the satisfaction of their internal customers. Beyond the grand philosophical debate, this is a critical problem. As long as HR’s measurement scheme only reflects internal averages and only examines what’s under HR’s control, the function will continue to be the subject of ridicule.
Without a clear definition of a customer and a clear definition of what constitutes performance/excellence, HR is the epitome of a staff function that creates work for others without creating value. Without clear definitions of market conditions, HR’s boastful claims of value delivery are suspect. Without useful metrics that measure HR’s accomplishments, the function is adrift.
For my money, the answer here is to increase the level of transparency and accountability in HR. We need to know if it works, if it matters and how satisfied the customers are.
Does HR need to be split asunder? Probably not. But, there is a flow of sophisticated measurement and data coming that will require renewed intensity.
By increasing its focus on measuring customer satisfaction (from Job Hunters to Line Managers), HR can head in the right direction.
