I’m the operations manager of a medium-sized organization. My concern centers on our human resource (HR) manager, a 34-year-old man who appears to be clueless about what’s happening in our company and around the industry. He’s reactive on many people management problems and his programs don’t generate the maximum participation of the intended beneficiaries. And yet, he’s been doing the same things over and over for the past three years. I’ve seen the same thing happening in other companies as well. This is confirmed by my industry friends who think that many HR “professionals” are plain administrative managers incapable of being critical thinkers in this challenging world. What are your thoughts? — Blue Star.
I’m not sure if it’s the adverse effects of the pandemic on mental health. I’ve seen people jumping to conclusions, antagonizing their colleagues, sidestepping responsibility, and pushing their luck without any concrete evidence about their expertise. So, what’s making us focus our attention on HR people?
First and foremost, it’s the job of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to evaluate the HR manager’s work performance. And that should not prevent you from sharing your thoughts with the CEO if you perceive the HR programs are not meeting your department requirements and those of the organization.
But you’re right, except that we can’t make a generalization about the poor qualifications and performance of HR people unless we can come up with objective metrics for measuring what they can and cannot do.
“Recent complaints about the HR function have touched a nerve in a large, sympathetic audience, particularly in the United States,” according to Wharton management professor Peter Capelli in Forbes (2015). “The most vocal critics say that HR managers focus too much on ‘administrivia’ and lack vision and strategic insight.”
I share the same view. Here in the Philippines, I’ve seen many HR practitioners who perpetuate the reactive practice of exit interviews for resigned employees instead of promoting the “stay” interview or a kumustahan, motivational approach long before the employees even think of leaving.
LEAN HR
So, how do we define “critical thinking?” My short and crisp definition is “challenging the status quo to discover the best way of doing things.” You can create your own definition, but I’m confident that regardless of how you define “critical thinking,” the terms originality, initiative, rational or logical thought will be included.
The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report (2020) highlights the finding that “(c)ritical thinking and problem-solving top the list of skills employers believe will grow in prominence in the next five years.” Does the critical thinking requirement apply to HR? There’s no doubt about it. Critical thinking is imperative for all, including those in the HR profession. There is no cogent and practical reason why not.
If there’s a single formula for HR to follow in practicing critical thinking, I would recommend “Lean HR” or the application of kaizen and lean principles to help reduce, if not eliminate waste in operations. In so doing, we end up asking a lot of questions about how HR is doing its job. Here are some of them:
One, why does it take time for HR to hire job applicants? The last time I checked with my industry sources, I was told they’re averaging two-and-a-half months to source, screen, interview, negotiate, and do the on-boarding of new employees in across all jobs. There are many reasons that contribute to the delay. One thing that irritates me is when they refuse to interview applicants with incomplete documents.
Are we not supposed to do only paper screening of the applicants’ curriculum vitae? Interviews can be fast-tracked online, with or without the pandemic. Further, should we not secure only pre-employment documents from the top two candidates?
Two, why focus on the perfect attendance award instead of merit? Why reward people who are required to report daily and on time? Why focus on physical presence rather than actual results? Why do we micromanage people on work-from-home arrangements by turning on their laptop cameras? Why not strengthen the performance management system instead?
Or, if your organization can afford it, procure software that monitors worker progress on an hourly basis. Why must we retain the services of deadwood who can’t do other jobs?
Last, why delay the issuance of an employment certificate? You won’t believe the arrogance of HR people on this issue. Many organizations drag their feet in issuing this simple, one-page document stating only bare facts like the employee’s job title and the duration of their employment. And yet HR would often claim the signatories were absent, which is another issue — why should a simple document require several signatories?
Due to the increasing number of complaints from the general public, the labor department issued Labor Advisory 06-20 (signed on Jan. 31, 2020) that requires employers to issue a certificate of employment within three days and to release the clearance and terminal pay of resigned employees within 30 days.
REACTIVE APPROACH
The list of issues against HR is endless. That’s because they’re reactive to many people issues, if not outright wrong on many things. Do a simple check of what HR people post on social media. You’ll wonder how they can call themselves “HR managers” when they write and behave poorly in a public setting.
HR people are averse to critical thinking. They hate to experiment with new things. Identifying with tradition has been a survival strategy for many in HR. They prefer to be “yes” men and women rather than rock the boat. Submissiveness to top management rather than persuading them to do something new reflects how they understand risk and avoid uncertainty.
Have a consulting chat with Rey Elbo on Facebook, LinkedIn, or Twitter or you can send anonymous questions to
elbonomics@gmail.com or via https://reyelbo.consulting
