I recently read a job notice for a CHRO position. While it sounded like a great role, after reading he notice I was left with lots of questions. Here is the notice, with minor edits to mask the organization:
“The person will be an advocate for employees at the senior leadership table, the voice of the organization when interfacing with employees, a strong strategic business and tactical partner to the senior leadership team, an executive leader for the human resources team, an effective ambassador for the company in creating the brand as the employer of choice, and an advisor and confidential sounding board to executives in the organization. The CHRO also plays an integral role in driving the organization's commitment to strengthening its position as a diverse, equitable, and inclusive organization. The CHRO promotes a culture of inclusion, teamwork and cohesion, accountability, and high performance within the human resources organization.”
A casual read of this description, in my opinion, leaves the reader with a sense of excitement. This sounds like a wonderful senior HR role. Key words such as at the table, employee advocate, inclusion, and strategic partner are all things I see senior HR leaders clamoring for. Yet...
Yet, is that it? Does this summary description really represent what we want HR to be all about?
My greatest struggle as an HR leader with over 40 years of experience, 25+ at the senior leadership level, is how compartmentalized HR remains. A seat at the table does not appear to have, by and large, eliminated HR being viewed as just the group of professionals who deal with employee issues, who advocate on behalf of employees. Of course, we expect HR to take the lead with employee issues. But should we expect employee issues belong to HR?
The question I ask myself more and more regularly goes something like this: Why isn't there an organizational commitment for all leaders to advocate for employees and for all leaders to be skilled and capable of addressing employee issue? When I think of the employee proposition from this perspective, I come up with many permutations of this question.
Why aren't all leaders charged with developing culture?
Why aren't excellent people practices (HR practices) required at all leadership levels?
Why can't all leaders at all times be employee advocates?
Why shouldn't all leaders be focused on contributing to brand as an employer of choice?
We can continue to add many other similar questions to this list. However, the point for me is -- in today's modern world, what should be the real role of Human Resources?
Do we want HR at the table in order to hold other senior leaders accountable to appropriate ways of strategically planning and interacting with the workforce? While the brief CHRO description shared earlier appears to be an admirable attempt at doing the right thing -- is it really the best approach? Is it enough?
I fully understand many will be unsettled by and/or disagree with my perspective. Yet, I cannot help but believe that HR has let HR down. As a profession we promote a separate but equal approach to HR's role in the organization -- both at the table and operationally. HR is, yet is not, part of what the organization does. HR is seen as separate and many times not equal by others. Perhaps this is why we continue to push for the proverbial seat at the table in order to get to what feels like equal. However, I believe the real challenge is not the seat at the table, it is that sense of being separate. How can we move beyond being viewed as separate from other organizational functional departments? If we can find a way for HR to be viewed as integrated, integral, and essential to the organization then perhaps HR as a profession will flourish.
The job summary shared earlier does include glimpses of hope. For example, it states the CHRO plays an integral role in driving the organization's commitment to strengthening its position as a diverse, equitable, and inclusive organization. Key in this statement is the word integral. Integral begins to suggest DEI is something the entire organization must support. DEI is more than an HR initiative.
I contend that all the other major ideas in the role summary are also integral to the entire organization. Positioning HR as an owner of certain employee facing relationships lets non-HR leaders abdicate their responsibility with respect to the employee experience. Recently, in two separate conversations, I heard statements such as: 1) the moment my employee had performance issues, HR stepped in and it became their problem; and 2) HR is responsible for hiring people for my team, that is their job and I don't have time to do it.
Really?
All leaders should be advocating for employees. Al leaders should be the voice of the organization when interfacing with employees. All leaders should serve as effective ambassadors for the company in creating the brand as the employer of choice. All leadership should strengthen the organization as diverse, equitable, and inclusive. All leaders should promote a culture of inclusion, teamwork and cohesion, accountability, and high performance. None of these are just HR matters. They are all organizational matters. These challenges belong to the entire leadership team.
If the CHRO is out of town at a conference and not attending a regularly scheduled senior leadership meeting, there should be absolutely no concern that employees will be at risk. Because, in the absence of the CHRO, every single other executive will advocate for all employees no matter what business proposition is on the table.
Instead of thinking of HR as an organizational function, let's shift our perspective and think of HR as an organizational competency. HR is not what a few professionals do within the organization. HR is what the entire organization does.
Latest posts by Philip Espinosa (see all)
- Turn Engagement Upside Down - April 23, 2024
- New Tires and Fear of Change - April 14, 2024
- Functional HR vs Organizational HR - February 18, 2024
