Why Do We Hate Hr

HR paper

Why Do We Hate HR?

Human Resource plays a key role in designing the performance management framework. Human Resource role is manifold and each of these roles well played can be highly beneficial to the organization. However, as it is now, the people in the department do not seem up to par. In the article, "Why We Hate HR," written by Keith H. Hammond, the author portrayed a negative stance on the department. He listed four reasons describing what is wrong with the Human Resource people. Based on those four main criticisms, three individual interviews were conducted to see either Hammond's point of view is agreeable or not. The interviewees also have given their personal experiences and opinions when comparing their Human Resources to Hammond's judgment, thinking theirs need improvement, or believing who really are at fault.

According to Hammond, he communicated and expanded on four main points to support his claim as follows:

1. Human Resource people aren't the sharpest tacks in the box. Human Resource people are often the dregs of the corporate world. Human Resource administrator get to those positions because they often can't handle jobs requiring more talent or imagination.

2. Human Resource pursues efficiency in lieu of value. Efficiency is a lot easier to justify numerically and doesn't require a true understanding of what a corporation does.

3. Human Resource isn't working for you. The fear of litigation, hence leaving the organization's corporate assets vulnerable, has pushed Human Resource toward a "one-size-fits-all" approach to managing the employees. In this sense, Human Resource, once believed to be an advocate for the employees, is now seen as a bad cop or a tool of top management. They are working to please their superiors and not there to answer to the people in the company.

4. The corner office doesn't get Human Resource (and vice versa). There's often little communication between the C-Suite and Human Resource. The subdivision of Human Resource is almost a separate entity from the corporation rather than the decision-making partner.

Although the four reasons are negatively identified, Hammond's article has a sense of progressive analysis that can be used for improvement.

The only positive outlook on Human Resource from an interviewee was from Jonathan Wang, 32 years of age, a sales representative who provides companies with health insurance. Nguyen said that Hammond has the good points about the second reason in the fact that there are people who need to make a living and job stability. He continued by saying, "My job is entirely commission-based, meeting my quota is my job." The correlation between Nguyen's responses and Hammond's article was the fact that statistics are "easier to measure" and whatever it takes to get a good number is what Nguyen explained to be good but improvements are always welcomed. However, Nguyen disagreed with Hammond on his first reason. He believed there are many companies which are too cheap to pay for a qualified Human Resources practitioner. As a result, the complaints about annual performance appraisals, retention and training, etc., could be improved in organizations when the companies begin to hire qualified professional Human Resources practitioners and execs that get the value of people power. In the end, Nguyen does not see any faults with his Human Resource department because he takes full responsibility for his actions. Considering that Nguyen is highly focused on his sales, his Human Resource division seems to be making good effort to motivate their employees.

Unlike Nguyen's optimistic views, the next interviewee, Elena To, 47 years old, held Human Resources in a strict, yet equal business position. She is a mother of two children and considered herself a jack of all trades who has had jobs as a retailer, nurse, and real estate. To agreed with Hammond's most of his points but she disagreed with the fact that it is not only Human Resource's responsibility but both parties'