There's been a lot on offer regarding HR transformation over the past few years. Magazine articles, conferences, network events, publications, case studies etc.
But there is very little evidence that real HR transformation has gone on at all. For those who want to know what I am talking about and compare then reading Real HR Transformation may help.
As I have stated a number of times, HR transformation isn't just employing a bit of automation or outsourcing or shared services or any other part of the 'three-legged stool' or Ulrich's 2x2 conceptual model for that matter. And it certainly isn't only about cost reduction.....
Because if the answer was 'to reduce costs or headcount' - the question we should be asking is 'what was your prior value proposition beforehand? And, more importantly, what is your value proposition going forward? (the answer more strategic I am afraid is on dodgy ground)
What is very, very disturbing is the way that HR transformation is being presented in the news/PR. HR Directors are lining up to trumpet the latest HR transformation that reduces costs by cutting heads. In Finance and Marketing journals, I don't seem to come across that 'X Director is transforming Finance/Marketing by reducing costs/staff' to one iota of that we see in HR.
Thus why is it being reported as a badge of achievement? Why are we queuing up to present case after case of the above? To see HR transformation's output as reducing costs only suggests that the HR function has been failing whether through inefficiency or ineffectiveness or both. FULL STOP. PERIOD. DEFINITIVE.
My questions:
How has it come to this in the HR profession?
How is it possibly a positive message for the HR function?
What are we doing? There is more to HR transformation than this. If the profession doesn't see it then the HR function will get what it deserves, i.e. atomised to the point of insignificance.
Also - Dave Ulrich has left the (HR function) building
For a number of HR practitioners, just to remark that if you hadn't noticed, Dave's last book was about leadership (Leadership Brand) not about the HR function. I suspect that he's given up with people asking him the same wrong question for the last ten years (and still doing it even now!). So can we please move on.....
It was very noticeable in our recent ISHCM HCMI module on HR Operational Excellence last week how bankrupt the literature on HR functional operation has become. Pages and pages of published text saying the same old thing providing very little worthwhile - more and more on less and less (not the first time I've used that phrase).
The 'three legged stool' - the most over-hyped and over-used term in the English Language. It's meaningless. If you want to know something useful with regard to HR functions read the Journal of Applied Human Capital Management - more specifically Brave New HR World parts I and II.
The HR profession when it comes to the function's proposition is showing itself to be intellectually bankrupt. And yet there is so much opportunity to do so much more contributive work to the organisation as evidenced in different quarters. See our work and others.
It starts with seeing HR transformation as it should be - not being milked for PR purposes, which seems to be driven more by ego than any professional or functional rationale.
Organisations are very reluctant nowadays to mention headcount reductions because it is an admittance of failure.
So why are HR function professionals (the 'guardian' of all things people) so keen to do the opposite?
