I didn't realize until the other day that the first Personnel Department was started at the National Cash Register Company in 1901, in the aftermath of a difficult strike. It makes a few of us smile to realize that even in the beginning, much of the job was "clean up"!
Today, we don't consider ourselves Personnel. We talk about being a Human Resources Specialist or Generalist, an Office Manager, a Talent Leader, a Labor & Management Director, an Organizational Developer, a Strategist, a Trusted Advisor, an Attorney and an HR Leader, a Business Person focused on HR issues, a Resource Partner,a Consultant to name a few.
At the end of the day, I think the role exists -- no matter what you want to call it -- because someone needs to integrate the needs of the individual employee with the needs of the business. Someone has to take acountability for making sure there are the right people with the right skills in the right jobs with the right levels of investment and engagement with the right leadership to make those grand strategy statements come true.
Lots gets written every week about what we in the profession are dong well and a lot more is written about what we aren't doing well. I think we carry a hard message that many in our companies don't want to hear. And I think we often don't prepare ourselves to be the best advocates for the messages we need to deliver.
It occurs to me as I write this that if our real job is to integrate the needs of different constituencies, than perhaps our challenge is we are not integrated ourselves. To what degree do we understand the conflicting business conversations that are gong on around us? To what degree do we understand what the President or CEO really (really!) expects from HR. To what degree do we know what we personally do best for employees and leaders? Being knowedgeable prepares us for what Dave Ulrich would call being "A Credible Activist".
Does that term resonate? It means being both proactive and credible. Are those terms that as an HR leader, you believe others would use to describe you? Should they be the terms used? If you serve the HR community, do you see this as an important role? And what do our business leaders think?
We'd like to hear your thoughts? Credible Activist & HR Leader - is it the place to begin?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Credible Activist," to me, creates more problems than the current "what-to-call-HR-leaders" dilemma already poses. Credibility should be a trait that can be assumed in the term "HR Professional." If an HR Leader is “Professional,” that should also mean he or she is “Credible.” For example, we don't talk about "Credible CPAs or Credible COOs." They are either good (and credible) or not. The same is true of HR.
ReplyDeleteThe second problem is "Activist." For many, the term itself carries baggage. "Activists" can be found in many causes...some credible, and some not so credible. Perhaps some CEOs already see HR leaders as activists for employee causes—to the neglect of considering the total business case for their propositions. Hence, at least part of the perceptual problem.
I’ll be surprised if the business community embraces the term “Activist” in regard to any profession. Not sure what the answer is…just not sure this new term provides a solution (my admiration for Ulrich notwithstanding).