Debate rages over "Why we Hate HR"

Boy, I sure jumped into the middle of a hornet’s nest when I wrote “HR as black sheep of dysfunctional corporate family” last week in response to Fast Company’s “Why We Hate HR.”

The controversy’s been a shot in the arm for this Blawg’s visibility. The “black sheep” post’s already jumped to No. 4 for the year, having been viewed over 440 times.

But has this debate about the role of HR played a constructive role in changing any minds? Do good things happen when people stake out such extreme positions in order to draw attention to an issue? Some thoughts on this below, after some links and thoughts on the debate.

Not too surprisingly, the comments posted here in response to my post supported my position (full disclosure: the author of one of them took me to lunch last week).

One comment suggested I link to an earlier post on this blog: “HR Don’t Get No Respect? You Can’t Blame This One On Lawyers … Or Can You?” (note my comment, as well as Michael’s original post).

Fast Company’s blog has follow-up comments (with reader comments appended) here: (“Why We Hate Talking About HR?”) and here: (“Why We Love Talking About HR“).

After I wrote “black sheep,” I discovered that Fast Company had also published a sidebar: “How To Do HR Right.“

Looking it this sidebar, I realized one of the major problems: all this focus on measurable “value.” From my employment lawyer’s perspective, one of the key roles of HR is in achieving legal compliance and minimizing legal risk. This role is nowhereto be found in this quote from FC:

HR folks must create value for four groups: They need to foster competence and commitment among employees, develop the capabilities that allow managers to execute on strategy, help build relationships with customers, and create confidence among investors in the future value of the firm.

Investors should care if lack of employment law compliance and shoddy HR policies leave the company vulnerable to costly lawsuits, but do they know about it?

And how do you measure the value of preventing an occurrence (a lawsuit or judgment) when you don’t know its likelihood or magnitude? If it occurs, it’s easy enough to blame HR, but if it doesn’t, how do you know if this lack of trouble is a payoff on the investment in HR or if you just got lucky?

Anyway, on to some of the other blogosphere reaction to the Fast Company article:

This one is very temperate, and provides useful links to some serious, nonconfrontational resources on the subject. Here We Are. Now What? (Musings on change, learning, work, media, movies, travel, spiritual growth, and enjoying life): “Getting More Strategic.” Note particularly the link to a Harvard Business Review article, “HR’s New Mandate: Be a Strategic Player”

This piece of the Harvard article got me thinking about reconciling my lawyer perspective with all this B-school-strategy-speak:

A fourth implication of the HR value proposition is that HR professionals must align practices with the requirements of internal and external stakeholders. When this is successful, HR creates value as defined by those stakeholders.

Top management must recognize that both employees and the public, whose interest is manifested through employment laws, are key stakeholders. Value is created by satisying these stakeholders through HR practices that resolve employee-management conflict, minimize employee motivation to sue, and further the goal of legal compliance.

That I need to say this to an impatient new generation of capitalists and managers is a sign of just how far we’ve come with the decline of the unions. A generation ago, it would have gone without saying that adept handling of the now-quaintly-named “industrial relations” was of huge value for a business whose employees were unionized — and that inept handling of it could bring a company to its knees. Of course employees are key stakeholders when their union’s in your face!

It’s the Recruiting, Stupid! is wholeheartedly in support of FC’s position: “Why We Hate HR – We Need Revolution Not Evolution, Stupid!”

Excellent thoughts and reader comments at Resourcing Strategies (HR, recruitment, staffing & employment articles, trends and soundbites from Andrew Marritt): “HR – responding to being hated”

Also thoughtful comments (kindly mentioning my post) from CathColl.net: “taking it seriously”

The Spark (A marketer’s view of Pop Culture. Insight. Connection. Solutions.) is abruptly negative: “No Tears for HR, Please.”

[I]n business, one tends to be judged on outcomes, and the outcome and the bottom line is HR sucks.

Val the C# Gal posts simplistically: “Why We Hate HR?”

Wouldn’t it be cool if HR, instead of setting up a bunch of policy that we had to struggle to work around, used their time and energy to prove to my management team why it is worthwhile, in the language of business that my management team understands, for them to keep me happy and recruit talent?

Jason Ballot’s Palette/Palate: “Fast Company: “Why We Hate HR”

If, like me, you work in an environment reminiscent of “Office Space” (that is, any medium to large sized Corporate American business), you will truly appreciate this fantastic article

I love this comment to Jason’s post:

The worst HR experiences are when they do sexual harrassment training or other sorts of training. Recently, we had a sexual harrassment training where we actually watched a cheesy ass video! A VIDEO! Lame. So Lame.

I guarantee you, all across America today there are hundreds, if not thousands, of companies that are neck deep in defending harassment cases and wishing they had just bothered to show such a video!

Not because it would have prevented the harassment, though it might have, but because it would have given them some great material for their legal defense — possibly enough to avoid trial and/or the nightmare of punitive damages.

And, taking the cake for embittered, unhelpful anecdotal mutterings (beating out FC itself): “Viddy This”

Now, back to where I started:

Has this been a useful exercise?

Has it changed any minds or merely reinforced existing prejudices and beliefs?

Would a more temperate and positive article with a less incendiary title been equally effective – or more so ?

Reading all of the above, I think it hasn’t been that productive of an exercise. It may have helped the progressive forces in HR (yes, I truly believe they exist) realize how far they have to go in reforming attitudes towards HR.

I find it sad, but typical (we see it in politics these days, bigtime) that the way to stimulate a good discussion is thought to be coming on strong and extremist and antagonistic, rather than getting a bunch of good, smart, experienced people together in a search for common ground.

Imagine if FC had instead facilitated and published a round table-style piece that raised the same issues, but gave HR experts equal time to respond. I love a good debate, but I’m not convinced publishing flaming one-sided stories is the way to encourage productive debate!

Related Reading:

Lab Manual for General, Organic, and Biological Chemistry (2nd Edition)

General, Organic, and Biochemistry: An Applied Approach

General, Organic, & Biological Chemistry