Someone mentioned recently that I shouldn’t focus on HR, because HR is…not long for this world. Instead, I was told to hone in on talent management. Interesting idea. It gets back to the dead horse I like to beat called “semantics”. Again, I will say that is DOES matter what you call something, even if in popular culture the phrases are used synonymously.
But that’s not what this post is about. This post is about whether or not he was right. There’s been much speculation about the state of HR, HR getting a seat at the table, whether recruiting is a part of HR, whether HR is a valid business function, whether HR is dead. . .you get the point.
So, to say that HR is not long for this world, or that we should cease to put any thought or marketing power behind it, is to say the least, an interesting concept.
Here are the things he could have meant:
1. HR as a term is dead. Maybe he meant that the terminology is going to change but that the basic functions of human resources will re-congeal (terminator 2 like) under a new banner, like talent management. This will blow for those with HR proudly emblazoned in their domain name. But I don’t think that’s what he meant. When business speak changes, the social web is quick to adapt and aside from a few domain name changes, this is hardly a bump in the marketing road.
2. Viewing Humans as Resources is dead. This is a popular theory in my head where I’ve been turning this phrase over and over since I heard it. This is the most likely scenario. So often we hear about the talent economy and how intangible assets and the knowledge worker are becoming a reality. More and more companies are realizing that their employees were never really “theirs” anyway and it’s not such a bad thing right? because it’s the talent they bring to the organization that moves it forward. Right. So managing talent maybe a better way (semantics or no) to look at the business of resources.
3. That the fundamental idea of work is changing and human resources (or anything that looks like it but is named differently) is simply not needed anymore. If people are changing jobs at a faster rate than ever before, is it worth it to pay the equivalent of 1/4 of their salary to find and hire them? If your employees see themselves not as “lifers” but as “consultants” who happen to be at your company for now, should you manage heavy, bureaucratic programs for them? I wonder what the answer is. If your employees are at your company to learn something and constribute something and move on, will you spend money on leadership training? Hmmmm. Maybe the entire function will queitly blend into its respective departments, putting hiring managers back in control of hiring and managing talent. Maybe not.
Regardless of the answer (for my money it’s number 2) it makes me wonder if we’re prepared for it. We write blog posts, have in-depth (sometimes heated) discussions, organize chats, attend webinars and continue to run a pretty bustling little economy here in the industry space. But are we slow dancing in a burning room?
I don’t think we are prepared for the changes that are occurring in the industry. I also think we are spending too much time inside the HR/social media space talking about it and not enough time getting the important players on the outside involved.
You should think about calling into HR Happy Hour on October 29th to join in on yet another discussion on this topic.
[...] declared dead and then rose from the ashes. Maren Hogan wrote a nice post with the catchy title, “Slow dancing in a burning room“. And don’t forget when the smart folks at Harvard Business tackled an age-old missive by [...]
#2 is the correct answer, Maren, no doubt. But, I think we’re far away from officially calling HR “dead.” Larger companies like BoA, AT&T, GE, etc. will always have a need for an HR department. Some of what they do is recruiting, yes, but you also have a need for basic administrative functions involving payroll and benefits.
Perhaps we’re coming down on HR because, like marketing, they were some of the first positions to go in the Great Recession. I wonder what the background of the gentleman who made that comment was. Did he have a work history with large or small firms?
And let’s not forget our prejudices. Other than at the time of hiring, most of our interactions with HR rank as enjoyable as customer service. A friend of mine once said, “When dealing with HR, keep in mind, you’re pretty much dealing with the lowest common denominator of any firm.”
He was being mean, obviously, but it illustrates my point – HR gets a bad rap.
[...] declared dead and then rose from the ashes. Maren Hogan wrote a nice post with the catchy title, “Slow dancing in a burning room“. And don’t forget when the smart folks at Harvard Business tackled an age-old missive by [...]
Roland gets it – and I’d tend to agree that it’s simple semantics.
As long as people are employed by a company, whatever it’s called HR services will be necessary.
No doubt companies want talent and skills. And those just happen to come in a package called ‘a person.’ HR wrangles may go by other names, but regardless of workforce movement the details and legalities – to say nothing of planning – still have to be done.