I’m just kidding, but this perspective is played-out already in my opinion. Anyway, Keith Hammonds, executive editor of Fast Company and the writer of the now infamous “ Why we hate HR” article participated in a podcast (audio program) at landed.fm.
The most interesting part for me was when he related the vacation policy at Fast Company. It says, “you should take at least three weeks of vacation a year. If you think you need more, you should take that, too.”
It’s an enlightened approach that puts the responsibility for getting things done in the hands of the employee. Everything else is secondary. Not every company can handle this kind of thing, but it supports what seems to be Hammonds’ underlying message: HR should not be a bureaucratic, rule making group. It should strive toward “less rules and more exceptions for exceptional people.” What Hammonds calls a “more thoughtful approach to Human Resources.”
It’s about 30 minutes and worth a listen if you’re a glutton for punishment interested in hearing some tips from an outsider about what HR can do to be more impactful.
Here is a link to the original rage-inducing article.
March 11th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
I agree, Max, that it is worth a listen.
Interesting that you should mention the vacation policy portion of the Hammonds interview. Vacation policy has long been a rage-inducing hot-button for me.
Terry
March 12th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Keith is after all the consumate media editor. Like CNN, Fox and the rest of the media giants, he knows how to engage the reader!
What’s interesting is that when I reflect on the various individuals in my 25 year career in HR who really hated HR, interestingly enough they GENERALLY were inept leaders who either left body bags in their wake, or they individuals with sour grapes due to some decision by HR.
Robert Cenek
Cenek Company
http://www.cenekreport.com
March 14th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
This article was brought to my attention this past summer when I presented an annual Midwest Conference for SHRM.
I shy a way from reading anything sarcastic, because it does not offer a point of view that works. I was disappointed to read this voice of sarcasm and it did in my mind stir the pot, because it is asking that people stand up and think about HR.
How an organization approaches the management of human capital ultimately depends on size, industry, business plan and strategy of a core group how the social network surrounding the company interacts with that strategy.
The article made me think once again, how would I describe HR? Everything I originally learned about HR, I learned as a line manager in health care where I designed a pay for performance team environment.
So once again, my thinking after reading this article was no different than what I write about along with others, who contribute to WorkEcology. Managing human capital is very different than managing the operation, administration of systems for payroll, compensation and benefits.
Managing human capital is about leadership and how leadership is exercised. If leadership is mechanistic, you get a dead organization. If leadership encourages and sustains imagination you create human capital and attract talent.
When this happens — the function, the system, the operation and how the various functions are sourced is consciously designed by the leadership of an entity and rewards, benefits, thought leadership emerge from that conversation.