Should HR beholden itself to Company Management or to the Company's Employees?

You know Charlie, this is a perspective that has bothered me for years. There has long been a subtle if not stated rule that the "interests" of employees and management are contrary.
I don't believe it.
In my perspective the role of HR is to help define, attract, retain, and create an environment where the goals of the organization and the goals of employees are aligned. Properly done you are creating true engagement.
HR should be objective, not neutral. Enterprises whether for profit or not for profit exist to advance the goals of the organization and the interests of their stakeholders not facilitate the needs of individual employees.
I think John is right, HR should be experts and advisors. Too many HR people specialize in "compliance" which is a very tactical function in my view.
The "scores" for organizations with high levels of engagement say it all- they outperform competitors by significant margins. It is all about alignment; build it in don't try to "bolt it on".

If there is one role in any organization that involves competing priorities, multiple stakeholders, and often conflicting agendas, it's HR. I've always said organization first, employee second...if and only if push comes to shove. Ideally, they are closely aligned. In reality, though, they aren't always. Compliance is an interesting example. In my career of dealing with sensitive employment matters, I can tell you that I've been faced with making decisions that are absolutely not the best for the employee, yet they are clearly the right one for the employer. In fact, I've been asked to carry out actions that weren't even necessarily "fair." That doesn't mean they weren't legal...it just means they weren't "fair." In those instances, I am beholden to the organization...plain and simple. And believe me you, I've learned the hard way that taking the other stance usually doesn't pay off.

And by the way, John and Mark, if you were to ask 100 CEO's to rank HR's role - in order of criticality to the long-term viability and going concern of their organization - the smart ones would put "Compliance" ahead of "Expert and Advisor" any day of the week. It may not be sexy, it may not be all that intellectual, and it may not be all that strategic, but it is in fact a business imperative. There is probably no more important thing HR does to demonstrate it's commitment to the organization...

So many management teams want HR to be everything to everyone. It's unrealistic to have those expectations without also giving them the appropriate resources to get it all done in a way that allows those who are actually capable of advising as an expert play that role (without getting bogged down in the other crap that commands their attention). It's easy to point the finger at HR for not being "an advisor" without really considering why they aren't playing that role effectively. Is it them or is it the environment in which you've inserted them?

Charlie,
I am with John on this one. I did the HR job for years before I was promoted to the C level. The fact that CEO's would rate compliance as number one priority for HR is a big part of why engagement and job satisfaction is at all time lows and our productivity shows it.
I have been in and around HR since it was "Personnel"
I have yet to see a singular organization "comply" its way to outstanding performance. Compliance is essential, but tactical.
I would also agree that the environment or "model" is a critical factor. You might enjoy the attached article-
http://bit.ly/dHTsNS

Perhaps I am ovely idealistic and simplistic, but when I train HR professionals I tell them to listen to Gandhi- be the change you want to see. I also tell them it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission....

Well I can see I'm going to be the black sheep in this discussion. The employee, hands down. As a personnel manager for several years I learned two indisputable facts. One, in all those years I never hired a single employee who worked FOR the company. Each used the company as a means to achieve their own personals goals and dreams. I didn't give them a job. They solved a problem I had. They exchanged their skills and expertise to fill a need in my company. It's an equal exchange.

And two, there is no customer on earth more valuable than your lowest paid employee. There are 168 hours in a week. Employees spend 40 working, 40 sleeping, and the other 88 hours they are interacting with friends, family, and strangers. I wanted them to spend that 88 hours feeling good about themselves and their workplace. I did not want them on a bar stool somewhere talking about what a lousy company they worked for to a potential future customer. I didn't want them complaining about how much they are unappreciated at work to their friends and family who would almost certainly embellish the story as it was passed along. One unhappy employee is in society 4,576 hours a year. One unhappy customer has one experience. An unhappy employee can have hundreds depending on who they're talking to.

I'm certainly not naive enough to believe that things like that never ever happened but I sure did my best and trained managers and supervisors to make sure that each employee was recognized for good work and coached positively when things went wrong. Correcting the problem always took precedent over finger pointing and placing blame. Every employee had their personal goals posted in the break room for everyone to see. I'm working here because.... I want to start a family, saving for college, buying a home, want to start my own business, retire early, etc.

An employee is the first contact any customer will have with the company. If that employee thinks he or she is working for the company and not encouraged to take pride and personal ownership of their job, then that's my fault, not theirs. The company will be fine if the HR director does his or her job in finding the right people and placing them in positions where they can take pride in their work and excel.

I would much rather have a stack of resumes from people who heard it's a great place to work rather than having to install speed bumps at the exits to slow people down at closing time.

Jay's correct. The minute any organization has an "us" or "them" mentality, they're sunk. HR should be the last place in the organization where a line is drawn between "the company" and "the employees." Any organization not ultimately working to help their employees "flourish" as Jay said above will have trouble.

That said, employees must know the first thing they need is a profitable employer. There's a commonality of goals and relationships that must be maintained. Once again, that should be HR's primary job: keeping all "groups" in alignment.

I believe HR best serves the organization when they are able to add value both to employees and management.

On the employee side, in addition to the compliance functions, HR can play an important role in career development both by providing structural assistance and actual training.

On the management side, (and this is the most difficult role) HR can be trusted advisers to senior management. In many cases however, management does not look to Human Resources for this kind of expertise and HR has done precious little to develop the skills and build the relationships required to fill the role. -- Very frustrating!!

On both sides of the equation, we're missing some great opportunities. For more information on this subject, see the link below.

http://www.glowan.com/leadership_development/seat_at_the_table.php

HR needs to remember that it represents both Management and employees. However, when you ask employees who HR represents - they'll say Management. And, when you ask Managment who HR represents - they'll also say Management.

When I hear that it sounds like HR is chasing that elusive "seat at the table" (hate that phrase by the way). We need to be consistent with employees and also remind Management that the employees are really the factor that makes the company move forward. We are being naive if we think that people in higher positions who sit behind ornate desks and "deem things so" make the engine move.

HR needs to be Switzerland for lack of a better analogy. We get to be the objective middle ground for both Management and employees and we should feel confident to address both !!

This is another of those areas where the attitude and vision of the executive management determines the answer. A short sighted company will entrust HR only with the compliance issues and the "make sure we don't get sued today" issues, in which case, HR works for management and sometimes to the detriment of the employee. But the entire goal here is to limit exposure and liability. This attitude is far too common, and as mentioned above results in reduced productivity, high turnover, low innovation and general stagnation.

On the other hand, a longer vision, geared to a desire to thrive, not just maintain the status quo, will equally inevitably lead to an attitude of broad cooperation, where HR is the ears of the company whose job is to keep the company cohesive and aware. This leads to things like firing the harassing supervisor, rather than those who complain. The integration of HR as part of the corporate body improves morale, focus, retention, higher quality applicants/employees, and probably also reduces legal action against the company (I haven't seen any actual data on that).

In sum, HR in a bad company is the servant of management and legal requirements. HR in a good company is working for the company, because there is no relevant division among the pieces of that company; CEO or new staff hire, they all have the same focus. There's no choice to be made.

I agree with Mike. If a company is operating in an us against them mentality they may be in existence but are doomed to fail. When such a company is hit with a major set back the employees will not be enthusiastic about fixing the problems and getting back to the status quo. Where as a company that has leadership that is engaged with its employees then you will see a team effort to avoid the setback to start but if one occurs then it is a team effort to get it fixed and move on. HR in these companies have a much easier time dealing with compliance as everyone understands their roles and the mission is the same.
HR shouldn't be an arbitrator they should be the facilitator!

The biggest problem with compliance is that not everyone 'complies'. There is a lot of talking about it but not a lot of living up to it. That's part of the dilemma when we ask the question about who HR should be supporting. I agree with Jay and Mark and like Mark, I may be somewhat naive in thinking that we need to be the change we wish to see (per his Gandhi quote) but that's truly what it's about in my view. We work for the company, as does management and the employees. There are times that we need to be on the side of the employee (particularly when management steps out of line - and they are only human so it definitely happens) but we also have to be on the side of management when it comes to ensuring compliance is indeed occurring within the organization. I've been in HR for many years and prior to that I was in leadership roles in training and development (which could arguably be seen as an HR role as well) and the absolute BIGGEST issue I've seen is the 'them' and 'us' mentality. If we can't get past that - as well as the fact that the same rules are for everyone - we will always be struggling with employee engagement. A lack of employee engagement, as we all know; can lead to legal concerns, loss of production, high error rates, etc.

Tom,
If you believe that line of thinking makes you a black sheep then you have a flock starting as I too believe it.
I feel that the employees are the company's greatest asset not a resource. It is the employees that can make or break a company. It is them that can make it profitable or highly profitable and productive if they are treated with respect and valued.

This is not the question to be asking about HR. The real question is "what should the role of HR be in any company?" The answer to this question does away with the split of 'them and us' - management and employees.
HR should be seen as having a critical strategic role. We should be hiring people who will fit in with the culture of the organization. Once hired, our people should be at the center of strategic people development. We need to be developing people so that they can contribute to the larger strategic "future picture" of the organization. We have to move beyond this 20th century view of HR as some separate, purely 'hire and fire' function in our companies.

Phillip Morgan
COO
Advanced Aeration, Inc.

I think that what you are saying Tom (and Joseph) is accurate. The problem I have run into is the 'them' against 'us' mindset. It's a very difficult thing to change. I used to feel that we're all in this together and must work as a team to be successful but often I was accused of 'siding' with the employees because I would try to look out for their interests. If any of you know of a way to get past the typical attitudes that are out there, I'd love to hear some success stories. I personally get very frustrated by the fact that so few organizations see value in treating their employees well. I believe we are going to see quite a shift in the next few years with respect to this and while the boomer generation were more likely to stay with an organization the next generation coming up will move on if they aren't treated well. Maybe that's when companies will wake up to the fact that employees are their greatest asset...

Charlie -- You make an interesting point and one that is worthy of further discussion. I am hopeful that we will hear from many others on this topic.

As i said, I believe that HR Compliance is important but I do not believe that being "compliant" with the myriad of laws and regulations we must deal with does much to move our businesses forward. Businesses must stay in compliance for all of the legal, ethical and moral reasons but the question remains, "now that we are in compliance, how do we move forward and prosper".

As a former CEO of 4 different companies in two different industries, I can tell you, from my perspective, it is impossible to run a successful business from a position of fear. Constantly worrying about who may sue you, what government bureaucrat may be breathing down your neck about some arbitrary regulation and the like saps the energy, strength and thew soul from business enterprises.

good dialog! i'm actually in violent agreement with you both, Mark and John. i've never said compliance is the highest and best use of HR's talent toward enhancing the employment experience; i'm just saying that from a pragmatic standpoint, priorities shift, business needs evolve, and point of view differs from management team to management team, organization to organization, and employee to employee. while i think we'd like to agree the interests of an organization should be aligned with those of the employee, i just don't think that's always realistic. and while i very much agree it is (one of) HR's responsibilities to help align the two, their will always be a gap - there's been one since the time of the feudalism. so based on the great discussion in this thread, it appears as if it's not so much about whether HR is beholden to the organization or the employer; rather, it's about how small can HR make that gap between the interests of the two.

Compliance is a big part of my consulting practice because most companies don't do a good job of it, large or small. That is why the live in fear. The way you get rid of the fear is to make sure that the company is doing it right. No HR manager will be kept around long if they screw it up. But it is not the be-all or end-all of HR. The success of the company, which pays our salary or wage, is paramount. We work for the company and we accomplish our work by making sure we have the best, most talented, most productive, and if you will, happiest employees needed for success. We should see ourselves as business managers on par with every other function in the company. But rather than handling the raw materials, or billing, or marketing or sales we handle the people aspect of the business both as advisor and expert.

It seems like we're all agreeing. Compliance is in the long-term best interests of the employees. So is profit. So are compensation and benefits. In fact, I don't think there is a single factor that is in the long-term best interests of Management, that isn't also in the employees long-term best interests. In the short run there is give and take. But a sustainable business has a group of people who are satisfied with how they're treated and they produce value for the company.

I think individual organizations can get that balance out of whack and, for a period of time, it appears to "work." But eventually it will fail.

Remember that the perceived conflict between labor and ownership was actually very real for most of our US lineage. Personnel dept came into existence mostly because the idea that "experts" could screen employees and make better choices than supervisors. And operations management didn't want to spend the time dealing with the compliance issues that arose out of the labor movement.

My masters is in OD. I know many people in SHRM and OD. Some "get it" that listening to employee needs is a better way to manage people AND a huge source of innovation.

I know it is television but have you watched "Undercover CEO"? Some upper management comes from operations but many come from finance and marketing. And some don't get it.

The reality in any relationship is that what happens is determined by who has the power and how they use it.

CEOs dream of financial results, respect (glory?) and accomplishment just like the average worker. But each has a different path to their goal. So it boils down to who has the power and influence. Management can outsource and reduce workforce. It can make changes in processes and job descriptions. Employees can quit and in fewer and fewer cases strike. So who has the advantage? It may not be overtly but it is there.

So the key to managing is giving the appearance if not the reality that employees can make a difference in their own lives... that they have some power within the workplace.

As many posts have alluded to, good things can happen. However it takes some degree of empathy to make it so.

Ultimately HR is beholden to the company. The larger the company the more HR is about compliance and limiting liability. Yes, HR has functions that are about employees moral and wellness, but that is to the end of better productivity for the company. HR as an entity is not a friend of employees which is especially evident in the most critical circumstances. Anything that hints at a possible lawsuit against the company, HR will decisively be on the side of the company.

HR is part of management and must remember that their first priority is to the company. That doesn't mean that HR should not be an advocate of what is good for employees because in healthy companies, what is good for the company and its longevity is good for the employees, or at least should be. Thank goodness they are getting fewer and farther between but I have seen too many HR (usually old school Personnel folks) pros that think they are the advocate of the employee without taking company into consideration.

They are one and the same