I do understand why the HR staffers are a bit ruffled over it. That being said, a lot of the rebuttles here actually server to support Hammond’s arguments. Yes, it’s important to have procedures, reviews, and training processes in place to avert issues like harassment (or provide legal ammo when cases arise.) By making arguments like this, you are once again pigeon-holing yourselves and reinforcing that HR often doesn’t bring a lot to the table. This is called “CYA”, again, it is a commodity and can also be outsourced. These functions are vital bureaucracy but they don’t drive the business. By emphasizing that poing, you clearly don’t understand the business either. I work for a manufacturer. We manufacturer things. We sell them. We are very production and sales oriented. An HR employee that tells me that lawsuit prevention is a key business driver doesn’t understand my business. That is a risk that is mitigated. It is FAR LESS of a risk than improper pricing, bad supply chain management, bad product design, or poor sales technique.

As to the argument that this will further alienate HR departments, give executives license to ignore them, and that that the tone of this article will cause employers to ignore the positive aspects of Hammond’s arguments – I don’t buy that either. The problem isn’t the article, it is HR. And I don’t think execs will ignore it, I think they’ll give the lawn a good weeding. You see, I don’t believe that career HR bureaucrats can simply evolve or change. They are in the wrong field and need to be removed. There will alway be room for administrators (though we need less and less of them), but they shouldn’t lead or manage. Someone who has been a career bureaucrat is never going to understand how to lift morale, engage the business, or keep high level strategy in perspective. My company has realized this and we’re weeding out bureaucracy. How have the employees responded? Are they despondent or detached? Actually, morale and productivity is improving because we LISTENED to them. They told us we had too much bureaucracy and now we’re bringing in new HR blood.

I know this is an HR board, but you all need to ask yourselves what you bring and truly decide if your’e in the right field.

As one who has spent 30 years of his life in the HR profession and is certified in the field, I was glad to see such a reasoned, thorough and researched rebuttal to a sensationalistic, over generalized and very negative viewpoint on the industry as expressed in that article. I wish they would print your blog response as prominently in the magazine as the original article instead of just a blog which mostly HR folks will read. You echoed my feelings and thoughts almost exactly. I felt it was a much better rebuttal than the response from the President of SHRM, our “national mouthpiece”.

While the original article made some good points that have hounded the profession as long as I can remember, it was full of old stereotypes and negativity and the author did blame the professional solely for his perception of the state of affairs in HR. Your great response, I hope, was read by the author and the other CEOs who reveled in his opinions.

Thanks for your significant contribution to this important discussion.

Best Regards,

Dan Curtin, SPHR
President
Curtin & Associates
HR Consulting
Los Angeles
323-937-2612

First, thanks for your blog. I regularly read it, and your insights and links are a great resource. My work is in HR/Change Management, and many of your posts are relevant and helpful to myself and others on my team.

Second, that was an outstanding response to the FC article. If I may, I would like to suggest linking to one of your posts. http://employmentblawg.blogspot.com/2005/06/hr-dont-get-no-respect-you-cant-blame.html
I think it complements your comments, and begs the question, “Does Mr. Hammonds’s HR person know what is expected of him or her?”

Thanks and keep up the great work.

Nick

It is far easier to blame HR, and a piece pointing out the real problems would have been more useful, but would have received less attention.

The real argument for why we hate HR would universally have to do with the attitude that Human Resources professionals take in response to their duties.

As a recruiter, I see it a lot, and I agree that the attitude is a response to a lack of respect in the organization’s higher management, but it doesn’t solve the problem that for most people, meeting with HR or talking to them on any level ends poorly.

The places where HR is respected always have an Executive who makes it a point to include their HR folks in their discussions. The solution does start in the boardroom. Well-said.