Comments on: Is Human Resources the Culprit? http://www.davidhenderson.com/2009/01/08/human-resources-culprit/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=human-resources-culprit Writer, communications strategist, Emmy Award winning former CBS News correspondent Fri, 18 May 2012 13:09:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: David Henderson http://www.davidhenderson.com/2009/01/08/human-resources-culprit/#comment-1920 David Henderson Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:14:43 +0000 http://www.davidhenderson.com/?p=1879#comment-1920 @Tess, Dear Tess, Wow, thank you both for your comment and your candor. Great question - If they need an HR function, what should it do? Truly gets to the core of whether HR is an outdated function. David @Tess,

Dear Tess,

Wow, thank you both for your comment and your candor. Great question – If they need an HR function, what should it do? Truly gets to the core of whether HR is an outdated function.

David

]]> By: Tess http://www.davidhenderson.com/2009/01/08/human-resources-culprit/#comment-1919 Tess Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:11:12 +0000 http://www.davidhenderson.com/?p=1879#comment-1919 I work (part-time) in Human Resources in the UK. Perhaps you will expect me to say something different, but I completely agree with you. I am often embarrassed by this profession into which I have stumbled. (I've developed my own role into something slightly outside the mainstream, that I enjoy and that I use to fund my real interests.) However... organisations get the HR teams they deserve. Question One an organisation should ask: Do they need an HR function? Could they train visionary managers and leaders with great people skills, and employ a small team of fantastic administrators and a good lawyer instead? Question Two: If they need an HR function, what should it do? Should it be primarily administrative and record-keeping, in which case should it be called something else? Management Information, or something? Or should an HR function develop strategy, training, and/or something else? What? If organisations want the best and the brightest, they must employ the best and the brightest HR people, not the sort of folk who write the soul-destroying stuff you quote. In the UK, it's a vicious circle. HR is not respected (in fact is a bit of a joke), so doesn't attract good people, so is seen as bureacratic and not respected... Maybe it's time to throw in the towel! I work (part-time) in Human Resources in the UK. Perhaps you will expect me to say something different, but I completely agree with you. I am often embarrassed by this profession into which I have stumbled. (I’ve developed my own role into something slightly outside the mainstream, that I enjoy and that I use to fund my real interests.)

However… organisations get the HR teams they deserve.

Question One an organisation should ask:

Do they need an HR function? Could they train visionary managers and leaders with great people skills, and employ a small team of fantastic administrators and a good lawyer instead?

Question Two:

If they need an HR function, what should it do? Should it be primarily administrative and record-keeping, in which case should it be called something else? Management Information, or something?
Or should an HR function develop strategy, training, and/or something else? What?

If organisations want the best and the brightest, they must employ the best and the brightest HR people, not the sort of folk who write the soul-destroying stuff you quote.

In the UK, it’s a vicious circle. HR is not respected (in fact is a bit of a joke), so doesn’t attract good people, so is seen as bureacratic and not respected… Maybe it’s time to throw in the towel!

]]> By: rr http://www.davidhenderson.com/2009/01/08/human-resources-culprit/#comment-1918 rr Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:24:05 +0000 http://www.davidhenderson.com/?p=1879#comment-1918 David, what a great piece. As a young professional myself I fully agree with you and with that things where different. thanks for writing about this. David, what a great piece. As a young professional myself I fully agree with you and with that things where different.

thanks for writing about this.

]]> By: Stephanie Smirnov http://www.davidhenderson.com/2009/01/08/human-resources-culprit/#comment-1917 Stephanie Smirnov Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:49:46 +0000 http://www.davidhenderson.com/?p=1879#comment-1917 Agree, David, well put. The HR point is extremely well taken; your post also illuminates in my mind the larger evil of corporate-speak as a whole and how it's systematically destroying the English language, one bad metaphor at a time. After 20 years of discussing ideas that hunt, putting moose (mooses?) on the table, locking and loading and asking how high is up, I can say with confidence (and sorrow) that I'm fluent. Is there hope for plain English in the halls of corporate America? Agree, David, well put. The HR point is extremely well taken; your post also illuminates in my mind the larger evil of corporate-speak as a whole and how it’s systematically destroying the English language, one bad metaphor at a time. After 20 years of discussing ideas that hunt, putting moose (mooses?) on the table, locking and loading and asking how high is up, I can say with confidence (and sorrow) that I’m fluent. Is there hope for plain English in the halls of corporate America?

]]> By: Eric Mondschein http://www.davidhenderson.com/2009/01/08/human-resources-culprit/#comment-1915 Eric Mondschein Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:29:33 +0000 http://www.davidhenderson.com/?p=1879#comment-1915 Directly on point, and on target could not be stated better, period. Thank you Eric Directly on point, and on target could not be stated better, period.

Thank you

Eric

]]>