Is HR a science? Last week, Laurie Ruettimann of Punk Rock HR posted an article in which she wrote,
I’m asking my fellow HR colleagues out there to quit pretending that our profession is rooted in science. It isn’t.
HR can actually be more of art – I’ll give her that. When you’re dealing with people, things are rarely black and white. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t act like a scientist.
What is science?
What is science? In its simplest form, being a scientist means running experiments and recording the results. It means using data instead of “gut.” It means following a process that allows you to measure cause-effect relationships.
If you believe (and I do) that HR’s most critical “value-add” role is aligning our people’s behavior with our strategic objectives, why would you not want to apply social science disciplines like psychology and anthropology to our art?
For example, data – tremendous amounts of it, in fact – show that the more at-risk compensation is tied to individual performance, the more effective it is at influencing behavior. The more it’s tied to company performance, the less effective it is at getting people to do what you’re compensating them for.
The only exception seems to be small start-ups, where individual employees can have a huge impact on the success of the company. For most people, they feel company performance is largely out of their control.
If you’re designing a bonus program that’s intended to motivate employees to do things critical to your organization’s success, wouldn’t you want to know that?
Using the scientific method
If you’re rolling out a new program, how are you going to prove that paying you to develop it over the last six months was worth the companies time? How are you going to show that it actually works?
You’re going to track the outcome you’re looking for before you implement a program, and then track it again after you implement the program. If the outcome improves or changes, your program is probably a sucess. If it doesn’t, your program failed. You can tweak it and try again.
Guess what – that’s the scientific method! That’s science. When dealing with people, there are always a tremendous amount of variables that can influence behaviors and results. But does that mean you shouldn’t think like a scientist?
What do you think? Art, science, or a little bit of both?
I’ve always said to everyone that in HR (or recruiting) 99% you do is science. You have all the information, you did the research, you punch in the numbers, you interview/survey the people. Altogether you get a result from this.
However, the 1% is a the final decision and sometimes numbers do lie and the 1% can be from results or instincts, so it’s an art.
@Tracy Tran – Like you said, at some point, there is a “gut” decision that has to be made. I wouldn’t necessarily say the numbers lie so much as I would say it’s important to understand the limitations of sourcing and selection criteria. Thanks for joining the discussion!
I hired some of the people behind this blog at a former company:
http://thebeautybrains.com/2009/01/29/the-beauty-of-skepticism/
They are cosmetic chemists, and they have found a really cute way to link the scientific method to beauty products. It reminded me of your post, but I still think that science is more applicable in a real laboratory and not the human laboratory we call ‘the workplace.’
xo/laurie
@Laurie Reuettimann – I know you see science as something that happens only in a laboratory. I’m the first to admit that social sciences like psych, anthro, sociology and such are a completely different animal than hard sciences like physics, chemistry and so on.
I still see the “soft sciences” as science, though. Science is a method, not a result. It’s a way of researching, understanding, and coming to conclusions. And the conclusions aren’t always right. The scientific method told us that the Earth was the center of the universe, that it was flat. It taught us that mice were born from garbage. Theoretical physics is in many ways less concrete as as the sciences you dub “psuedo-science.”
What makes science science is that you don’t just go on gut and forget about it. There’s an ongoing method of testing, concluding, retesting, scrapping and testing again. Overtime, the stuff that doesn’t work gets weeded out, and the stuff that does flourishes.
I think HR is both art and science. It reminds me of my first job – which was being an artist (really). While it takes innovation and creativity…there’s a bit of science: the thickness of the ink or the temperature for things to dry, etc.
Fast forward to my role in HR. We have to be creative and innovative with benefits, training, etc. But we also cannot ignore measurement and theory.
@Sharlyn – I didn’t know you were an artist – that’s so cool! I like your metaphor, and you’re right. It’s a bit of both. Thanks for commenting!
but it is always said that ,HR efforts are not quantifiable.How can you show efforts taken by HR department in Balance sheet. Training ROI could be one way . What about other areas?
Now if we can link HR efforts with science , it is possible to measure the HR contribution and to change the mindset ie. HR ia a support function and then we can link it with business objectives.
thanks for new perspective :)