It has been the accepted tradition of HR management that HR specialists are there to provide support and services to line managers, not to usurp the latter’s role of ‘getting things done through people’ – their responsibility for managing their own HR affairs. In practice, the HR function has frequently had the role of ensuring that HR policies are implemented consistently throughout the organization, as well as the more recent onerous responsibility for ensuring that both the letter and the spirit of employment law are implemented consistently. The latter responsibility has often been seen as a process of ensuring that the organization does not get involved in tedious, time-wasting and often expensive employment tribunal proceedings.
Carrying out this role has often led to the HR function ‘policing’ line management, which can be a cause of tension and ambiguity. To avoid this, HR specialists may have to adopt a reasonably light touch: providing advice rather than issuing dicta, except when a manager is clearly contravening the law or when his or her actions are likely to lead to an avoidable dispute or an employment tribunal case that the organization will probably lose.
ill probably lose. It has also frequently been the case that, in spite of paying lip-service to the principle that ‘line managers must manage’, HR departments have usurped the line managers’ true role of being involved in key decisions concerning the recruitment, development and remuneration of their people, thus diminishing the managers’ capacity to manage their key resource effectively. This situation has arisen most frequently in large bureaucratic organizations and/or those with a powerful centralized HR function. It still exists in some quarters, but as decentralization and devolution increase and organizations are finding that they are having to operate more flexibly, it is becoming less common.
It is necessary to reconcile what might be called the ‘functional control’ aspects of an HR specialist’s role (achieving the consistent application of policies and acting as the guardian of the organization’s values concerning people) and the role of providing services, support and, as necessary, guidance to managers, without issuing commands or relieving them of their responsibilities. However, the distinction between giving advice and telling people what to do, or between providing help and taking over can be blurred, and the relationship is one that has to be developed and nurtured with great care. The most appropriate line for HR specialists to take is that of emphasizing that they are there to help line managers achieve their objectives through their people, not to do their job for them.
In practice, however, some line managers may be only too glad to let the HR department do its people management job for them, especially the less pleasant aspects like handling discipline and grievance problems. Adelicate balance has therefore to be achieved between providing help and advice when it is clearly needed and creating a ‘dependency culture’ that discourages managers from thinking and acting for themselves on people matters for which they are responsible. Managers will not learn about dealing with people if they are over-dependent on HR specialists. The latter therefore have to stand off sometimes and say, in effect, ‘That’s your problem.’
Carrying out this role has often led to the HR function ‘policing’ line management, which can be a cause of tension and ambiguity. To avoid this, HR specialists may have to adopt a reasonably light touch: providing advice rather than issuing dicta, except when a manager is clearly contravening the law or when his or her actions are likely to lead to an avoidable dispute or an employment tribunal case that the organization will probably lose.
ill probably lose. It has also frequently been the case that, in spite of paying lip-service to the principle that ‘line managers must manage’, HR departments have usurped the line managers’ true role of being involved in key decisions concerning the recruitment, development and remuneration of their people, thus diminishing the managers’ capacity to manage their key resource effectively. This situation has arisen most frequently in large bureaucratic organizations and/or those with a powerful centralized HR function. It still exists in some quarters, but as decentralization and devolution increase and organizations are finding that they are having to operate more flexibly, it is becoming less common.
It is necessary to reconcile what might be called the ‘functional control’ aspects of an HR specialist’s role (achieving the consistent application of policies and acting as the guardian of the organization’s values concerning people) and the role of providing services, support and, as necessary, guidance to managers, without issuing commands or relieving them of their responsibilities. However, the distinction between giving advice and telling people what to do, or between providing help and taking over can be blurred, and the relationship is one that has to be developed and nurtured with great care. The most appropriate line for HR specialists to take is that of emphasizing that they are there to help line managers achieve their objectives through their people, not to do their job for them.
In practice, however, some line managers may be only too glad to let the HR department do its people management job for them, especially the less pleasant aspects like handling discipline and grievance problems. Adelicate balance has therefore to be achieved between providing help and advice when it is clearly needed and creating a ‘dependency culture’ that discourages managers from thinking and acting for themselves on people matters for which they are responsible. Managers will not learn about dealing with people if they are over-dependent on HR specialists. The latter therefore have to stand off sometimes and say, in effect, ‘That’s your problem.’
No comments:
Post a Comment