I hope there's no implication from that "full disclosure" that I have some bias for or against FC. I have enjoyed FC articles in the past -- and agree to some extent with Heath that this could be the start of a valuable conversation (that's why I eagerly joined in). I have not written for the Hiring Center lately because of a focus on my own work and blog, and because the subject matter and my expertese were not a good fit.

I hope to have pointed out how this article's tone, starting with the title, is guaranteed to widen the divide, not narrow it. That's what's polarizing, not the topic. As I also pointed out, I think, the profession is really trying hard to remake itself along the lines suggested.

Those who publicly said they wish not to participate in the discussion, I believe, feel this way because they are very positive, active, energetic, and very sharp "tacks" who would rather get out there and do what needs to be done to improve HR, rather than debate with naysayers.

As to the "workaday experience with HR," that experience undoubtedly concerns "administrivia" that ought to just be offshored or handled by people who don't want to work with people, right?

If this workaday experience was to be the focus of the article, which the title actually suggested to me, it should have, well, focused on examples of "less than stellar" experiences, and provided expert analysis of why they occur and what companies can do to prevent them.

George makes an excellent point where the problems that HR are blamed for are often the result of a lack of respect from upper management on the role of HR.

I had an old boss who made it clear that blaming HR was the easy way to brush problems under the rug - and most managers I've known over the years felt the same way.

On the other hand, there is one company I know that makes a clear effort to partner with HR on business issues, and the difference is night and day in their attitude. Respect starts in the boardroom.

At the same time, recognizing that there is a problem is an important first step. Blaming one's duties for one's attitudes may serve to deflect criticism, but it doesn't solve the problem that most people roll their eyes when they hear
Human Resources," a clear sign of contempt, and a dangerous sign for the long-term longevity of HR professionals.

Maybe an article should be done titled "Why We Hate Deputy Editor's.

I have been in HR and related consulting for 20 years. I am now in HR Outsourcing biz dev.

One thing not mentioned about HR is that they are the de facto agent of the US Government within the corporation. How would you like to live with that?

Pretty hard to get the respect and cooperation of others when legal compliance - across MANY dimensions - is such a huge part of your job requirements.

There are brilliant HR people out there making significant contributions to their organizations - but to a person - they have figured out a way to get the administration/compliance functions working smoothly and out of the way.

Future for HR? Human Capital Management. Know how all the $$$$ being spent on training, recruiting, performance management, etc. are affecting corporate results.

Decrease turnover among 5 year experienced programmers by 50% and you could save your company MILLIONS.

The challenge? The tools and ability to predict, measure and report on the effect of all this activity. As David Ulrich says - measure the result - not the activity.

Tom O'Brien
Chicago

Keith

Great article.

Something HR leaders need to hear

My only addition would be that over time, managers have learned to expect so little from HR and they are still unhappy with the results they get (one study showed HR getting an average rating of only 34 out of 100). Can you imagine if Executives knew and came to expect the kind of things that the HR function had the potential to provide like alerts, forecasts, productivity improvement, increased innovation, "what works" sharing and a talent surplus, then... they managers would REALLY be pissed!

Other formerly administrative and "slow to change" functions like supply chain (purchasing), CRM (service departments), lean manufacturing (production)and 6 sigma (quality inspectors) have made the leap to become major revenue contributors but HR is the last remaining one... and HR leaders don't have the courage to force significant change.

BTW, expect hate mail... anyone that criticizes HR (as I frequently do) will get a load of it.

Dr John Sullivan

I read the column with interest. I am part of the leadership in our HR department, reporting to the Chief HR officer. Much of what was mentioned does not apply to our operation, and at the same time, good issues have been raised that should be discussed.

Our Chief HR officer reports to the CEO, who has also read this piece. Our leadership team will be meeting to discuss the column, pros and cons, in a few days, and have made it a part of an upcoming planning session.

When I received the August issue of your magazine and anxiously flipped through your cover story, “Why We Hate HR”, my initial thought was that I’d been catapulted back in time to the 1970’s and was trapped inside a Mary Tyler Moore episode with Lou Grant as my boss. Either that, or there was some type of post office screw-up and I’d inadvertently been sent a copy of “Behind the Times” or “Stagnate Company” magazine, instead of the creative, business savvy Fast Company I was accustomed to.

As an avid reader of your magazine, I’ve recommended it to numerous business colleagues, consultants, senior executives, trainers and others with whom I’ve worked closely. I’ve always enjoyed your magazine’s style and its unique approach to relevant business topics. This month, something clearly went awry.

You’ve probably guessed by now that I myself am a human resources practitioner. Despite my Master’s of Science degree and 14 years of professional experience, I’m part of the illustrious group of people your deputy editor, Keith Hammonds, so affectionately refers to as “not the sharpest tacks in the box”. Based on his article, I don’t think his “tack” is sharp enough to poke his way into any board room I’ve been in and he’d need a thorough refresher on business acumen before being let through the front door.

The article is stereotypical and biased, and the author’s research is shoddy and appears unsubstantiated (no comment by Time Warner, Disney, etc.). The author is uninformed about the field of human resources as a whole and oblivious to the tremendous impact it has had on many entities (not to mention people’s lives). The article begins with a fair premise and one that HR people would agree with. The author states that HR should be responsible for finding the best people, nurturing the “stars” and fostering a productive work environment. However, throughout the remainder of the article he continually contradicts himself.

For example, he says that performance reviews are completely worthless and that it’s all HR’s fault. So, let me get this straight, if the HR department designs a performance appraisal system that is in line with the company’s core values and required competencies, includes a comprehensive career planning and development tool and trains managers in how to utilize this process to provide meaningful feedback to employees, this is useless? Isn’t that part of nurturing “stars” and fostering a productive work environment?

In trying to further disparage HR, the author tells a “story” about a talented marketing exec who accepts a position with Time Warner out of business school (exec and she just graduated?). He goes on to blame human resources for her placement in one department over another and ultimately for her decision to leave the company. The author is concerned that Time Warner will never capture the true cost of HR’s actions because of the metrics it uses to measure their success. According to the author, we shouldn’t worry too much about this plight, since Cardinal Health has come up with an innovative way to determine HR’s worth. They have started asking employees 12-questions that gage employee satisfaction (the author might be interested to know these questions have been used by most Fortune 500 companies for years based on widely published data by the Hay Group).

If I follow the author’s logic (not an easy thing to do), he feels that employees’ answers to these questions will help organizations more accurately measure the effectiveness and value of its HR department. If employees understand the company’s strategies, are proud of where they work, and feel a sense of connection to the organization, that must mean HR is doing its job. It’s almost laughable that, on the one hand, the author gives HR that much “power” over the organization’s success when he makes it clear he thinks we’re a bunch of uneducated, underperforming flunkies who belong in a cubicle outside the restroom (or was it the parking lot?). Totally ignored by the author is research which convincingly shows an employee’s direct supervisor has the most control over the answers to these 12 questions. The biggest reason employees decide to join, or ultimately leave a company is a direct reflection of the relationship they have with their immediate manager (not their HR person).

The article is filled with a number of other bold-face contradictions. The author praises Libby Sartain for being strategic and changing the culture at Yahoo by instituting a weekly operations meeting (not exactly rocket science) and in the next breath criticizes a “mid-level” HR person for creating a weekly forum for Vice-Presidents to meet with their employees (dismissing this as a typical non-strategic move by HR). He criticizes FedEX’s HR department for sending four-color brochures explaining a new benefits procedure to employees and later espouses that an HR “best practice” is to clearly communicate pay and benefits changes to employees. The author should have added “just don’t do it in a glossy brochure” because knowing how dense HR people are, they are sure to be confused by all his double-talk and rhetoric.

At the end of the day, the author can take solace in knowing that those company executives who are “stuck” in the way things used to be can use his article to justify comfortably reverting back to those blissful times when there was gross inequity in the workplace (the author seems to be a huge proponent of this), no sense of employee rights, and the corner office was occupied by financial / technical wizards who know nothing about motivating and retaining people.

There's every good reason to discuss this issue, but I can't think of a single good reason to begin a dialogue with the kinds of put-downs, generalizations, and general drama of Hammonds article. Not if you want to find a solution, anyway.

I know such 'contrarian' articles are considered appealing in the world of journalism (so my PR firm advises me), and people do seem more interested in reading, and discussing, articles that provoke.

So, Mr. Hammond, why do you not challenge the common wisdom that 'HR is responsible for doing the work of the managers?'

Managers/executives in an organization are responsible for how they manage the organization and its people. HR can indeed serve a valuable, strategic role, if an organizations' leaders want that. HR can coach or train those managers to improve their abilities to do their jobs (selecting staff, giving useful performance appraisals, or developing their employees). I agree with Tom (hey there, O'Brien!) and others, that HR sometimes has dreary roles to play as legal eagle or paper-pusher (BTW, I am sure none of you think it's administrivia when it's YOUR benefits that aren't working right!).

But at the end of the day, HR is a staff service organization. (I suggest reading Peter Block's chapter "Rethinking the Role of Staff Functions," in Stewardship.) And, to put it bluntly, if some of these managers took the people management side of their responsibilities a bit more seriously, they'd place more value on their HR folks.

Maybe managers (and journalists) like to bash HR because it's just easier, at the end of the day, to blame someone else for a shortcoming than it is to own up to your part in creating a problem, or to be responsible for fixing it.

Now here's a dialogue I'd like to see - what will it take to create proactive partnerships between managers and their HR groups? What has happened to transform the relationship in company's where this has taken place? Let's learn from the successes.

Loved your article on Why We Hate HR (the Human Remains department). It's really about the fact that too many clerks have ended up in positions with "big titles" that really don't understand (or care to) what it takes to be successful in their business. And we're not talking about the business of administrivia. But let's keep the faith!! It took years for the lowly Bean Counter to climb out of the dark recesses of an organization to gain the top company post - but they did. Maybe HR will find its day in the sun eventually too. It just seems to be taking a long time.

I hate HR and always will: they are "the wall." Period. The screen out, not in. To me, they are the enemy, the seat of all politics within any organization and are to be rued. I cannot be more plain. Avoid all contact with them - ban them to a corner in your organization.

Toughen up, HR! Can't you take a little criticism, even IF some or most of it is the author's opinion?

True, not everyone "hates" HR, even if Keith does. Why not consider this article as if it were a very condensed business book; Look at it for principles that can help you and your company to improve and don't worry about the other stuff that may not apply to you, or with which you don't agree.

If HR in general is not in the sorry state Keith describes, his article surely won't make it so. If, however, HR is suffering from the many hemorrhages listed, take the input and run with it - change things, make everyone who read the article and agreed with it reverse their opinion by changing the business of HR. A Seth Godin quote comes to mind - "The first rule to great feedback is this: No one cares about your opinion." We subscribe to FC not for feedback, but to learn from others and their experiences. Let's try it with this article.

MAS

P.S. I personally do not hate HR, but find that the job classification has serious and minor problems just like every job classification does.

OK, I will admit it. I am in HR. (Well, I have been in HR and now I sell HR Outsourcing services).

Point by point rebuttals of this article are a waste of time. If you are in HR, take this as a description of where things currently stand from an outsider's point of view.

How is that good? Because you have nowhere to go but up! It is like getting really poor marks on your ititial customer survey. Everyone is really angry and upset at first, but boy are they happy next year when all the numbers move up.

This is a field where a smart, motivated person can REALLY stand out. If you are that person - be happy that the state of the art in HR is dismal. It will be MUCH easier for you to add competitive advantage and value to your organization by doing things better.

Tom O'Brien
tom@tobmkc.com

Dear Mr. Hammonds,

I must say, after reading your article, I found myself in agreement with most of your arguments that most HR practitioners are not in alignment with overall business “strategy.” However, I feel that points need to be made in defense of those of us (and there are much more than you think) who truly understand the “darker” sides of HR as well as the desire, talent and potential (unrealized AND realized) to greatly enhance an organization’s bottom line and market share.

First, let’s look at your account of HR as having “long ago proved itself, at best, a necessary evil—and at worst, a dark bureaucratic force that blindly enforces nonsensical rules, resists creativity, and impedes constructive change.” You know what, you’re right. “Human Resources” is a relatively newfound euphemism for what most of our parents and grandparents knew as the “Personnel” function. These were the secretarial/administrative people that were expected to handle all of the administrative minutiae such as payroll, address changes, benefits enrollments, and the like. That is assuming, of course, that organizations even had a designated personnel employee. Most (and some still do) depended on payroll clerks, office assistants and executive secretaries to handle these "mundane" tasks.

Next, let’s take a look at the legislative, regulative, and overall ridiculous layer after layer after layer of legal mumbo-jumbo that HR practitioners have to know, understand, interpret and apply on a daily basis. Not just from a federal standpoint, but state to state. How do they work? How do they interplay? How do they conflict? Which decision that I make today will turn around and bite me in the proverbial ass tomorrow because of some tangential labor code sub-article that I didn’t know (or forgot?) You can’t even begin to chip away at the glacier of legal decisions and regulations that HR has to deal with. Yet you complain when confronted with an HR practitioner who appears to be more concerned with process, documentation, and an apparent focus on compliance. Where do you think that comes from? Did you know that in some states, individuals can be held personally liable for the decisions and mistakes that they make on the job? Are you ready to be so free with your criticism knowing what we know—that one false move can cost you your house? Maybe instead of criticizing HR, you ought to be flaming mad at your Congressional representatives.

Take a look at the current wave of class action lawsuits—namely, dealing with wage and hour misclassifications that have resulted in millions and millions and millions of bottom-line dollars being paid out to plaintiffs. HR is painted the villain when these cases are lost because “they should have known better”, but when things are done properly, where is the applause and recognition? When HR gets their foot in the door at the “big table” meeting and tries to illustrate the ramifications of improper decisions, we are labeled as “blindly enforcing nonsensical rules, resisting creativity, and impeding constructive change.”

If HR as a profession is failing you and others who perceive it as a “dark bureaucratic force” it is because HR as a profession has not been widely recognized, engaged, valued and included in the direction of business (and capitalism, for that matter) as a whole. Let’s face it—HR is not a revenue generator. In the eyes of most (ignorant) business professionals, we’re just administrative overhead that eats into their profits. Why, then, do you think that most HR leaders are directed towards reducing payrolls, benefits, and other line items seen as extrinsic to the company’s true mission. Do you honestly think that HR comes up with that stuff on its own? Do you really think that decisions that would lead us to return investments back to our people—as opposed to our external shareholders—are really decisions that come from the HR office?

I agree that business acumen is severely lacking amongst most of my peers, but that can also be said for the vast majority of companies that employ us. Allowing employees to be truly engaged in the business—by understanding the “big picture” of core customers, competition, and organizational identity, is something in my experience that I have seen to be lacking across ALL organizational functions. Most organizational leaders hold their business plans, projections and anlyses so close to the vest, even internally, and all the while asking their employees and managers to do more with less, to be leaner and meaner at their own jobs, all the while watching their welfare and retirement benefits dwindle. At what point did the “employee engagement” problem become something that was not shared by an organization's leadership as a whole? I have yet to work for a company (despite my objections to the contrary) that routinely engages their employees on the “state of the business” or truly allows employees to be part of the overall strategic mission. How can an organization expect engagement from an employee that the company itself isn’t engaged in? It goes both ways, and is hardly a burden that rests solely on the Human Resources function. Any marriage and family counselor can tell you that dysfunction within a unit is the result of ALL the contributions of its members.

If HR is failing you, perhaps it is because, as you so eloquently and accurately pointed out, that all this rhetoric about human assets being the #1 priority within an organization is truly an empty party-line slogan fed to us from the alphabet soup of organizational leaders. I’m referring to the CEO’s, Presidents, Directors and other high-end “leaders” who go home with their multi-million dollar salary/bonus/incentive packages while their hourly workers struggle to pay for benefits for their children. All the while, giving their HR department the mandate to “cut costs” that take away from their bonus potential—where do you think the fuss over compensation benchmarking comes from?

The true, root problem lies not intrinsically within the HR function and the professionals who are engaged in the HR role, but rather, with the perception at the top that human assets really aren’t that important. In the (growing number of) organizations where The Human Factor is truly being seen as the TOP priority, you will also find huge investment in the HR function, and in turn, in the depth and breadth of the professionals who work in HR.

And so while I agree with a lot of what you point out regarding this profession of mine that I love so much, I believe that you should take the time to be more strategic in your own criticism, and to look beyond your own self-professed distaste and see all the contributors to HR’s successes and shortcomings. I applaud you for writing the article, because while its tone might polarize those of us who read it, at least it has gotten people thinking—and hopefully, taking action—towards moving HR to that empty seat at the “big table” that so desperately needs to be filled.

Regarding the article -- it wasn't entertaining nor was it earth shattering.

It was what it was -- an opinion piece and a reflection of needed change within typical corporate America.

Some of the reaction makes me wonder why more corporations haven't gone belly up yet. ;->

If you don't stop whining and get back to work, someone in another area of the world who is more hungry than you will !

P.S. We need less politics/government in the office and more leadership/innovation.

“What took us to the ‘last dance’ may not take us to the next” is the mantra of all too few progressive HR teams that get that the game is no longer about rituals and record-keeping and ruling, but about engaging associates to shape a culture that fuels business growth. Period.

It’s not about paper. It’s not about process. And, for those people practitioners among us who have adopted the already dated corporate HR vernacular – it’s not even all about talent grids, succession planning and performance management – or anything else, for that matter, that is tracked, tabbed or tabulated.

If a HR team is not completely engaged in engaging, they’re missing the point. If they have not begun to view themselves as the Internal Marketing department and immersed themselves in the work of driving the brand home with associates, they’re not only missing the point but the potential.

The work is smart. It’s about finding and engaging talent. It’s about keeping promises. Internal marketing. In-vertising. Internal branding. Call it what you will. At the end of the day, the internal pack has to be able to play the brand by heart. Period.

Perhaps the hate of HR will dissipate when the world of HR begins to mind its business and not that of the clients it supports.

Dear Keith,
Are you kidding? Why on earth would you write an article that lumps all HR people into one category – short, fat, pink women that pull the limbs off dolls?

First of all if you had really researched the HR community, you would find in the annual SHRM survey of top HR professionals (based on salary) that the majority of the senior HR executives running the bigger corporations are MEN not WOMEN. (You wouldn’t be sexist would you?)

Second, HR professionals are business partners. Just like in any other partnership there is a lot of compromise on what role human resources will play in an organization. Unfortunately, not all executives are wise enough to see the value of including human resources as a business partners.

Third, I will admit, you do have a few good points. There are some HR professionals who are not the sharpest tacks in the box, think their primary job is to enforce policies and procedures, use too many buzz words, and have no idea what the word “innovation” means. And, just like not all CFOs are honest and not all CEOs really value their human capital, not all HR professionals are alike.

I have the distinct pleasure of working in the marketing communications field where I am a business partner to the President of our office. I have freedom to create value added programs that have directly impacted our business by improving communication, attracting and developing talent, and finding new and creative ways to keep our employees excited about contributing to the success of this office.

Next time you are in sunny California call me and I will introduce you to a fun, hardworking group of amazing people.

From the softer side,

Linda Denton
SVP, People Services
Young & Rubicam Brands

P.S. Curious to note: there appears to be no post on this blog from your FC HR dept. I’m sure the HR community would love to hear from them.

Fast Company should be ashamed of themselves. Hammonds article flies in the face of their usual content. I read Fast Company for its insightful take on companies that are make waves and challenge the way we do business. The Why We Hate HR article is filled with, and based on, negative generalizations. While Hammonds cites a couple of examples of progressive HR organizations, Hunter Douglas and Libby Sartain at Yahoo!, he never really discusses what he thinks HR professionals could do to change his perception of their profession or what goes into creating a progressive HR organization.

To be successful, organizations must build relationships with their customers, their vendors and also their employees. Good or bad, strong or weak, the basis for, and value placed on, these relationships is shaped by an organization’s business philosophies, reflected in their business practices and modeled by their business leaders. Some organizations place value on only one of those relationships, some on two and some on all three. It takes all three to sustain long-term success. In his article, Hammonds overlooks the idea that HR is a reflection of their corporate philosophy - which they may influence but ultimately do not drive.

HR is responsible for the relationship that an organization has with their employees. They must find, support and help grow a team of employees that are capable of building and growing the organization’s relationships with their customers and vendors. Like all functions in an organization, HR is influenced (and sometimes constrained) by their organization’s corporate philosophy. It is next to impossible for HR to be strategic in an organization that does not truly value the impact its employees have on its success.

There are certainly a vast number of companies with stodgy and patriarchal corporate philosophies that have HR departments and processes that reflect their culture. But there are many agile, progressive companies with HR departments that reflect their culture. Hammonds’ message might have been more effective had he chosen not to generalize and focus on what’s not working (that’s not Fast Company’s style), but to focus on some of the many organizations that understand the value HR creates.

As for us not being the sharpest tacks in the box, again, shame on you Mr. Hammond. HR is not alone, every function has some individuals who are not business minded. Every function, including HR, also has stellar performers (many of whom have graduate degrees). But HR departments may seem lopsided. Creative and strategic thinking HR professionals do not stay long at organizations where their talent is not valued. They, like me, find homes at organizations that expect and value their strategic input - it’s at companies like these that we make significant contributions to the business every day.

We love the creative abrasion/heat that this article has generated. Absolutely love it. It's what drives the good to great - if we really choose to listen.

It's An Agency Thing
agencything@aol.com

Any profession or business discipline has its share of innovators and leaders on the one hand, and dull plodders and incompetents on the other. And most have their negative stereotypes: the megalomaniac CEO, the greedy banker, the shyster lawyer, the lying politician, the nerdy engineer, the journalist who skips the facts and substitutes stories of his own fabrication, and yes, the clueless HR staffer.

How do you tell a prejudice based on stereotype? When all people in a diverse and varied group are lumped together. What makes Keith Hammond’s HR article so embarrassing – particularly when it is so visible as a Fast Company lead article -- is that he seems blithely unaware of his own prejudice. “HR people aren’t the sharpest tacks in the box… Make one exception, HR fears, and the floodgates will open. Human resources forfeits long-term value for short-term cost efficiency.”

Really, Keith? Why bother doing the hard work of contacting HR’s leading executives, the ones who are actually contributing to the success of their businesses, and talking to them about the very real challenges their profession faces? God knows the challenges are daunting, the responses over the past decade have been varied and complex, and there is a real story there. Apparently you found it easier to go for the cheap laugh by digging up a few cute anecdotes about incompetents.

Stereotypes can make for good comedy, but are a pretty sad substitute for real journalism.

This article is spot on. It made me realize why I have seen so many people with lower-than-room-temperature IQ's succeed in HR, while other bright resourceful individuals get canned. HR spends all day "measuring the marigolds" and performing useless time eating tasks. They seem productive because their wheels are always spinning on one useless track or another. Those who really contribute to production sometimes don't appear as "busy", but when it comes to getting/giving the boot, we know which department weilds the proverbial axe. HR isn't very well going to downsize themselves. They are the Gestopo of the COrporate Reich!!!

C'mon Hammonds, is that your best shot? Those 3 little stories are your big poke in the eye of HR? If 'Stupid HR Tricks' were a bit on Letterman, you'd never pass the audition with that material!

Let's see now, at FedEx, I bet even after those brochures, they still received a steady stream of calls from people asking, "why wasn't I told about this change!!!" How about at Disney? Someone probably said to this whiner "Dude, you're going to get your ass kicked if you don't turn in that report", or something along those lines. Ohmigod - a threat of physical violence! Send in HR to protect me! At Sun, if Blus never filed a formal complaint, then why would anyone be surprised that there isn't anything on file or that no investigation was done? It's one thing to "approach" the HR manager with office gossip; quite another to put your name on an actual complaint. If Blus really felt there was any wrongdoing, she should have put it in writing. Also, if Blus was managing the project, why didn't she show some backbone and manage this person's alleged abusive behavior? Too many 'managers' think that managing employee performance isn't their job. When it comes to dealing with everything from body odor to bad behavior, they want HR to do it.

That was your best stuff? Your 'A' game? Your big guns? Dude, HR kicks YOUR ass! No wonder why you hate them!

Joe D.

PS - Can you stop by my office? Your supervisor wants me to talk to you about your body odor. She doesn't feel comfortable bringing it up to you herself, but the other deputy editors are complaining about it.

One thing's for sure--Keith Hammonds sure knows how to make friends in the HR community! I'll admit, it's a scathing article. And I've put disclaimers to that affect on my blogsite and in the emails I've sent to people recommending they read it. Still, you have to admit, the article resonates with truth. And instead of getting offended and defensive, we should use it as a wake up call to re-examine our personal role in the organization. How strategically-minded are we? How strategically-linked are we? What do we need to do better?

As someone who is pushing strategic linkage to everyone in my department, I am thrilled to see such a straight-forward, honest and hard hitting article come out.

Sometimes it has to hurt before we'll listen!

Laura Sample
Performance & Development Trainer
http://spaces.msn.com/members/learningweb/

I applaud this article. It depicts every HR office I have ever seen. Years ago HR was born out of the "Personnel" office during the same time garbage collectors were "redefining" themselves as "sanitation engineers". HR then proceded insulate itself with lofty language that made sense to nearly no one and serverd only to justify their existence. Most HR employees I have encounterd were better categorized as displaced doughnut chefs. They do little to "enhance the quality of the workforce" since most know nothing about business, technology, medicine or any other dicipline. They are given a sheet with "buzz words" to look for on a resume, application or telephone interview.

Many laud the achievements of HR in the employee benefit plan. The truth is, the insurance companies put forth the effort to break down all the particulars. HR gathers this data and puts it forward to the executive committee. The decision is made there. Why have the middle-man?

HR is also so "sensitive" to all this EEO crap that has been spewed on to the workforce. They are just so 'sensitive' that it is nauseating. HR has become the pimp for the "Whatever-hyphen-American" cause rather than focusing on their mission to enhance company employee quality and performance.

I forsee the disintegration of HR as we have seen with the AFL-CIO over the past few months. Both are self- serving dinosuars that are being squeezed by the changing economy and the mindset of many workers who have realized that they, themselves, are capable of looking after themselves.

Tsk Tsk Tsk! Fast Company, you should be ashamed of yourselves. I was expecting one of the following: 1)an informative look at what company executives should/can do to improve customer satisfaction and business results, 2)a funny entertaining piece, or 3)a new perspective on a tired old topic beat to death over the years by people who are guilty of the very qualities they accuse "HR" of.

So after reading this opinion piece, I have to ask: "Where's the Beef?"

The real title should have been: "What Can CEO's Do To Ensure Their HR Organizations Add Value"

Like any other profession or job function, there were some truths in Hammond's article and in some of the previous posts, but so what? Where is the substance that will truely make my company better?

Truth be told, company executives must own up and accept responsibility if their HR departments aren't adding real value. They must set the expectation, hire the right top HR person, hold them accountable and engage in that part of the business. I applaude anyone (in HR or some other Dept) who invites themselves to the table, but we all know that if the top executive isn't open to such a thing it won't matter.

You may feel that the article sparked a heated debate and for some it probably did. Most likely though the debate is between HR practitioners and those who hate "HR". Next time publish an article I can take to my CEO and not waste his or her time.