Serious question: If more managers did their jobs, would HR still exist?
How much of what HR professionals spend a lot of their time on – performance appraisals, succession planning, employee relations – are really things that managers are responsible for?
If managers were actually expected to do these things – trained and evaluated on them – what would the profession of human resources look like? Would it still exist? Would it look drastically different?
Is it time for HR to start putting itself out of business? What do you think?
I sure do believe HR should do much more to make managers more effective. I’m not sure if that really would put HR out of a job, but I do think it would greatly improve the performance of people in the organization – which it would seem to me has to be an important function of HR (conceptually anyway – I’m not sure, in practice, how frequently that guides HR’s day to day work).
Managers are humans and humans are imperfect. It doesn’t matter how well-trained managers are on doing all of the things you mentioned, they can still make mistakes and require guidance. In addition, most of the things mentioned (performance management, employee relations and succession planning) are not done on a daily basis by managers. It’s rare to see these tools properly utilized by managers.
I think companies should stop hiring and promoting employees into management positions based on technical competence (they are really good at what they do) or seniority and hire/promote folks that are also competent managers. Or at least start the “grooming” process before the promotion takes place and continue supporting a new manager during that transition phase. It can be very difficult for a new manager to let go of the day-to-day and start thinking strategically and focus on those other things you mentioned (performance planning, etc).
Doing so wouldn’t put HR out of business. I think it may even make HR more busy. The best managers are those managers that seek out or welcome support from HR/OD to become better and help their teams become better.
@John - You wrote, “I sure do believe HR should do much more to make managers more effective.”
I agree 100 percent. Do you think shifting the mindset of what human resources is all about to align more with making managers more effective (rather than doing certain aspects of their job for them) would change what we do?
For example, what happens to the generalist, who often handles a lot of the administrative crap that managers don’t want to do?
@Kimberly - You said, “In addition, most of the things mentioned (performance management, employee relations and succession planning) are not done on a daily basis by managers. It’s rare to see these tools properly utilized by managers.”
That was basically my point. Managers don’t use them properly, and rather than educate, HR pros often “pick up the slack” for them.
Agree/Disagree?
@Kristy - YES! Tom Peters has a great (insanely short) video on this on YouTube. He talks about how in sports, the people who become coaches are almost never the best players. In fact, they often suck at playing. They’re instead really great at motivating a team towards a unified goal. Why is business any different?
I’m My view is basically from a system perspective without much into the HR view. I just see much HR isn’t very value added. I also can imagine lots of value added stuff HR could do. Ideally I doubt I would design a system to have HR do much of it – I would probably prefer to have things like building the capacity of the workforce in the “line managers” responsibility. But with those managers not doing it, it sure seems to me HR could do add value that way a lot more than the other things I see them doing. Honestly I haven’t had much experience with useful HR, though I know it exists and can do great things.
Non-value added tasks should be removed from managers and HR. I can imagine there are tasks managers don’t want to do that it could make sense for HR to do. I also can imagine there are such tasks that would be better served by designing the system so noone has to do them.
@John – Thanks for the follow-up response!
All-in-all, I think the future of HR is in sourcing and employer branding, helping managers do their jobs better, and strategic compensation.
I think most of the other stuff can and should be the responsibility of managers, or outsourced.
I think HR is given far too much power in many companies (or maybe, not enough). It really depends on how you look at it. If their purpose is merely to manage the resources (i.e. the people), they should simply have an administrative role. Manage paperwork, establish and communicate company policies, state employment policies, etc.
However, I have seen HR have a more significant role in some companies, such as acting as advocates for employees, and their rights. Many managers have no clue when it comes to how they should treat employees, in which case, HR could train management. The problem is, management usually holds all the strings, and HR becomes their crutch (for lack of a better word), which allows them to treat employees poorly, and lay all the responsibility on HR.
Bottom line – you should not underestimate the value of good managers who know how to motivate, lead, and even interact with the people.
@Jeff – If a manager has no clue how to treat his employees, what business does he have being a manager in the first place?
I like your thought on training, but I also think that’s something that needs to happen WAY before someone becomes a manager.
Perhaps a core piece if what HR does should be “leadership readiness”?
Cheers!
Chris
Dear Chris,
This question has a lot to do with the size of your organisation and/or the type of talent relations you are after. Especially important is the question if you can/will afford to have “staff” to support operations.
What is it you want your managers and employees to focus on, where do you want they spend their time on?
On the other hand you could ask the question if you need managers if HR facilitates employees in their performance and takes care of sourcing!
For me HR stands for Human Relations & Human Results which makes HR Highly Relevant.
Best regards,
Alexander
@Alexander – I see HR as helping in sourcing, and in helping managers become more effective leaders in their functional area of expertise. I don’t think HR can ever replace functional leadership.
But I do think managers spend too much time on delivering their personal numbers and not enough time on actually leading and growing the skills of their team.
Dear Chris,
in modern 2.0 and above organisations, the role of managers will be / is changing.
I agree it will be more about leadership. In 2.0 type organisations I think leadership roles could shift depending on the type of work that needs to be done. It is not anylonger by defintion “the process manager” who will take the leading role. In 2.0 leadership is more fluid, the focus is on the result.
HR should / could add value by supporting the leaders with sourcing and talent engagement + development.
@Alexander – Is it really a “2.0″ thing? I think even in the 40s and 50s, the best managers were the ones inspiring employees and treating them like people – not the process drivers.
Dear Chris,
I think the tayloristic type of organisation is becoming outdated.
The role of managers will be changing and the focus will shift to leadership.
Personally I see that organisations are becoming more open and more project based. Crowdcourcing kind of developments, IT making information no longer a “managerial domain”, social networking type of collaboration, working anywhere at anytime, open collaboration etc. all these kind of developments will be resulting in a different kind of “organisation”, requiring a different type of working together and getting to the results customers are looking for. Tmely access to talent on the market place will be crucial and enable to do what you promise. etcetc. Control and coordination, process management, operational excellence, all will evolve and have a consequence for the role HR could/should take.