Is HR dominated by a bunch of pinkos who don’t care about the green stuff?

In Workforce Management magazine, John Sullivan challenges what he sees as the typical HR mentality.

Sullivan says provocatively: “We all know that in the age-old economic battle between capitalism and socialism, capitalism won. [An oversimplification, perhaps.] Unfortunately, if you were to classify the actions of many human resources departments, more than a few of their actions come across like socialist actions rather than capitalist ones.”

Sullivan’s article is entitled:

“Is Your Human Resources Department Unwittingly a “Socialist” Institution?”

His main points fall under the following headings:

• Human resources as the advocate of the weak vs. the top performer
• Human resources as supporters of equal pay vs. differential pay
• Human resources focused on seniority vs. relevant and recent performance
• Equal treatment of departments and managers vs. resources based on results
• Human resources as consensus decision-makers vs. innovators
• Human resources as the protector of people and jobs vs. being a champion of profit
• A bias toward people over capital investments, no matter what the ROI

Sullivan hypothsizes that the reason pinko HR softies are in such conflict with merciless capitalists is:

[M]ost of the people in human resources do not have degrees in business, nor do they have extensive experience managing a P&L business unit. Let’s face it: Too many people in human resources are there because they “like to work with people” rather than because they like to make the firm a lot of money by increasing “people productivity.”

You can also see this socialist bias in some human resources publications that frequently place social concerns at center stage. Even though the human resources department is a business function, some of the people who write about human resources seem more focused on outside social issues than the publication of any other business function.

These human resources publications routinely focus on issues in the community. I’ve never met a CFO or CEO anywhere who said the role of a human resources department is to make the world a better place or to worry about the little guy. However, quite frequently I see the cover of human resources magazines highlighting social issues, obesity, housing issues and even concerns for a happy retirement. Maybe it’s because most of the writers for human resources publications are freelancers with no degree in business. Read more

[As if such people couldn't possibly have something intelligent to say! I mean surely you have to study accounting, marketing, and the management lingo du jour, rather than philosophy and English, in order to write about anything having to do with business!]

Is this article worth reflecting on? Sure. Does it fairly and accurately reflect HR as it’s being taught and written about these days? Maybe Michael, who teaches the subject, would care to comment. I suspect the move is well underway towards the type of thinking Sullivan advocates, and this is not necessarily 100% a good thing.

The “soft” factors HR “socialists” consider, like “obesity, housing issues and even concerns for a happy retirement” have a clear bottom line impact. If you can’t see that, you’re the kind of capitalist who may make a ton of money in the short run, but will lose the Darwinian struggle of capitalism in the longer run.

I suppose this article (also in Workforce) by a freelancer who may not have gone to B-school (where all the best and brightest go, right?) epitomizes the pinko softie approach: “M.D.: ‘It’s Your Prerogative to Make Sure Employees Take Time Off’,” by Gretchen Weber.

Ms. Weber quotes a doctor who says that “[a]fter a vacation, . . . employees find their work more interesting and become more efficient at their jobs, and the rate of absenteeism actually decreases.” Additionally, they live longer and healthier lives, further enhancing the bottom line through reduced healthcare costs.

So is an HR practitioner who advocates generous time off policies a socialistic dreamer, or is he/she a business person emphasizing the human aspects that directly or indirectly impact productivity and the bottom line, though they may not be taught in B-school?

In all fairness, Sullivan makes some interesting points (though they are only half-truths).

For example, he says: “most companies fire less than 1 percent of their workforce for performance reasons, which is clearly an indication that poor performance is widely tolerated.”

Guess what I’m going to say, as an employment lawyer? You fire more, you better factor in the cold hard cash it costs to litigate discharge claims.

Here’s another: “Layoffs are a chance to cull out the weak and the unnecessary and are a method for reducing overall costs. It’s easier to find a Republican who wants to raise taxes than it is to find a human resources person who actively supports layoffs.”

HR has some reasons to be more aware of the long-term costs of what are today euphemistically referred to as “layoffs.” I’m saving for another day detailed discussion of that issue.

Suffice it to say that a “layoff” used to mean a response to a seasonal downturn, with a possibility of recall when business revived. Today it usually means what is viewed and communicated as a permanent job elimination, with no possibility of return.

HR, not the B-school guys and gals, are the ones faced with re-recruiting a whole new crew when business does revive and loads of talented “laid-off” people have kissed the corporation goodbye permanently and gotten on with their lives, thank you very much.

Related Reading:

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

General, Organic, and Biochemistry: An Applied Approach

General, Organic, & Biological Chemistry