Comments on: What Differentiates the Leading-Edge HR Executives?

By: Malcolm Chlan

Malcolm Chlan — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:41:55 +0000

I agree, it is important for HR representatives to fully understand the company inside out so that they can properly hire the right type of personality for the position. If you sell pacemakers you will quickly see if someone is cut out for the job.

By: Phil Fersht

Phil Fersht — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:00:36 +0000

Has anyone met an HR leader with these attributes?

By: Links 02/11/2009

Links 02/11/2009 — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:33:40 +0000

[…] The Human Capitalist » What Differentiates the Leading-Edge HR Executives? […]

By: Rich Gaasenbeek

Rich Gaasenbeek — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:00:17 +0000

I would add a 5th attribute - they have a clear vision on the future role of HR, the impact social media will have on employee relationships and communications, and how HR can and should play a transformative role,

By: Samantha Hanson

Samantha Hanson — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:51:09 +0000

Agreed! HR professionals must move beyond compliance-driven/risk-mitigation decisions and behaviors. How? Clearly assuming the work and accountability for business outcomes. We own the intersection between business strategy and human capital strategy. That is our unique and powerful role.

By: Phil Fersht

Phil Fersht — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:46:26 +0000

Apologies for being a wee bit cyncial folks, but we can spend hours discussing what HR should be in an ideal world, as opposed to what HR can realistically do in today’s markets to be more effective.

HR will never truly be a strategic function that aligns the business strategy with its workforce (we’ve been bleating on about that old chestnut around for years), but it CAN help deliver some critical tactical functions that enterprises really need in today’s environment.

For example, it can help globalize the employee functions of an organization; help deploy technology that gives senior executives much smarter, faster access to their workforce dynamics; help deploy workable and measurable performance management strategies.

HRO, in its early form, failed, because it tried to force HR to become more strategic. It only started working when it empowed HR executives to deploy tactical operational work more effectively at a global level.

By: An Economic Stimulus Package for HR Leaders | HRpreneuring

An Economic Stimulus Package for HR Leaders | HRpreneuring — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:35:37 +0000

[…] outlined by Tod Loofbourrow, Chairman of Authoria, and summarized in Jason Corsello’s “Human Capitalist” blog. These traits include: Business Acumen, Analytical and Objective Mindset, Accountability, […]

By: TechSphinx

TechSphinx — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:34:58 +0000

Amen Phil, and amen Jason for adding No. 4 above. But honestly Samantha, do HR professionals really want accountability for business outcomes? I doubt it. Do CEO’s want HR professionals to have responsibility for business outcomes? I doubt this moreso.

By: John

John — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:34:21 +0000

We supply HR solutions and we have met HR Managers who are Good, Bad and downright useless !

By: Jason Corsello

Jason Corsello — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:07:01 +0000

Techsphinx…finally your comment. I was starting to think you were cheating on me on another blog. I am more convinced than ever that a newly created position is required in companies that drive the measurement and engagement of talent. It won’t be the HR departments as we know them. They are way too focused managing compliance and mitigating risk.

By: Dave Crisp

Dave Crisp — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:37:52 +0000

Dare I add, they should know something about HR? Why does it always seem like we emphasize one or the other skill set. HR is a complex technical challenge, compliance (for all that it should be a given) is not easy, but of course every ‘executive’ worthy of the designation should understand the business, use analytics, be accountable and ask questions. Executives should be well-rounded, a term apparently out of style. I’ve seen plenty of CEOs, CFOs and IT heads who know nothing about HR either and don’t know when to ask questions. It cuts both ways. Do we really believe HR people are in that much more of an ivory tower than others?

By: BigD

BigD — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:08:37 +0000

This is a tired old arguement. Of course, HR Leaders should possess all of the above characteristics. Unfortunately, business leaders in the US have little or no clue about the strategic importance of HR. The leading MBA programs have practically no curriculla dealing with Human Capital issues. In fact, I would argue that corporations, whom actually leverage HR strategically (e.g Pepsi and GE), are rapidly declining. I think the leadership of coporate HR organizations has eroded in the last 10 years. Thistrend has partially resulted in business leaders taking back, outsourcing through consultants, or transfering strategic HR activities to non- HR sources.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:48:30 +0000

Like others here–most of us will root for these qualities until we retire, but there is no driving force (that I can see) motivating senior leadership to demand this kind of excellence from their HR Executive. Perhaps BigD’s comments lend a clue as to why this is. Globalization is certainly a factor as well. How many of you have CEO’s that are not American and how many of those struggle with cultural differences that conflict with a management style that incorporates the skills listed in this post? [hand raised] Dave’s comments about HR knowledge is also key. Our previous HR head had excellent business knowledge but was clueless about HR–which is why we would have to correct him when his “strategic” decisions were in conflict with proper HR practices. Very frustrating. I long for the day when all four of the aforementioned qualities are in my HR Executive’s repertoire–but I’m afraid it’s going to be a long wait.

By: Claire

Claire — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:13:14 +0000

I agree with the points listed and with many of the comments.

But, many of the HR managers in small to medium sized companies ‘fell’ into the position.

They don’t have a proper qualification and may only have done one or two HR type courses. So their value as a relationship partner to the finance department is greatly reduced for decisions effecting the financial wellbeing of the company.

Their abilities or lack of become more apparent as the company grows and they can no longer function at the new levels. Hence a larger turnover of HR managers in SMEs.

By: Kris

Kris — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:26:11 +0000

Until HR can tie their functional outcomes to the overall success (or failure) of a business they will not be considered a strategic function of any organization. Now, the fact that it has been 10 years and noone has been able to successfully demonstrate a compelling tie between good HR and core business success (in the real world) that starts to make you wonder. Are people really the reason a company succeeds or fails? Or is it, as those who handle exec comp would imply, the vision and ability of top management to steer the business that makes the most significant difference.

By: Techsphinx

Techsphinx — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:03:28 +0000

Sigh…more HR professional scontemplating their navels and place in the universe.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:23:55 +0000

To Techsphinx: this discussion has nothing to do with introspective contemplation. It has to do with the fact that many HR professions see a vision for what could be–they see the potential to take existing human capital and turn it into a market differentiator. You can either use this capital to produce a product or you can use it to become a market leader. Many great companies are just that because of, among other things, the way that they leveraged their human resources. When these resources are squandered I don’t at all feel insecure, I am frustrated that those resources are squandered instead of being used to improve the bottom line. For me at least, it is really that simple.

By: Techsphinx

Techsphinx — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:47:58 +0000

Paul, what makes you think HR should drive a company’s people strategy? Aren’t business line managers far better equipped to make people decisions that are germain to the business? I think so. I rant a little more about this on my blog here HR is not strategic…business is strategic

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:20:54 +0000

Techsphinx, I understand your point but my desire isn’t that HR be a business driver–that would be a disaster–just that we be a participant and an active part of the decision-making process. There’s no argument that a great many organizations simply use their human resources as a tool to produce something. There’s also no argument that there is a potential to leverage these resources for a much greater return on investment than just a simple outcome. A powerful HR leader who knows his craft and can speak the language of business, can translate HR strategies into business decisions that impact the bottom line because he can speak a language that makes sense to the rest of the executive team.

Call this “strategic” or whatever the popular word of the day is, the bottom line (as I see it with my limited view), is that HR management is a lot more than just making people decisions–it’s about making decisions that leverage the untapped resources of those people.

I did check out your blog and I have an affinity for the contrarian viewpoint–you make some good points, no doubt. Perhaps we are just going in different directions or taking different approaches to the same ends. Nevertheless, this is a great discussion.

By: David Vanheukelom

David Vanheukelom — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:50:10 +0000

Two facts drive our need for a more business and strategically focused HR/Talent Organization. First, every business strategy has an accompanying talent/people strategy as a requirement for successful execution. Second, a companies talent is the lifeblood of value creation, innovation, and competitive advantage in today’s global economy. Whether its understanding the impact of employee engagement on productivity, strategic workforce planning, creating a learning culture that can drive innovation (and business strategy), alignment of workforce performance to business initiatives; this strategic vision and execution is an absolute requirement for sustained business success. Tactical and operational efficiency alone is simply not acceptable to long-term competitive advantage, and I would argue every CEO would agree with this statement. The question remains of whom will and should own this talent agenda - HR? the Chief Talent Officer? the Chief Performance Officer? Whomever drives this mandate, a comprehensive understanding of both talent and organizational dynamics as well as the business skills and acumen outlined by Jason’s original post are prerequisite competencies. Business Line Managers are accountable for successful execution of this talent strategy at a line/departmental level. The fact remains this talent management agenda is necessary, its critical to long-term business success, and for the most part (with exceptions) is currently not being executed by the HR department.

By: Jason Gorham

Jason Gorham — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:26:03 +0000

I’m going to add two more to your list. What about pay for performance? The other is most good hr people know that the companies with the best talent win…so does the hr person know who the best talent is and why?

By: Julie

Julie — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:08:14 +0000

My time working in HR divisions of large corporations have led me to drop my bar considerably. Today, my thought is that an HR leader who is not a sociopath would be just terrific.