The two sides of HR (Editorial)

Some say that to be a valued strategic member of the executive team HR needs to abandon its “touchy-feely” employee bent in favour of a tough bottom-line focus. Others argue it is by being an employee advocate that HR can make a difference through setting the conditions for employee commitment and productivity.

The latter view is based on the fact that a demoralized workforce is a liability. Unhappy employees (with any chance of leaving — even for less money) equals less effort, entrepreneurship and attention to quality and more absenteeism and turnover. But by playing a role as an employee advocate, HR can cut through problems that cause high performers to shun an enterprise. HR’s role here is closely linked to organizational effectiveness, where weak (or even toxic) managers are not allowed free reign to damage worker commitment.

If none of the above makes a convincing argument against the fiscal savings of an exclusive adherence to bottom-line management that sees staff as replaceable cogs in the machine, or your workforce is too unemployable to work anywhere else, the human side of human capital management may have little impact on the thinking of your organization’s leaders. In such cases, employee advocacy is a negative concept.

But, the “touchy feely” side of HR can also be problematic. HR has to be able to make tough decisions, that address fiscal concerns, in its ultimate role as employer representative. There are times when layoffs are necessary. When discipline must be doled out. When unproductive or disruptive staff must be terminated. Employee advocacy has little value if an organization can’t make the tough bottom-line moves that ensure competitiveness or survival.

A common complaint from non-HR executives about the HR department is that removing poor performers can sometimes seem an insurmountable task, with too much sensitivity being placed upon the questionable employee’s ability to remain employed with the organization. HR initiatives, such as progressive discipline, enroling the employee in a conflict resolution program or offering the employee training based on a skills assessment, often only delay the inevitable for months. All the while the employee stays put, damaging productivity and hurting the morale of everyone they work with.

The finance department can be complicit in this by dragging out terminations for fear of wrongful dismissal suits. But sometimes the risk of a suit is worth the alternative of a six-month disciplinary plan that keeps an employee who damages morale and efficiency around.

It is a skilled HR professional who knows when to be tough and when to be sensitive. And it doesn’t have to be a case of either or.

To read the full story, login below.

Not a subscriber?

Start your subscription today!