Interesting to see comments last week about opportunities in great times of change - By a strange coincidence in last month's HCMI class, a question on organisations and people management in terms of what had fundamentally changed led to a 'non-discussion' because in the analysis little had actually changed.
There was no denying that there was much activity but little had really actually changed. More critically the view was taken that the HR function was in many instances not doing anything different to Personnel before it.........
Which brings me to HR and HCM.........
Well - it goes to the heart of the matter over the current debate between HRM (human resource management) and HCM (human capital management) and the HR function.
There is still much confusion in the market-place regarding HR and HCM due in part to the clever marketing (rebadging) of various suppliers and lazy practitioner thinking.
Ahead of the 'Human Capital Management Manifesto' publication later this year I thought that I would set out what the difference is between HRM and HCM. Because I believe in the current era this is going to be vety important.
And again I want to make the point that it is necessary to differentiate between the terms 'HR profession' and the 'HR function'. They are not one and the same. They can have quite different definitions although commonalities exist. Occasionally they may totally align.
The main reason being that the 'profession' should be defining the role of the function in lieu of organisation requirements. A profession should never be ruled by the function because the function's role, in an organisational context, can be artificially limited and thus stifling from a professional perspective. I think that HR has suffered because the profession has been to often driven by the function (order-taker). I'm not sure if many in the profession acknowledge this (perhaps too many don't care?!). A test question: If HR is seen as too often political and falls back on an 'award industry' - what can we derive from this?
But back to the HCM versus HRM debate.....
Here's twelve ('dirty dozen') contrasting attributes:
So, now you know....(and there's another ten plus differentiators not stated here).
It's not about winning
Of course, relating to the blog title, there is actually no winner since this is not about HCM or HR winning. It is acknowledging the difference, hopefully to clarify and avoid confusion, and more to the point an evolution.
It can also act as a checklist for those who call themselves HCM but perhaps are really only HR in disguise. The problem being that if left unchecked this will just perpetuate the same problem as evidenced in the Personnel-HR migration. This causes ourselves many problems in getting the HCM message across.
HR as Personnel in disguise
I pointed out some weeks ago that many HR functions, when dissected are really Personnel functions in disguise, in terms of their contribution. And let me be clear, the Personnel function is a viable organisation option if that is what the organisation wants, i.e. the basics (effectively this includes all transactional activities that can be outsourced).
One of the problems that has plagued the 'HR function' is that there has never really been any discernible differentiation made which has caused confusion to this day . Many managers are and still deeply suspicious of it being a rebadging execise. Even a number of practitioners steadfastly refuse to call themselves HR preferring to Personnel. To that end I cannot disagree if Personnel is what they are doing.
But in evaluating, one comes to an interesting premise - that there will be ultimately no 'HR'. Either HR is actually Personnel in disguise and therefore unnecessary to rebadge or it is evolving into an HCM function.
You're either Personnel or HCM. You're either CIPD or HCMI (actually with HCMI you can be both). Full stop. Of course this is the Hippo in the corner for many.........
The other problem with the term Human Resources
I have also stated before that I find the term Human Resources rather demeaning as resources implies use/expendability of people, like raw materials rather than assets to be utilised - human capital. I have no problem with the verb/adverb (act of) resourcing related to people. But the term unfortunately has the connotation of reinforcing that which we are trying to change in managerial terms in organisations.
The acronym 'HR' has also become common parlance, partly because its easy to say ('catchy') and in many ways this is deflecting from its actual meaning. This reminds me of the children's rhyme 'Ring-a-ring o'roses' the theme of which relates to that of the 'Black Death' (though acknolwedging that this is disputed in some quarters).
Given this, it does seem quite bizarre that, in fact, many have actually questioned the term 'human capital' (and its management thereof). The term human capital (HC) has in fact a positive connotation, is technically correct and has been around for over 50 years (see previous mutliple blog comments on this). For me the term human resources maintains the wrong organisation focus and has to change.
The questionable current HR role interpretation and the future
I've been most concerned at some recent self-preservative statements emanating from the HR community regarding HR's role in a downturn, in having a major role in resizing. This rather facile argument misses the point that you don't actually need an HR function for this role as it can be outsourced. Secondly, it's a pretty limited view of the function's role - though this doesn't seem to have been picked up.
What is becoming clear to the School's HCMI class of 08 is that the HR era is in need of change (perhaps coming to a close?!) with that a retrospective judgment, from a professional standpoint, views the last fifteen years plus of HR having been too often associated with failure. (This will attract criticism as some observers will point to higher salaries/rewards/press/acknowledgement but these are actaully erroneous attributes).
It would seem that Personnel or HCM would be the more natural choice as HR polarises (and fades) between the two.
Last week, I read a recent HR publication that confirmed my worst fears that 'HR' as a collective when it comes to thinking is indeed bankrupt. Actually, at first glance, you would have mistaken it as a wind-up but no it was the bona fide contents of an article.
So a choice for us practitioners. A time to cut loose? Also an invitation to those reading this blog to directly e-mail your thoughts (and no I'm not going to let on what this published article was!).
If you're wondering about the future of 'HR' then the future might just be that 'HR' as a term is consigned to history...............you heard it here first.............
