There has been recent furore over the raised question regarding the future of HR following the article on PwC's report in PT. In the ensuing melee of comment it would seem that we’ve overlooked the real question which is ‘Are we talking about the HR function or the HR profession?’ Because the two are not necessarily the same.
If we are referring to the HR function, then its future is reasonably safe – the only question then being as to what type of HR function is it, i.e. one that is operationally compliant focused and mainly outsourced or one that adds strategic value optimising people and management contribution? (And, of course, the hybrid versions in between).
If we are referring to the HR profession then I would say that the future is far from certain and here are three reasons why:
1 Quasi-professionality
In reality, the HR profession in definitional terms, has only ever reached quasi-professional status and at some point we’re going to have to accept this. Somebody senior at the CIPD needs to acknowledge that in the race to become ‘Chartered’ the fundamentals of comprehensive subject matter supported with an infrastructure to provide standardisation of practice took second place. Even the latest objectives of CIPD seem to be more on generating more members rather than the standing of the profession.
The embracing of evidence-based management in people management has been very slow to the extent that HR practitioners’ and line managers’ approach is not to synthesise related research and empirical evidence in their decision-making but more a reliance on gut and the latest fad/experience, rejecting any scientific methodology in the process.
Take, for example, Hertzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation. It is still very prevalent in the HR profession and likely that it is something that many managers may know to some degree. But how many HR practitioners are aware of the published criticism and limitations of this theory?
Also, terms like leadership, talent, engagement are bounded around like ‘candy floss’ at a fare rather than be treated to the technical appreciation they need.
2 Comfort-zone
Nobody can deny that the last ten years economically has provided ‘big’ opportunities for people management to take centre stage and yet one could be mistaking for thinking that the HR function has been busy reengineering itself endlessly. There has been an extensive over-focus on HR functional structure, driven by certain academic reverence. There is little evidence that organisations generally are much further forward at all in terms of effective people management practice.
In particular, many HR practitioners prefer to ask for the ‘same-old’ topics at conferences listening to ‘pack & go’ presentations for adoption with little professional due diligence. The profession is often accused of ‘navel-gazing’. The point is that focus on the HR function, expecting to listen to the same-old, same-old and navel gazing are all connected – they’re all comfort-zone activities.
3 The rejection of evolution
Too many HR practitioners refuse to countenance or, indeed, deny the existence of human capital and human capital management despite the fact that the term is over 50 years old and provides fantastic opportunities for the profession to ‘up its game’. It is the same as accountants ignoring or rejecting the concept of economic profit (which coincidentally is as old a concept as human capital).
Embracing the terms HC and HCM does not mean that we are ‘junking’ previous HR learning. On the contrary it is an evolution designed to enhance professional capability and incorporate the large body of knowledge that has built over time in the people management domain.
And I pay tribute to those practitioners who are embracing the evolution and challenge.
Of CEOs, salt and accountability
When I read reports using information gleaned from CEO or equivalent senior management I accept the information with a pinch a salt. After all, these are the people you’d like to think understand the benefits of effective people management. But why do many people management initiatives seem to be public relations exercises? Who is kidding whom?
I have no problem with public acknowledgement of good practice but that should not be the default reason which seems to be so common nowadays. And it’s all too easy to ‘kick’ HR without any accountability in management terms by this same management cadre.
From a professional standpoint, it sits with those in HR/HCM to be the guardian of effective people management. It is a continual challenge to educate and contribute.
If not, then we end up in a ‘vicious hamster-wheel’ of our own making which limits the functional role and its contribution. In this scenario, even with the best of intentions it is hard to see how the ‘profession’ can play a ‘bigger and more accountable role’.
Of course, the HR function and the HR profession are connected. A strong profession begets a strong function. A weak profession begets a weak function. There is no such thing as a strong function with a weak profession.
One argument is that there is little opportunity to reconcile some of these differences and the profession may well eventually split – one part going on to achieve fully fledged professional status, the other to remain at quasi/amateur status. I hope not because only one of these has a real future.
