It has often been bon ton to bash HR and criticise the lack of proof of its impact. And surely enough, it would be fair to admit that HR is partly to blame for this. But every time someone clamours that HR should be abolished they talk about a function. And very often that person has had a personal frustrating experience with an HR professional in the past. Talk about bias!
These 6 points might sound like petty excuses why the HR function or process is difficult. Yet it is not for pity that I am asking. Leaders might ask HR to show them the money. And that question is admittedly fair in a business context.
It is not easy to link HR practices to firm performance. But this is also valid for other functions such as marketing and CSR. It is so difficult to isolate variables, correct for contextual differences and prove a causal relationship between what a company does and the final performance. Moreover, most studies are not longitudinal nor predictive.
There is however increasing evidence that HR practices have a significant impact on both operational and firm performance *(Saridakis e.a. 2017).
The relentless demand to prove the relevance of HR practices is puzzling. And so the proof that is presenting itself seems to be falling on deaf ears.
So let me go back to the more strategic arguments, and away from the monetary proof.
Imagine your company is not able to attract and retain talented people. What would happen then?
How many processes are fully digitalised and where do you still need human intervention? How long will that last?
If you look at failure of strategies, to what extent is that related to human behaviour?
When your organisation needs to change course, what is the impact of the people on how well your company is able to do so?
When you have to innovate, how important is it to have people cooperate, be creative and span boundaries?
And when customers are not satisfied, to what extent is that related to human interaction?
I could go on for a while. Strategy is about human behaviour, and if we are talking about human behaviour, then we need to make sure that people are successful in what they do. It matters little if you call that HR Management, people management or whatever name you could come up with to designate a very strategic process, which can be best described as creating value through people.
So the future is very bright for HR, now that business leaders realize that digitalisation is not about technology but about people, and moreover that talent is scarce. Those of you who are critical about the relevance of HR, I’d like to challenge you to prove that the organisation you are working for does not do anything that remotely resembles HR.
This nlog appeared earlier in a revised version on the Blogsite of Solvay Brussels School.