The latest buzz going round is that of the people management role of line managers. There is a group of HR professionals that believe that People Management responsibilities lie with the HR department. There is another group of HR professionals that claim that line managers are mini HR managers and a big part of their role in on deciding and implementing HR mechanisms and systems.
A question we need to ask ourselves as HR professionals is whether line managers are ready and able?
Lets go back to how people get to a management position. People who are good in their field, put in the extra effort and perform exceptionally well are recognised and rewarded by promotion. They find themselves transitioning from managing themself to managing others. They are encouraged by the HR department do undertake people management activities including but not limited to performance appraisals twice a year formally and more often informally, coach and mentor their team, participate in salary and bonus planning, conduct interviews and prepare staffing plans for their area, have career discussions, keep a temperature check on motivation and absence levels, manage leave, discipline, grievance and even redundancies while still ensuring that their area meets business expectations.
What can we do to make this process smoother for line managers or support them in the people management responsibilities? The answer is simple - Communicate, Communicate and Communicate. Involve managers when developing HR systems, educate managers on how to use these HR systems, coach them and be available for advise and counsel when needed. More importantly, make these systems simple to understand and use.
As most of us may have encountered barriers to implementation of HR initiatives by line management even if we have done the above. It is fairly easy to get on the defensive but if managers are resisting something, it is best to get down to the reason. The system may be too complex or may have a lot of HR jargon not understood by the business. More often than not, managers are not keen to do unto others what is not done unto them. If they have not experienced a performance review themselves, its only natural that they will not be inclined to do it to their teams as the benefit is not clear.
When HR partners with managers and is an integral part of the management team rather than stand on the opposite pouting, the development, enhancement and implementation of HR mechanisms, systems and tools will be much more successful. Success of HR initiatives is what matters most, isn't it?
Monday, May 4, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Languages of Human Resources
Human Resource Management (HRM) can be described as having a 'hard' and 'soft' approach to people management. 'Hard' HRM emphasises on the 'resource' aspect of Human Resources and seeks to fulfill the interests of the organization. 'Soft' HRM emphasises on the 'human' aspect of Human Resources and seeks to fulfill the interest of the people of the organization (Truss 1999).
In organizations that adopt a 'hard' Human Resource approach, employees are viewed as factors of production, an overhead and a cost of running a business. Human Resources are deployed as numbers and skills at the right price rather than as a source of creative energy (Legge 1995). the 'hard' HRM approach has some kinship to scientific management where employees are viewed as passive producers (Storey 1987) and hence may limit the contributions they make to business success. People are managed in a tightly controlled work environment.
The advantages of 'hard' HRM is the close integration (vertically and horizontally) of HR strategy with the business. This approach empowers HR to partner with the business and effectively and strategically contribute to business and HR goals. This approach would enable Line Managers to view HR as strategic partners. A 'hard' HRM approach is particularly useful in organizations where the business is planning to transform from a personnel function to a Human Resource function as a first phase approach. The second phase of the transformation would involve incorporating 'soft' HRM approaches.
In organizations that adopt a 'soft' HRM approach, employees are viewed as Human Capital and an investment for an organization. There exists a wide held management belief and commitment to develop and empower the human capital (Legge 2005) by gaining their commitment though engagement and involvement in the business operations and decisions. The 'soft' HRM approach is founded on the Human Relations schools of Hertzberg and Mcgregor (Storey 1987). People are management through engagement and empowerment.
The major advantage of a 'soft' HRM approach is that employees are viewed as assets and treated as a source of competitive advantage (Storey 1989). A soft HRM approach allows organizations to tap into unused human potential and resourcefulness by employee engagement and empowerment. motivation levels are high in organizations that adopt a 'soft' HRM approach.
Legge (1995) explains that there is no one language of HRM but two; 'hard' and 'soft'. there is no company that has been able to claim to have successfully adopted either a pure 'hard' or a pure 'soft' HRM approach. In fact, even when a 'soft' HRM approach is adopted, it seems to be within the limitations of a 'hard' HRM framework.
In organizations that adopt a 'hard' Human Resource approach, employees are viewed as factors of production, an overhead and a cost of running a business. Human Resources are deployed as numbers and skills at the right price rather than as a source of creative energy (Legge 1995). the 'hard' HRM approach has some kinship to scientific management where employees are viewed as passive producers (Storey 1987) and hence may limit the contributions they make to business success. People are managed in a tightly controlled work environment.
The advantages of 'hard' HRM is the close integration (vertically and horizontally) of HR strategy with the business. This approach empowers HR to partner with the business and effectively and strategically contribute to business and HR goals. This approach would enable Line Managers to view HR as strategic partners. A 'hard' HRM approach is particularly useful in organizations where the business is planning to transform from a personnel function to a Human Resource function as a first phase approach. The second phase of the transformation would involve incorporating 'soft' HRM approaches.
In organizations that adopt a 'soft' HRM approach, employees are viewed as Human Capital and an investment for an organization. There exists a wide held management belief and commitment to develop and empower the human capital (Legge 2005) by gaining their commitment though engagement and involvement in the business operations and decisions. The 'soft' HRM approach is founded on the Human Relations schools of Hertzberg and Mcgregor (Storey 1987). People are management through engagement and empowerment.
The major advantage of a 'soft' HRM approach is that employees are viewed as assets and treated as a source of competitive advantage (Storey 1989). A soft HRM approach allows organizations to tap into unused human potential and resourcefulness by employee engagement and empowerment. motivation levels are high in organizations that adopt a 'soft' HRM approach.
Legge (1995) explains that there is no one language of HRM but two; 'hard' and 'soft'. there is no company that has been able to claim to have successfully adopted either a pure 'hard' or a pure 'soft' HRM approach. In fact, even when a 'soft' HRM approach is adopted, it seems to be within the limitations of a 'hard' HRM framework.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
