HR, one year on

It was in 2013 when I realised the most fascinating part of my studies in business were the most unpredictable, volatile and bizarrely intertwined assets it holds: its staff. After my first year of working in HR operations, here are a few thoughts on the business function. 

A fundamental question to ask first is: what is HR? I find it time and time again where those alien to HR are only aware of the services they have received directly from HR. Usually only recruitment. At early stages of one’s career, maybe as performance appraisers (for apprentices and so on). At all stages, as data holders and updaters. And, in the most heard-of cases, as disciplinary hearers and cold-hearted letter-writers. None of these gives in itself a full picture, but all together form a decent caricature of a part of HR’s wide range of services. 

And amongst HR professionals, the definition becomes no clearer. The wide range of services is acknowledged, but the focus or prioritisation of some over others as well as the approach to each individual task can be debated at length. After all, HR has at its core the service to the staff of an organisation, their own complexity reflecting in HR’s vague definition. 

Having defined the vagueness of HR, we can now take on the challenge of its own internal organisation. HR attracts business analysts and leaders. Any serious business professional can see the importance of the people in an organisation and the impact they can make. That being said, HR is often victim of the ignorance of those higher up the hierarchy. If the general consensus is that HR must be transactional and focused on employee lifecycle admin and relations (let’s call this transactional HR or THR), then business-savvy HR professionals will not last long, growing tired of the daily struggle and politics. Or face a war of attrition, pushing for change that takes as long as they can last. On the other hand, HR can be deemed by the business as crucial for its growth and survival (let’s call this Organisational Development HR, ODHR), in which case it can give HR the freedom and the responsibility to deliver a more productive and engaged workforce, whilst also doing the transactional work in a smarter and more technologically driven way.

I haven’t seen either extreme in my year-or-so experience or during my CIPD studies. And I don’t think the extremes exist in practice, not entirely. Partly because there’ll always be an HR leader in the organisation driving some change, whilst some part of the transactional work will be done on paper. Now, HR does tend to face a degree of neglect that’s reflected in the salaries offered to HR departments. Unless you are a truly senior HR person and/or in a people-centric, forward-thinking organisation, you will not be paid as well as somebody applying your same range and diversity of skills in, say, finance or sales (departments serviced by HR). What this necessarily leads to is young, business-focused people wanting to pursue a career in other departments and HR attracting less skilled and less experienced candidates to its more entry-level roles. Consistent with THR, very little is done to up-skill its own department due to its lacking budget, so its entry-level staff either wither and die in the department, ever-iterating any poor image HR may or may not already have in society, or invest in their own development and eventually leave. Now, I am absolutely not an advocate for THR, but if you employ the second of these entry-level employees, THR can evolve and have systems and processes implemented that allow for a high turnover, such that an entry-level role is filled and refilled easily with hardly any effect on HR’s quality of work. But this requires a slight evolution towards ODHR: investment and interest in HR. This would also mean a better experience for entry-level HR jobholders and, subsequently, an increase (marginal or large, who knows?) in retention. This could lead to the business leaders seeing the value in a version of HR closer to ODHR. They may then allow budget for the training of these employees, who will stick around longer and/or leave, but to better positions than if they had left from the pure THR department, converting HR’s entry-level roles into stepping stones for a decent career in HR.

"There is an optimal version of the HR department that fits on the THR-ODHR spectrum"

A way of interpreting the above palaver is this: there is an optimal version of the HR department that fits on the THR-ODHR spectrum, but it is not THR. Now, against my own HR dreams, I will make the case that ODHR is not the optimal HR department. It is not that ODHR is not a great way for HR to work (focusing on change management, wellbeing, employee engagement and so on), but that it is unviable; literally an HR dream. Why? Compliance, legislation, grievances, disciplinary hearings, gossip, workplace politics. There will always be a part of HR that is reactive, transactional and not technology-driven. This is the part of HR you don’t learn at uni and that CIPD completely ignores. It is the day-to-day, the retail assistant who got hit by a car and the finance intern who makes a sexual harassment claim. Technology can help, but the process will be time-consuming and stressful. This also highlights the need for keeping HR human. Most of the administrative side of HR can be carried out by machines (recruitment, onboarding, self-service systems), but the relations built with new recruits, line managers and senior directors have the human touch at their epicentre. Recruitment and succession planning, identifying current and potential knowledge and skills gaps, guiding the organization to more equal-ops led recruitment and promotion practices, et cetera, et cetera.

One year on in HR and I am completely sold. HR is a fascinating business function, touching on all other functions and with a much-needed overview of the organisation's strategy. But it is not for the faint-hearted. If you want a high salary-to-effort ratio, you will crash and burn in HR. But if you are excited by a business challenge, have a mind for creative solutions, have the patience and negotiating skills to sell your services to senior leaders, and have a high level of emotional intelligence, HR might be the career for you.