HR: “Knights in Shining Armour” or “The Enemy Within”?

Back in the old days, if a new recruit was needed, the manager would have to interview, in spite of there being no guidance on how this should be done. He would put together a list of obvious things to check out in a candidate: skills, knowledge, training, qualifications and experience then cobble together some questions.

Based on the responses to these and whether the individual seemed to be a 'nice enough sort', a decision would be made.

There are two major problems with this.

• The average interview is about 14% accurate in predicting future performance and, the interviews being generally poor quality, the door was wide open to a potential misfit.

• The most critical determinants of performance are not even considered and these are very much behaviourally-based.

Something needs to change as competition hots up and so does attrition.

Solution: bring in HR.

HR freshers have been drilled into all the latest buzz words and phrases that make ordinary people like you and I feel ignorant and uneducated. This means they can litter their sentences with 'competency frameworks', 'L&D', ‘interventions’ and other mystifying stuff with unparalleled ease.

They also learn to say 'your human resources are your greatest asset so it is extremely important to ensure they are properly looked after by a qualified human resources manager, isn't it?'

Being ignorant about what difference there may or may not be between the line managers looking after their direct reports as against HR doing it while not actually taking responsibility for the work the staff produce, we blindly nod in agreement.

The newly-appointed HR takes over the awful job of recruiting, which is nice. However, there are two main problems:

• Although the interview may possibly be better quality, it remains about 14% accurate, thus keeping that door wide open for potential misfits.

• Assessment of candidates is still based on skills, knowledge, training, qualifications and experience and whether the individual seemed to be a 'nice enough sort'. Again, the most critical behaviourally-based determinants of performance are not considered.

We are therefore left with a situation where it is now costing us more to obtain the same results.

Solution: increase HR headcount.

When someone realises attrition levels remain unchanged, HR stirs into action! They hire a specialist to undertake exit interviews. This requires spending weeks researching and framing questions before undertaking months of exit interviewing to gather data which must then be carefully analysed.

And do the results show recruitment needs to be dramatically changed? No. It will speak of “hygiene factors” and “motivation factors” and managers not being particularly adept at motivating their people.

Does it highlight the fact that the managers have been selected based on similar, almost useless, criteria as everyone else and this is a major factor to be tackled in the remedy? No.

Solution: increase HR headcount.

An “L&D Manager” is hired to sort out the managers. This addition to staff costs spends weeks on a “Training Needs Analysis” to establish exactly what training inputs the managers need to enable them to become great leaders.

Afterwards, there are two possible ways forward. Either the L&D Manager will spend  months piecing together a highly motivational Leadership Development Course or will start research into outside training providers. In the latter case, the decision will potentially be based on the “safety net” of number of people trained and the number of large companies in their client list.

The first batch of managers is processed. Their feedback sheets will come back with “I learned a great deal”, “the presenter knew his subject”, “very relevant to our work” and HR is delighted that their job has been successful.

Does anyone check whether these managers change their habits and do things any better? No. In fact, the vast majority just continue in the same old way. Has anyone realised the majority of the managers are not really leaders by nature and that trying to teach them to be someone else does not usually work? No.

Instead, they take the next batch of managers off for this acclaimed course ... and the next...

Solution: increase HR headcount.

Later, with large numbers of people still leaving, HR is pressed for a solution, which they decide is hiring an “Engagement Expert” whose role is to create all sorts of expensive “Engagement Interventions” that will bring the staff around to feeling happy.

Treating the symptoms rather than the disease does not take away the boredom of the job or having to work for a poor manager, so more and more engagement activities are sought in the search for the “quick fix” that is the “silver bullet” -- to no avail.

What next? Increase HR headcount....?

I am pleased to announce this article has also been published by EmployWise on their Blog: http://www.employwise.com/hr-best-practices/258-hr-knights-in-shining-armour-or-the-enemy-within.html