Why We Hate Human Resource, Case Study Example

A review of “Why we hate HR”

HR stands for human resources. HR refers to a company element, which deals with the aspects/needs of humans among the workers (Fisher et al, 2008). In many companies, an HR department can provide a variety of services for employees. Some employees working in HR are taken as forming the department, but many workers outside the department can do something not only on financial matters, but also on the human aspects of workers employment. For instance, a supervisor may have a responsibility to hire and fir e workers, giving day-to-day feedback on work, writing employee reviews and supporting and encouraging workers. This is so even though a supervisor is not one of the HR departments.

In many large companies and some small ones, there have been critiques that there is a lack of humanity in terms of caring for the employees. When we examine in the full spectrum of their functions within the company, Human Resources is extremely valuable to a company. The article by Keith H. Hammonds gives the flaws in human resources. Reading it one may seem to have a notion that the writer is against HR in business organizations, which is not the case. Hammonds identifies the flaws in HR, and his criticism gives some hints to improving HR so that it can produce desirable results in business.

The writer identifies some of the flaws and argues around them in the article. He asserts that HR is not the “sharpest box tacks”, which means that there is increasing unpreparedness among the HR managers for the increasing business demands. The workplace is changing so fast with burgeoning technology and globalization (Klein, & Delery, 2012). The question we need to ask is: What does HR deliver? The HR should not dwell much on the number of new recruitments but on what it has added to profits in the business. In most cases, HR leaders have remained passive. They have not acted either as leaders or as strategists as expected of them (McDowell, & Leavitt, 2011).

Hammonds also argues that the HR does not work for the employees. They work as if they are after ruining its employees. For instance, annual appraisals consume a lot of time and according to Hammonds useless. The HR has become a henchman for the financial officer, always finding ways to hack at payroll and cut benefits. Communication between HR and other workers is not pleasing. Their communication fails to be understood at all. While defending his article, Hammonds says that the real problem in HR is not focusing on program delivery, financial deficiency, inability to conducting himself or herself or adding value. The problem lies in the fact that many organizations are not as rigorous, as demanding, as creative on the business human element as they are about marketing, finance, and R&D. The question is; how can we expect HR people in organizations to play a serious role, as we want them to play if companies and their CEOs are not serious about the people side of their organizations (Hamid & Mohammad Mehdi, n.d).

The writer also argues that the HR does not get the corner office and vice versa. Here, he means that the HR claims to work for the people, but, in practice, this is not evident. This argument seems to have some truth considering how some companies treat their workers. Although, some of the executives claim to value employees as the ones running business, they disregard them because their interests for the organizations seem to override individual interests (Sikora & Ferris, 2011). Some HR claim to apply a soft approach to the workers, yet they do not do so in practice.

The arguments of the writer are so captivating. Indeed, HR should establish the best ways of tapping potential from the organization workers. HR leaders should be strategic oriented persons who know what can serve the best for their organizations (Fisher et al, 2008). However, the HR should not be too soft as this may encourage laxity among the workers. HR should not merely aim at working with people. One has to make trade offs between working with people at the expense of producing desirable results.

One cannot be distinctive, compelling, or peculiar in the workplace unless he or she creates something unique, compelling, and distinctive (Hamid, & Mohammad Mehdi, n.d). Ones strategy is ones culture and ones culture is ones strategy. Most successful companies have understanding that what matters is not the new products they launch or new markets entered. What matters to them is the person they let in or hire to work for the company. In addition, they have understood that the manner in which they create the environment where all workers can solve problems, share ideas, and develop emotional and psychological stake matters a lot.

For instance, the Cirque du Soleil raving business strategists and ideas the business has embraced in reinventing the circus thus inventing a very new entertainment genre (Sikora & Ferris, 2011). However, Cirque is serious on performers because their business concerns performances logic. Cirque has developed the most rigorous and creative methodology for evaluating and recruiting new talent into the workforce. Cirque strives to ensure that the new talents understand the working of the company. Cirque aims to make a connection between the product it delivers and the people it attracts, between whom it invites to be part of the business and how it does business. Therefore, talent is so crucial in the business success if companies considered it in the right way in their HR departments. These arguments are so vital in the field of HR. There is always need to improve profitability and having a person with the relevant know how is of significant advantage.

Hammonds gives a solution to the HR problems in “Why we Hate HR”. He proposes fighting evil management as one of the solutions. Most CEOS do not get it, and some evils are beyond hope. A little resistance from management makes many HR people cave to it. Hammonds suggests that one should keep going while looking up the hill seeing resistance. The HR should have the capability of reading business pages. For instance, they ought to have knowledge of reading a balance sheet. All the HR personnel should have knowledge on:

• The needs of the customer
• Who the customer is
• Who the company hires
• Who the competitors are
• In what things are the company firm or poor in relation to the customer needs

The HR can do enormous work for a company if he or she does have understanding regarding the above issues. When one knows his customers well, in business, he or she can design strategies to serve the customer in a way that results in absolute satisfaction (Klein, & Delery, 2012). It is a wonder that the HR have undergone thorough training to ensure that they have the knowledge to execute their work, but we note that what they apply in the work place lacks the approaches taught them. When a company identifies what it is doing poor it can strive to improve its services to meet the customers demands. This helps in increasing and perfecting on the parts it has been performing well. Therefore, the HR should be conversant with the perceptions of customers and tailor the company’s business towards satisfying their needs.

The HR should not concentrate on making so many rules for the workers. He or she should learn to trust the workers because they are grown ups. Workers need some freedom; they should not be followed up and down. They should own the programs in business. Hammonds has cited a situation where the employees were leaving a company because of a variety of reasons including lack of respect, lack of inclusion in decision making and lack of connection.

The points of Hammonds regarding HR are similar to what I have learned in class in the sense that what one learns will not apply much in the field. Most of the HR fails to apply what they have learned because there is pressure from Management to cut on expenses and maximize profits. This, at times, might mean cutting on the employee benefits or even retrenching some workers to remain with only a few. Therefore, we find that because of strive to make high profits is critical in determining how HR practice differs in practice from what is taught in class. However, HR can improve on this by taking actions before the management proposes any decisions. When the HR does so, it can solve problems before managerial decisions and thus satisfying both employees and management.

References

Fisher, S. L., Wasserman, M. E., Wolf, P. P., & Wears, K. (2008). Human resource issues in outsourcing: Integrating research and practice. Human Resource Management, 47(3), 501-523.

Hamid, T., & Mohammad Mehdi, J. (n.d). The aspects of empowerment of human resources. Procedia – Social And Behavioral Sciences, 31(World Conference on Learning, Teaching & Administration – 2011), 829-833. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.150

Klein, H. J., & Delery, J. E. (2012). Construct clarity in human resource management research: Introduction to the special issue. Human Resource Management Review, 22(2), 57-61. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.03.001

McDowell, A. M., & Leavitt, W. M. (2011). Human Resources Issues in Local Government: Yesterday’s Headlines Remain Today’s “Hot Topics”. Public Personnel Management, 40(3), 239-249.

Sikora, D., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). Critical factors in human resource practice implementation: implications of cross-cultural contextual issues. International Journal Of Human Resources Development & Management, 11(2-4), 112-140.