Human Resources: The Argument Continues

Michael and James's posts on HR gave me an occasion to say what other folks have said.

If the top concern for CEOs are to do with HR issues, the real fault lies with the top management, for paying lip service to the bromide of "people are our most important asset" and yet not paying the top salaries to the custodians of that assest.

Any any headhunter will be able to tell you this, once a function is identified as second best, no way will it attract the best talent.

So, if the market has turned is such a way so as make human talent the only true differentiator in the marketplace, are you putting your money where your mouth is by paying the HR group top salaries?

If you feel that your HR group is not the best, are you willing to replace them with the strategic HR folks you feel you need?

Dave Ulrich has a theory on why HR work is so paradoxical that HR never seems to satisfy everybody.

Ulrich presents a framework that clearly shows four key roles that human resources professionals must fulfill in order to add the greatest value to the organization. The two axes represent focus and activities. HR professionals must focus on both the strategic and the operational, both long-term and short-term. Activities range from managing processes to managing people. These two axes delineate four principal roles.

Which role do you think is most important?