I wasn't quite prepared for an article I came across in The Times Higher Education Supplement (10-16 April) recently - see online 'When HR gets hold of academe, quackery and gobbledegook run riot' which is gross misunderstanding of what HR/HCM and the function is about (you should by now see my response there).
As I got over choking on my toasted HRD week brochure I though this needs a response.........
Unfortunately, the author, David Colquhoun, a pharmacologist is a little undercooked when it comes to understanding the role of HR/HCM, even though he makes a few interesting comments about training/self-help and misguided government directives. More concerning is that it got published at all in the THES!?
I'm sure if he has visited HRD week this week he would have seen plenty of evidence supporting his 'quackery' theory (There's a previous blog entry of mine somewhere about my sheer horror at attending this event a few years back!) but that's where the relevance ends.
As a profession it would seem we still have work to do out there. As I commented this week during the lastest HCMI course workshop looking at how the whole area of HCM/HR is reported leaves me with a distinct queasiness.
There is so much focus on diversity, gender/equality, bad boss and crazy training topics that as an outsider one could be forgiven to think that's all there is.
This is so far from the truth to be disrespectful of all the HCM practitioners and also the number of good line managers out there (the unsung heroes).
As a profession we need to give some thought (due diligence) as to how to redress the balance otherwise we will continue to receive distorted broadsides from outsiders.
It starts from within the profession. And that's when I start to get really worried...........
