July 25th, 2008
How long does one have to
say something or someone needs to change before they actually do it?
If they want to survive,
then adaption is no other choice or fade from obscurity. But even in
the frivilous evolutionary storm does one begin to find a sense of impatience
in trying to constantly get something to adapt because you know that
if they don't, they'll perish. Perhaps not physically, but spiritually
and/or professionally.
There are many professions,
companies and people who have refused to move a leap forward into innovative
territory and instead kept with the old. Not that staying with the old
is a bad thing, it's whether that old thing has the capacity and capability
to withstand the latest upgrades and new discoveries that lay before
them and are willingly interested in vying for your position and/or
concept.
So why has HR decided to
practically ignore the calls from outside, and even those from the inside?
The two views are varying in scope, and that there's no concensus on
it really strikes a chord of fear amongst those die-hard HR fans everywhere.
The external crowd - executives
and other business owners - do not view the active value of this exclusive
and exquisite function and its affect on the company's bottom line.
They say it has no solid foundation to base itself on.
To the hardline HR practitioner,
these executive people are seen as stubborn and unwilling to give in
to HR's beneficial cause. Trying to promote a healthy HR-based intitiative
is nearly impossible and, if they do agree, it's usually on loose pretenses
which leads to problems down the road. But can you blame them?
HR practitioners see it
as the glue that holds it together, but more along the lines of conformity
missions and feet-kissing attempts to make themselves more apparent
and prominent.
But how can this field be
taken seriously if it doesn't have a real mission nor vision? It's like
sending a squad of troopers into some random country, yet they do not
know who or what they are going after.
For years people and experts
- both internally and externally - have said HR needs to change its
course or never be taken seriously at the head table. They've pushed
and pushed and pushed but HR refuses to budge.
This is where our HR 3.0
thinking comes into play.
HR must opt to change or
find a solid foundation rather than simply policy-and-procedures routines
and move to something that effectively takes advantage of its strengths.
Namely, in this case, people.
Once HR becomes more aligned
to people rather than policies and procedures and corporate-based
alignment, then it will have an inherent value and will most definitely
be taken seriously at the head table, regardless of anything else.
Otherwise, it is doomed
to be partitioned or become a section that is governed by administration,
or worse, IT.
HR is stronger and more
versatile than that. Perhaps once the industry takes a look at HR 3.0
and what it offers, perhaps we can avoid this fate that could very well
become a reality.
Home
| About | Return
to Anecdote-A-Day Main Page | Revive
the Human Factor with HR 3.0
