HR – from the non-HR stakeholder: from the ridiculous to the sublime

Welcome to this week edition of Discuss HR.  If you have been paying close attention you will be expecting today’s article to be written by columnist John Hepworth, however, John is currently spreading the good word of HR in Kazakhstan – which we shall learn more about when he writes next in May.  In John’s place I am delighted to welcome Greg Kilminster.  Greg is not an HR professional but an experienced MD and CEO.  Today Greg writes about his experience of HR – from the ridiculous to the sublime. (Ed Scrivener)

HR – from the non-HR stakeholder:

from the ridiculous to the sublime

HR's voice was lost

Over the last twenty odd years, I’ve worked for a number of different businesses.  Whilst the focus of my role has not really changed (publishing as a sector, publisher as a career) the size of the organisations has and I have, during those years, benefitted from incredibly supportive and positive HR functions – what one might call ‘business enhancing’, to the very opposite:  petty, pointless and business prohibiting.

What then is the view of HR not from a practitioner but from a colleague and user?  My view is that HR is, or should be, increasingly, the back-bone of the business: when it is strong the rest of the business stays alert; it is supported by HR and benefits from impartiality, clarity and structure.  A strong HR team facilitates good communication of course, provides training, career advancement, and strategic understanding and direction of the people resources in the business.

The very strength of a good HR function allows it to adapt to unusual circumstances too: or at least those circumstances that we would all wish would not occur too often but which I have experienced in my interaction with HR: serious injury and even death of a colleague, or serious illness of a colleague’s child: yet alone redundancy or relocation.

But when the HR function is stifled from the top, the damaging effect can be catastrophic. Suddenly that strong, independent entity that instils a real sense of security in staff and directors alike is no more effective than a costly admin function – and the entire business starts to look vulnerable.  It’s at this point that “ power corrupts…”  , when the individual bad behaviour of senior directors is left unchecked and allowed to prosper in an environment where no-one anymore has a say in the development and behaviour of the key assets: the people.  Distrust spreads and the business becomes malignant.

I have been witness to this scenario too: the corrosion of a strong and disciplined function to what became little more than PA to the directors.  Within days, accusations of sexism, bullying, harassment and so on were flying around the business and there was no-one to bring a sense of order and stability back as it was apparent that the HR team was now side-lined and powerless.  There was a deliberate and concerted attempt from one or two senior people in the business to undermine the HR function. It was casual comments in the board room, invitations to the HR director to attend director functions mysteriously getting ‘lost’ in internal processes so that they were absent at key meetings and simply outright exclusion.  

You might ask yourself: “why did you not intervene?” The answer, I think is that when one are in the presence of charismatic senior directors, one quickly realises, selfishly maybe, not to get too involved for fear that you might be the next on their list of targets. I think that speaks volumes for the nature of the influence very charismatic characters can have on a business no matter what the size. And sometimes of course there are vested interests.

There are of course, many cases where HR can be too powerful: a situation when the authority of the CEO can be questioned or undermined and whilst I’ve not seen this in action personally, I have colleagues and friends who have experienced dictatorial HR directors wielding disproportionate power and unduly influencing the CEO – particularly over recruitment.

I’m a firm believer in a strong HR function policing the business and ensuring the business maintains fair policies and opportunities; asking questions of the business that a good NED might ask and being politically neutral.  This view may not chime with many practitioners’ perspective of what the 21^st century HR function should look like, but in my experience, where businesses grow up and mature far more quickly than the average employee working for them, I think there is still a requirement for a firm, guiding hand to maintain key policies and procedures.

Despite the above, I do have one major HR issue.  Appropriately, I have left it to the end: the exit interview.

In my working life I am not aware that I have seen anything thrown up or suggested by an exit interview that has gone on to be implemented.

As both an employee and employer I have seen the futility of exit interviews: in the former case, knowing that someone so clearly unsuitable was still in the same role many years later despite my, ahem, lucid and articulate character assassination, and in the latter case, being in the same room when an employee delivered an equally lucid and articulate critique of a colleague – including documentary evidence against them – but failing to do anything about it.  The reason in both cases? It goes back to the point above: vested interests.  Exit interviews are wholly misunderstood and hence ineffective.  To the departing employee, a chance – encouraged by the line of questioning – to point out failings and errors; to the employer, going through the motions to suggest to the employee that we really do listen and your views do count – despite you disloyally joining our arch-competitor. 

I can’t think of a process like the exit interview that applies elsewhere in modern life: moving house, changing your car or even your partner (“what is your main reason for leaving me?”). Do exit interviews really improve the recruitment and retention process of companies? Are there any members of this group who can honestly say something genuinely changed as a result of an exit interview…?

I am sure there are plenty of you out there who will point out numerous examples. But from the non-HR perspective, maybe it is something that needs to be looked at again as to this HR-user, they are ineffective. One obvious suggestion would be to make the feedback from the exit interview available to the incumbent management team, no matter what the feedback is. I am not aware that this is done as a matter of course and it would be useful for two reasons: to provide management with issues and areas to look at to improve; or if there are none, to provide management with the reassurance that they are pursuing an appropriate course.

In short, I welcome clear support and guidance from a respected HR function, but perhaps there are one or two aspects of modern-day HR which are a step-too far in trying to please everyone and achieve appropriate closure for departing employees.

About the author

Greg Kilminster is CEO of www.gamblingcompliance.com , a leading provider of information to the global gambling and gaming industry. He has over 20 years’ experience of B2B publishing in the law, finance and regulation sector as publisher, senior manager and director. He can be reached at greg@gamblingcompliance.com

*****

Discuss HR is the blog for Human Resources UK, the leading LinkedIn group for those involved with HR in the UK.  Next week’s Discuss HR will be published on Thursday 17^th March and will be written by Employment Law specialist Annabel Kaye.