Have we gone too far with Human Resources (which could be a risky topic in my job!)? According to recent polls, the answer is ‘yes’ (but not from me obviously!) However, that doesn’t mean HR should be done away with and here’s why.
Just recently, Ryan Breslow, the chief executive of Bolt, claimed to have ‘got rid of our HR team’ because they had been ‘creating problems that didn’t exist’, which ultimately ‘disappeared when I let them go.’
And so came the gleeful reactions to the end of HR (and quite possibly the end of a happy workforce at Bolt?)
However, there was no resounding answer to some of the most burning questions at the time. What about the HR things that need to be taken care of to ensure a happy and productive workplace, such as conflict management between employees, bullying claims, and so on.
Apparently, this was to be shifted to management to deal with. But do managers have the time for employee grievances? And do they have the skills to sit down and come up with a fair conclusion?
Furthermore, would employees be more or less likely to air their issues to their boss than to a designated person who couldn’t sack them? So, as it turns out, the role has stayed, but ultimately, it’s the name that has changed.
Neil Morrison, head of HR at Severn Trent, said, per The Times: “You can get rid of people and the function, but you can’t get rid of a lot of the work. People still need recruiting, paying and sometimes firing.”
According to Indeed, there are several roles you might see in a personnel-management office, including: Personnel Manager, People Business Partner, Head of People, Director of People.
Learn Amp categorises the Head of People role as a people-first model, using Lazlo Bock, Google’s former Head of People, as a reference. In his book Work Rules, Bock reveals that ‘People Operations’ is a refresh of HR.
He wrote: “At Google, conventional business language wasn’t well-regarded. ‘HR’ would be viewed as administrative and bureaucratic. In contrast, ‘operations’ was viewed by engineers as a credible title, connoting some actual ability to get things done.”
It’s basically a rebranding of Human Resources where, instead of being reactive, it’s proactive to employee problems.
Where an HR manager may ‘react’ to an employee conflict with a resolution, a People Manager may reduce the chance of it happening altogether by implementing workshops, team-building days and more.
It is also supposed to take over aligning the executive team with the wider company goal, which is particularly true if you are both head of People and Culture.
According to Squarespace: “The Head of People and Culture is responsible for providing advice and support to the Principal and Executive Team in the various human resource functions.”
It adds: “The Head of People and Culture is accountable to the Business Manager and will have key relationships with the Executive team, Middle Leadership team and other staff…” What this shows is that instead of sacking HR, it seems that the role has simply evolved to be a more modern reflection of what companies and, just as importantly, what employees need.
Subscribe to my Linkedin Newsletter:
