Of all the functions in business today, HR is more often tagged “business partner”. I’m wondering what exactly that means and more importantly why HR seems to be one of the only departments with those titles. I have theories, but would love to hear yours. Leave a comment.
Until the late 1980’s HR was called “personnel”. I never really thought that was a bad name, but no one asked me. Then one day, it became chic to be called “human resources”. At first I thought this was mere corporate-speak and wouldn’t last, but it did.
Now I’m seeing titles like “HR Business Partner” assigned to the same personnel managers who still struggle for influence in their organizations. Perhaps this is an aspirational label, designed to encourage incumbents to think more like business-people and less like administrative support professionals?
This is not to say that all HR professionals act like administrative support staff, because they don’t. But people getting into HR these days do so for the same reasons they did eons ago: because they want to help people solve problems. Admirable to be sure, but in my opinion this is only half of the HR mission.
The missing half is preventing problems in the first place. Ask any VP of Sales, Marketing, Production, Operations or Business Development and you’re likely to hear a bit of negativity about HR. A common complaint sounds like, “HR won’t let us" do this or that, or “for some reason HR didn’t like that”.
It is true that someone needs to be the keeper of the corporate rulebook; much like Finance is responsible for monitoring budget compliance, evaluating the financial aspects of deals, and reporting on financial performance. One can only imagine what would happen if there were no Finance people.
But is HR the same? In some ways, they are. For example, in matters of fairness and consistency or compliance with employment rules and regulations, HR plays a critical check-and-balance role. But for CEO’s and non-HR V-P’s, the problems begin when HR itself can’t explain why a certain rule or process exists beyond, “that’s the way we’ve always done it.”
Unfortunately the motivation behind the most frustrating HR “rules” is deference to precedent or consistency – even if the past practice no longer makes sense. The other equally baffling justification is convenience. HR departments are always skeleton crews struggling to keep up with an increasing workload flex through major organizational changes. The role is traditionally “support” after all.
Modern thinking in the HR department should shift away from “consistency” and more towards “fairness” and what makes the most sense. If HR is in the way and there is low or no risk to the business in following an original approach or solution, then I say get out of the way and let the organization move forward.
There isn’t enough experimentation. The employees who complain loudest about inconsistency are not likely to be the ones who lead the business to prosperity. They avoid conflict and shun risk. They’d rather do nothing or say “no” than take a bold step and see how it turns out. The most progressive HR leaders I know are good at figuring out when to get out of the way and let the business run a little closer to the edge. They know which risks are acceptable and which ones are not. They pick their battles and focus on ways they can support their constituents. This is the future of "HR" or "Talented Capital" or "Personnel" or whatever we want to call it in 2020.